Boy, the sharks of the media really went to town on this story. Funny how the Jim Jones thing will probably turn this report into a footnote. lol
What I wanted to do is actually provide a little balance here and get the word out as to what the companies have to say. If you read most of the stories out about this thing, they are all pretty one sided. The report does detail some shady practices, but I agree with the companies below that the military knew what they were doing the whole time.
One of the pieces of evidence that the investigators could have relied upon to establish this is to go into the BDOC of these bases and look up all of these guards that were used for base protection. Because if any Afghan was allowed to come on to a FOB or whatever for security, more than likely the ID nazis were all over them. Everyone has to have ID.
The other missing component is the mountains of negative reviews from the military that showed their disgust with these companies? Where are these performance evaluations or surveys that showed poor service? Where is the reprimands from the military, if in fact they wanted these companies to stop doing what they were doing? Or like the companies have stated, the military knew what was going on and even recommend some of these folks to the companies?
Finally, just to play devil’s advocate here. Doesn’t COIN also state to win over the support of the local population? So when companies go into a specific area to set up shop, and they are directed to hire ‘Afghan First‘ and hire locally, then you can see how limited a company can be? Worse yet, if a company doesn’t use these locals, the locals get mad and the security situation gets worse because they are unemployed and look at the company as just a threat. It is like going into a town that is pro-union, and if you don’t hire union, you will face the wrath of the union. Try bringing in the ‘scabs’ in a warzone? lol
On the flip side, I am not going to necessarily condone what these companies did, but on the flip side, the military and the pentagon both should receive equal criticism in this matter. I agree with report about bringing in more auditors and CORS, but this is not new. I also agree that money should be used wisely in a war like this, and ensure that where that money goes does not fund the opposition. Commonsense stuff really, and Petraeus has already addressed this.
Now it is time to put action to words and get the job done. It takes leadership and a ‘trust but verify’ focus–as if you guys are spending your own money on this, and not just the tax payer’s money. I am still waiting to see this in the military and government, and I don’t think we need any more reports to make that point any more clear. Less talk, more action.
One more thing. EODT did a great job getting this press release out there the day the report came out. Wackenhut/AGNA/G4S has did a terrible job of getting the word out. I checked the G4S press releases and nothing. No one from that company has forwarded anything to me and I have yet to see a press release floating around. So basically I had to scrounge up a quote from an AP report. –Matt
——————————————————————
Statement of EOD Technology Regarding the Senate Armed Services Committee Report Dated Sept. 28, 2010
LENOIR CITY, TN (October 7, 2010) – EOD Technology, Inc. (EODT) has only had the opportunity to preliminarily review the Report issued by the Senate Arms Services Committee (SASC). EODT cooperated fully in the SASC investigation. It is our understanding that this Report, discusses a contract that EODT was performing in Afghanistan at the Adraskan National Training Center and more specifically, EODT’s utilizing and hiring Afghan nationals.
In response to these statements EODT would first make clear that its contract required EODT to utilize Afghan personnel and specifically those from the area surrounding the contract location. The local leaders which EODT sought out to assist in hiring personnel were persons made known to EODT by the U.S. military or were commonly known leaders within that area. In any event all leaders which EODT utilized were made known to the U.S. military at every stage of mobilization.
As for Afghan citizens hired by EODT, all names were provided to the appropriate person or persons designated by our contract in order to gain approval for the hire. However, above and beyond its contract requirements, EODT sought out representatives from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) operating in that area in order to provide names for screening and resulting feedback.
While the SASC Report may present certain criticisms of EODT’s hiring practices, EODT has never been advised by the U.S military that problems of this nature exist. However, just as EODT has cooperated fully with the SASC investigation, EODT stands ready to engage the U.S. military or other stakeholders about these issues in order to improve our internal processes and contract performance.
EODT was asked to perform the Adraskan contract after the prior contractor failed to mobilize. The dangerous region and work presented significant challenges which EODT believes it successfully overcame. EODT underwent a successful Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) audit for this contract in 2008 as well as earning subsequent positive past performance on this contract.
Link to press release here.
——————————————————————-
Susan Pitcher, a spokeswoman for Wackenhut Services, ArmorGroup’s parent company, said the company only engaged workers from local villages upon the “recommendation and encouragement” of U.S. special operations troops.
Pitcher said that ArmorGroup stayed in “close contact” with the military personnel “to ensure that the company was constantly acting in harmony with, and in support of, U.S. military interests and desires.”
Link to article here.
——————————————————————-
Senate report blasts Pentagon for handling of security contractors
By Charley Keyes
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
• Senate report: Failure to keep track of private security contractors puts troops at risk
• Sen. Carl Levin: “We must shut off the spigot of U.S. dollars” to Afghan warlords
• Committee staff: 125 security contracts cost the U.S. more than $100 million
• Report cites nonexistent training, violent incidents, warlord affiliations