Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Private security firms begin to close in Afghanistan

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-12-07 07:37 AM
Original message
Private security firms begin to close in Afghanistan
Afghans Close 2 Security Firms; More Likely

By Fisnik Abrashi and Jason Straziuso
Associated Press
Friday, October 12, 2007; Page A14

KABUL, Oct. 11 -- Afghan authorities this week shut down two private security companies and said more than 10 others -- some suspected of murder and robbery -- would soon be closed, Afghan and Western officials said Thursday.

During raids, authorities found 82 illegal weapons being held by Watan and Caps, two Afghan security companies, according to police Gen. Ali Shah Paktiawal. Those firms were shut down Tuesday.

A Western security official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said some major Western companies were on the list of at least 10 others tapped for closure. He would not identify them.

The crackdown echoes efforts by authorities in Iraq to rein in private security contractors accused of acting with impunity. Dozens of security companies operate in Afghanistan, some of them well-known U.S. firms such as Blackwater and DynCorp International, but also many others that may not be known even to the Afghan government.

The U.S. military employs about 29,000 private contractors in Afghanistan for a variety of goods and services. About 1,000 of those are security contractors, said Air Force Lt. Col. Todd Vician, a Defense Department spokesman.

The Afghan government's main complaints against the companies concern a lack of accountability, intimidation of citizens, disrespect of local security forces and a failure to cooperate with authorities, according to a set of draft rules being debated by the Afghan government and obtained by the Associated Press.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100509.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-12-07 07:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. Private Contractors are NOT the problem
The maority of private contractors provide essential functions like food service, sanitation, etc.

The two problems are:
1) The mercenaries that are contracted to companies like blackwater and
2) The lack of real oversight of companies like Halliburton
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-12-07 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yes they are; Blackwater IS a private contractor. Did you even read this? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-12-07 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Uhhhhh Yes I did. You must NOT have read my response
The bulk of private contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq are NOT mercenaries, they provide food service, sanitation, some medical services etc.

If you had read ny post, which I gather you DIDN'T...

I said there are 2 problems
1) Mercenaries and
2) Lack of oversight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-12-07 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. The article specifically mentions 'security' firms, not services. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-12-07 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. My apologies. The article focuses on security firms
It does briefly mention private contractors and the services they provide.

My refernce was private contractors as a whole.

But...for the purpose of this debate....I defer to you. Because You are correct that the focus of the article is on Private Security Contractors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-12-07 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. I know there are contractors who are totally innocent in this mess, and
understand you were trying to defend them. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC