Walter and the rest of the media is a little late to this party, but we can deal with that. Although it would be nice for the Washington Post to add a little balance to their articles about such things. Like mentioning a crucial quote that Defense Secretary Gates gave in regards to security contractors. Here it is, and I posted the story below this one as the source.
“As recently as February, however, Gates called the use of private security contractors in certain parts of Afghanistan “vital” to supporting U.S. bases. A contract for the work also creates job opportunities for Afghans, he said.”
Also, the article mentions the dangers of these forward operating bases in Afghanistan, as if that is a new thing or something totally unreasonable for a private security company to handle. Guess what, we have been protecting bases for awhile now.(TWISS, etc.) I think what this article was trying to get at is that somehow contractors would not be up to the task of actually doing the job they are contracted to do. As if somehow Afghanistan is ‘too much for them to handle’. Pffft.
And then Michael O’Hanlon enters into the discussion with his thoughts on the matter.
“We don’t want to waste scarce Afghan army and police, so we must be creative,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow and military expert at the Brookings Institution.
But O’Hanlon also said he is concerned that if contractors were to take over security at forward operating bases, they would be the first to see hostile fire, and they — not soldiers — would have to decide whether to employ weapons against an enemy.
Instead of hiring a private firm, O’Hanlon said, the Americans and Afghans could create a local version of Iraq’s Facilities Protection Service, the modestly trained but government-paid guard force that was pulled together to provide protection for government ministries in Baghdad and the oil fields. “We should create a different branch of the Afghan security forces that has minimal training,” he said.”