The Obama Administration is Actually Increasing the US Presence in Iraq

[Orwellian_Ghost]

US presence in Iraq is actually growing.

Believe it or not, the U.S. presence in Iraq is growing under the leadership of antiwar president Barack Obama. A recent Washington Post by reporter Walter Pincus explains that when U.S. troops are "withdrawn," their jobs are taken over by......mercenaries -- the notorious "contractors," who are hired for fabulous sums of money to sustain the huge U.S. presence there.

And there are some really awful aspects of this process, including:

• The cost of the contractors is substantially higher than the cost of the soldiers they replace. (That is, the cost of the war is going up as the U.S. "scales down" its presence in Iraq)

• "Where private guards replaced soldiers, many more guards were needed to do the same job." So the numbers and cost of the U.S. presence is going upward, not downward.

• The new contractors are overwhelmingly "third-country nationals" employed by U.S. corporations under contract from the U.S. Defense and State departments. That is, with unemployment at 60% in many places around Iraq, the new jobs created by these contractors are not giving employment to unemployed Iraqis.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-schwartz/the-obama-administration_b_284249.html

US actually increasing personnel in Iraq: More contractors, fewer troops


US forces are not withdrawing from Iraq.

Well, its soldiers are. But not civilian contractors. Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to withdraw US troops from the war-torn country, the US is planning to award contracts to protect US installations at a cost to taxpayers that could near $1 billion.

In fact, the Multi-National Force-Iraq just awarded $485 million in contracts just last week, while Congress enjoyed its summer recess. Five firms will handle private security deals to provide security for US bases. It's a neat rhetorical loophole that will allow US officials to say that the country has withdrawn from Iraq, while its contractors remain.

"Under a similar contract with five security contractors that began in September 2007, the MNF-I spent $253 million through March 2009, with needs growing over that 18-month period," the Washington Post's Walter Pincus wrote in Wednesday editions. "That contract, which was to run three years, had a spending limit of $450 million.

...

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/us-replacing-iraq-troops-with-private-contractors/

With U.S. Forces in Iraq Beginning to Leave, Need for Private Guards Grows

By Walter Pincus
Tuesday, September 8, 2009

As the United States withdraws its combat forces from Iraq, the government is hiring more private guards to protect U.S. installations at a cost that could near $1 billion, according to the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

On Sept. 1, the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) awarded contracts expected to be worth $485 million over the next two years to five firms to provide security and patrol services to U.S. bases in Iraq.

Under this contract, the firms will bid against one another for individual orders at specific bases or locations. These "task orders" in the past have ranged from supplying one specialist to providing as many as 1,000 people to handle security for a major base.

Under a similar contract with five security contractors that began in September 2007, the MNF-I spent $253 million through March 2009, with needs growing over that 18-month period. That contract, which was to run three years, had a spending limit of $450 million.

Against that background, the inspector general for reconstruction predicted that costs for private security at U.S. facilities in Iraq "will grow in size to a potential $935 million." The inspector general's report, issued this year, said the MNF-I planned to switch to private guards for Victory Base Camp, one of its largest installations. That facility alone would require "approximately 2,600 security personnel," the report said.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/07/AR2009090702242_pf.html

[masuki bance]

1. And we're looking at another surge in Afghanistan.

:patriot:

[Octafish]

2. Your War Party at Work

The Empire needs the Black Gold. We the People liked it when Jimmy Carter tried to encourage alternative fuels in 1977. For his trouble, "The Peanut Farmer" got the ziggy from the Military Industrial Complex.

[bvar22]

3. K&R......+8

Chump Change

[SammyWinstonJack]

23. +1

:thumbsup:

[QC]

4. Interesting strategy.

Must be some of that Vulcan chess I keep hearing about.

[G_j]

5. what is it? militarism, or peace?

to think of all the injury, and the outrage over Bush's wars that helped propel Obama into office.
and to think of the peace loving people, horrified by Bush's wars, looking for a real change, looking to heal from the violent profanity of war.

*************
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090912/ap_on_re_as/as_afghan_violence

5 US troops among 50 killed in Afghan violence

By RAHIM FAIEZ and NOOR KHAN, Associated Press Writers – Sat Sep 12,

KABUL – About 50 civilians, security forces and militants were killed in a wave of violence around Afghanistan, including a bomb that left 14 Afghan travelers dead in one of the country's most dangerous regions. Five American soldiers died in two attacks using roadside bombs.

The attacks Friday and Saturday reached a broad swath of the country, demonstrating the spread of the Taliban insurgency, which had been largely confined to the country's south and east in the years after the 2001 U.S. invasion. Half of those killed in the most recent attacks were civilians, who often find themselves caught in the grinding war between the Taliban and U.S. and NATO forces.

Bombs caused most of the casualties — including homemade blasts in the former Taliban stronghold of Kandahar and a neighboring province that together killed 20 civilians.

A roadside bomb and gunfire attack in western Afghanistan killed three Americans, while another roadside bomb killed two Americans in the east, said Chief Petty Officer Brian Naranjo, a spokesman for the U.S. military command in Kabul. No other details were available.

Taliban militants also staged suicide attacks — and came under attack themselves.
Coalition and Afghan forces on Saturday killed 11 militants during an overnight raid in northern Kunduz province, said Abdul Razaq Yaqoubi, the provincial police chief.


..more..



**********

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/09-69-taliban-30-civilians-die-in-nato-strike-says-report--szh-03

69 Taliban, 30 civilians die in Nato strike, says report

Monday, 14 Sep, 2009 | 04:20 AM PST |

KABUL: Thirty Afghan civilians and 69 Taliban were killed in a Nato air strike on fuel trucks hijacked by militants in northern Kunduz early this month, a government-appointed investigator said on Sunday.

The bombing in the increasingly restive province on Sept 4 revived controversy about civilian casualties in western military operations here, a frequent source of friction with the government and Afghan people.

‘Thirty civilians were martyred and nine were wounded,’ said Mohamadullah Bataj, one of a team of four appointed by President Hamid Karzai to investigate the incident.

‘Sixty-nine of the Taliban were killed — armed and unarmed.’

Mr Bataj said 49 armed and 20 unarmed Taliban were killed. He said 11 militants were also wounded in the strike, which hit as villagers gathered to syphon fuel from tankers captured by the Taliban.

The Taliban claim 79 civilians were killed in the Kunduz strike.

..more..

[Orwellian_Ghost]

12. Looks like more of the same...

September 13, 2009: 1 US Contractor, 26 Iraqis Killed; 41 Iraqis Wounded

[G_j]

14. & that covers three days,

We all knew Bush was opening Pandora's box, not so easily, if ever, really closed.
However, militarism is a "fail"!
And we are trapped in fail, the military industrial-, contractors, gears are turning, money flowing.

[RC]

6. Tell me again how and why spending like this on OK, but

spending money to actually help our own is not.

[rrneck]

7. Oil junkies. The lot of us. nt

[aquart]

9. Cheaper to buy the oil from them. Way cheaper.

This idiocy was dreamed up in Texas. Grant Perry his damned secession. Let Texas run the Iraq War.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

11. That's blaming people

for policies they had no control over. I'm not talking about the aggressive US occupation here but if we had decent public transportation than our addiction would certainly be lessened a great deal. But this was taken care of years ago by big oil and the auto industry through the purposeful dismantling of various public transit infrastructure.

So to simply say we are oil junkies omits an entire and very large piece of the historical puzzle.

"We" the people did not design what we endure today.

[Statistical]

28. We import a neglible amount of oil from Iraq.

Country Jun-09 May-09 YTD 2009 Jun-08 YTD 2008
CANADA 2,001 1,746 1,883 1,942 1,926
VENEZUELA 1,119 1,228 1,041 1,085 1,009
MEXICO 1,099 1,088 1,161 1,124 1,196
SAUDI ARABIA 902 996 1,050 1,448 1,515


It is simple logistics. Further the oil is the higher the transportation cost.
Canada, Venezuela, Mexico are close.

The top 4 make up 50% of our imports.
Iraq makes up <4%.

BushCo Arabian adventures had little to do with oil.

[blindpig]

30. It's about market control.

It's about profits, not supply.

[aquart]

8. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

And why am I not surprised?

[Nikki Stone1]

10. Permanent bases in the Middle East

That's what this has all been about. That and oil.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Playing charades and selling it as withdrawal to the gullible "not as bad" apologists. K&R

But, the clock is running out on the great "chess game" because the people have become sick of lost wars and politicians covering their sorry asses by sending more troops to fight them.

[dflprincess]

15. Just so it's "deficit neutral"

:sarcasm:

[spanone]

16. when you think of the zillions of dollars being made, war is way too profitable to just end

i imagine there are those who will not allow it from any president

[Mari333]

17. well, we all know what moneymen run the USA

and thats our money paying for their goddamned occupations.
in the meantime, no one is being held accountable for their illegal wars.

[David Zephyr]

18. Is it LBJ all over again...except without Medicare?

I wrote here recently that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan were escalating. I was met by the disciple brigade for daring to say what was obvious.

We are deeper in Iraq than we were in January.

"Waist deep in the big muddy."

The only way we ever left Vietnam was when we lost and the Viet Cong routed us in Saigon.

That's how we got out there. That's how the Russians finally left Afghanistan...

[Orwellian_Ghost]

19. Bump

[G_j]

20. kick

[Orwellian_Ghost]

21. Bump

[jakeXT]

22. missed it, kick

[SammyWinstonJack]

25. .

:kick:

[Echo In Light]

24. All hail the War Machine: killing is their business, and business is GOOD

[Orwellian_Ghost]

26. Bump

[Orwellian_Ghost]

27. This needs

to be seen and I'm interested in hearing from those who support this action. Anyone?

[maryf]

32. You mean this action???

" to coerce the Iraqis into integrating into the globalized U.S. political economy."

If anyone here supports this action in any way, shame on them...but I doubt they'll admit it?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

29. Bump

[maryf]

31. Kick until the cows come home...

I mean troops...of any kind...sorry I couldn't rec...