Obama Administration sending up to 56,000 more military contractors to Afghanistan!

[Better Believe It]

Obama's War
Up to 56,000 more contractors likely for Afghanistan, congressional agency says
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
December 16, 2009

The surge of 30,000 U.S. troops into Afghanistan could be accompanied by a surge of up to 56,000 contractors, vastly expanding the presence of personnel from the U.S. private sector in a war zone, according to a study by the Congressional Research Service.

CRS, which provides background information to members of Congress on a bipartisan basis, said it expects an additional 26,000 to 56,000 contractors to be sent to Afghanistan. That would bring the number of contractors in the country to anywhere from 130,000 to 160,000.

The tally "could increase further if the new strategy includes a more robust construction and nation building effort," according to the report, which was released Monday and first disclosed on the Web site Talking Points Memo.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121504850.html

[KoKo]

1. 56 THOUSAND Contractors?

Doesn't that seem kind of a high number? I didn't think there were that many loose ones running around. :shrug:

[MNDemNY]

2. Oh goodie!!!

[Better Believe It]

3. There are 64,000 military contractors in Afghanistan right now!

[CJCRANE]

8. Probably civilian contractors for construction etc projects

not Blackwater type mercenaries.

[Better Believe It]

14. Can't we put them to work rebuilding our infrastructure? Oh .... we can't afford that.

[CJCRANE]

20. That's a different argument.

"Military contractors" has a different connotation here on DU.

[polichick]

4. Don't worry - that's part of his jobs initiative...

:sarcasm:

[Blasphemer]

5. Ha! nt

[CJCRANE]

6. OP has changed the headline. Article does not say *military* contractors.

Appears to be construction and other non-military duties.

[Cha]

11. The OP doesn't care if it's trickery..just anything

that he thinks will sound bad.

[Better Believe It]

12. You didn't read the article. Please read articles before you comment on them

Is that too much to expect from you?

The contractors are employed by the military and many work on military projects.

And the article pointed out:

Contracts, in the meantime, continue to be solicited and awarded. Over the past week, the military awarded a $44.8 million contract to a Florida firm to provide dogs and their handlers for operational use in areas of southern Afghanistan along the Pakistan border, where some of the most violent fighting is taking place.

The U.S. command in Afghanistan also published a notice that it would be seeking intelligence analyst services from a contractor that include "collecting, analyzing and providing recommendations necessary for the government to produce and disseminate intelligence products in several subject areas." The contract would be for one year, plus options for four additional years.

The Defense Logistics Agency disclosed that it is looking for a contractor that can provide distribution and warehousing services for U.S. and NATO forces in the Kandahar area, which is near the center of fighting. The contractor is to supply the workforce needed to receive, store, inventory and prepare shipment of up to 4,000 items using government-provided warehousing facilities and open storage areas.

[CJCRANE]

13. I think you know that DUers will assume "military contractor" means mercenary

otherwise why did you change the headline?

[Better Believe It]

22. I don't assume that. We all know that the military employs contractors in Afghanistan/Iraq!

This is news to you?

I think you're just nit picking because you support the war escalation of 30,000 more troops and tens of thousands of military contractors.

But, if I'm mistaken, now is your chance to disassociate yourself from the war escalation.

So are you for the war escalation or against it?

[CJCRANE]

24. It's not nit-picking. It's a misleading title. It's best to discuss things from a place of accuracy.

You have a valid point to make, why confuse/mislead people?

[Better Believe It]

28. Do you support the war escalation or not?

If you do, I can understand why you support 30,000 more combat troops and tens of thousands of military contractors performing military related work in Afghanistan.

Now just be honest and say if and why you support this military escalation in Afghanistan without nit picking.

OK?

[spoony]

32. Uh, I didn't assume that.

We're contracting all sorts of shit we shouldn't be, not just our killing.

[Better Believe It]

33. Well, now you know! Military contractors (hired by the military)provide services for the military.

They are not mainly handing out candy bars to kids and building schools and hospitals as you can see by reading the article.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Arctic Dave]

16. Looks more like military support personell, not construction contractors.

Unless dogs can build bridges.

[uponit7771]

18. Please quote "support personell", I don't see that in the words...

[Arctic Dave]

36. Please quote civil construction teams, I don't see that in the article.

Like I posted before, unless these are new breeds of dogs that can pour concrete.

[CJCRANE]

19. It's still a misleading headline by the OP.

Most DUers associate specific connotations with "military contractors". The article is about non-combat civilian contractors, which is not what the amended headline implies.

[Arctic Dave]

35. Yes, it is misleading headline but they are there more for the military then the civilians.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. Does that mean total US forces & operatives about 260,0000?

[timeforpeace]

9. Is that what they're calling them now?

[Popular Front]

10. If that's what it takes to finish the job...

[uponit7771]

17. *************MISLEADING TITLE************* It's 30-60k construction contractors!!!!!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. {{{_)))))_@!@!@ And why is that so different? @!@!@_(((((_}}}

They are part of the level of commitment and the cost.

You assume that one would be fine with construction contractors but not fine with soldiers but I don't know why you assume that.

What is, in your mind, the distinction? Do you think it is bad to have armed people there?

[uponit7771]

23. Construction points more towards building while Military points more towards fighting...

[Cha]

26. The point is ..it's misleading and I know that doesn't bother

a lot of the demagogues here but some people might want to know what the actual headline is.

I know the OP doesn't give a shit.

[Better Believe It]

25. Do you support the war escalation?

[uponit7771]

27. No, but I'm not going to complain about it now after Obama TOLD me it was what he was goning to do..

...on the other hand I'm REALLY pissed about the public option not being stood up and passed as fast as this war shit.

Those who are pissed at Obama because of the relative ease he got war appropriations passed have a case (even if it's not stated that way).

[Better Believe It]

30. When did President Obama promise to triple U.S. troops in Afghanistan? Links please.

He suggested more resources would be used in Afghanistan but while campaigning for President he never said he would even double, much less triple, U.S. troops in Afghanistan via two war escalations.

But if I'm wrong and he did promise that during the campaign, please post the links that prove your point.

[OHdem10]

29. A reporter on MSNBC just reported this brings the total to:

160,000 more Contractors than under Bush.

[avaistheone1]

31. Let's nation build in America.

We are fucking falling apart here at home.

Of course, the White House thinks we are irrelevant.

[LiberalAndProud]

34. So ... we begin to rebuild what we have broken then. -nt