As meager Afghanistan drawdown begins, contractor numbers may increase

[tekisui]

Source: defense.professionals

With President Obama’s announcement of the beginning of a phased withdrawal from Afghanistan, attention naturally turned to the troops coming out, those remaining and how they will fare in the difficult months and years ahead. What continues to pass almost unnoticed about our presence in Afghanistan is the number of private contractors at work there supporting U.S. forces. According to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service there are almost as many contractors in that country as uniformed U.S. personnel (90,000 versus 99,000). When both Iraq and Afghanistan are taken together, there are more contractors (155,000) than military personnel (145,000). In addition, there are thousands more contractors in the Central Command Area of Responsibility (AOR) providing additional support for operations. The President did not mention them at all in his announcement.

The role of private contractors is usually associated with security work. For example, there is the company formerly known as Blackwater that got into trouble in Iraq several years ago but is now back under a new name with a major contract to provide security for State Department personnel once the U.S. military withdraws. However, the vast majority of private contractors are providing logistics, maintenance and support services which otherwise would have to be performed by uniformed personnel. Private contractors man the trucks that bring oil, food and supplies to our forces in Afghanistan. They man the food service facilities, laundries and personal communications networks. Equally important, they provide critical maintenance and sustainment for military vehicles such as Strykers, helicopters and vital intelligence systems. Without the support provided by tens of thousands of contractors, the U.S. military would be rendered ineffective.

The number of contractors in Afghanistan actually rose faster than the number of combat forces. A reason for this is that without their support in areas such as logistics and supply chain operations, base construction and operations, base security and maintenance, military forces could not deploy. Similarly, their numbers are likely to decline more slowly than the number of combat troops. Supplies still have to arrive in country, bases will need to be operated and maintained, and vehicles will have to be repaired.

In fact, it is possible that some categories of contractors may even increase as the drawdown progresses. Combat operations will continue and may even intensify. This means there will be an ongoing need for maintenance and repair, intelligence support and supply chain management. But among the troops being withdrawn will be those providing the same functions as some private contractors, what is called combat service support. Since the work will still need to be done, the demand on those categories of private contractors could grow and their numbers in country actually increase. In addition, withdrawing forces creates new demands for similar services as equipment is prepared for shipment out of country, bases must be closed and their contents inventoried and disposed of and continuity of operations maintained.

more: http://www.defpro.com/news/details/25795/?SID=227e15991d7af12605c722e545853456

[tekisui]

1. Watch the actions. The words we hear are not the truth.

[SaveAmerica]

2. Based on my husband's experiences, I'm going to call BS on a lot of this information.

True, the number of contractors in the Middle East is high, but to say that "Equally important, they provide critical maintenance and sustainment for military vehicles such as Strykers, helicopters and vital intelligence systems. Without the support provided by tens of thousands of contractors, the U.S. military would be rendered ineffective." is really not true.

In many cases the contractors are working side by side with the military and 2 people are being paid for doing one job (my husband was told as he completed in-processing training in the days before deploying that his team was not to do any part of what they'd just trained to do, that the contractors would do it). I've told this example several times here on DU, maybe it's time I get a group together that can sue the US Government for Fraud Waste and Abuse of Taxpayers' dollars.

He saw many examples of several contractors doing what one servicemember could easily do and that the one servicemember had trained to do all of his/her military career. All those tasks mentioned in the article? The military has been doing them for decades now and to say that the military couldn't survive without contractors is just ridiculous. It seems to me that the onset of the 'no-bid contract' and KBR's reign over the contracts this past decade has resulted in this mess. Whoever wrote this is setting up the idea that the contractors are saviors to the military and the military can't live without them. I wonder if it was Dick Cheney?

[tekisui]

3. I don't disagree. But, the contractors are being used.

There are more contractors in our wars than troops. It would be better to have troops do it all. The numbers would be more honest and it would be cheaper. But, the reliance on contractors lets the WH go out and tout the lower troop numbers.

[SaveAmerica]

4. Yes, I agree, that's what my post was about; the contractors don't need to be there in the #s we see