250,000 Military Contractors Now Deployed in Iraq/Afghanistan: 23% Iraq & 29% Afghanistan Increase

[Better Believe It]

Obama Has 250,000 'Contractors' Deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and is Increasing the Use of Mercenaries
Newly released Pentagon statistics show that in both Iraq and Afghanistan the number of armed contractors is rising.
by Jeremy Scahill
Alternet
June 1, 2009

A couple of years ago, Blackwater executive Joseph Schmitz seemed to see a silver lining for mercenary companies with the prospect of US forces being withdrawn or reduced in Iraq. “There is a scenario where we could as a government, the United States, could pull back the military footprint,” Schmitz said. “And there would then be more of a need for private contractors to go in.”

According to new statistics released by the Pentagon, with Barack Obama as commander in chief, there has been a 23% increase in the number of “Private Security Contractors” working for the Department of Defense in Iraq in the second quarter of 2009 and a 29% increase in Afghanistan, which “correlates to the build up of forces” in the country. These numbers relate explicitly to DoD security contractors. Companies like Blackwater and its successor Triple Canopy work on State Department contracts and it is unclear if these contractors are included in the over-all statistics. This means, the number of individual “security” contractors could be quite higher, as could the scope of their expansion.

Overall, contractors (armed and unarmed) now make up approximately 50% of the “total force in Centcom AOR .” This means there are a whopping 242,657 contractors working on these two U.S. wars. These statistics come from two reports just released by Gary J. Motsek, the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Program Support): “Contractor Support of U.S. Operations in USCENTCOM AOR, IRAQ, and Afghanistan and “Operational Contract Support, ‘State of the Union.’”

“We expect similar dependence on contractors in future contingency operations,” according to the contractor “State of the Union.” It notes that the deployment size of both military personnel and DoD civilians are “fixed by law,” but points out that the number of contractors is “size unfixed,” meaning there is virtually no limit (other than funds) to the number of contractors that can be deployed in the war zone.

Both Pentagon reports can be downloaded here:

http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/PS/hot_topics.html

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/world/140378/obama_has_250%2C000_%27contractors%27_deployed_in_iraq_and_afghanistan_and_is_increasing_the_use_of_mercenaries/

[rug]

1. I suppose you could consider paying civilians to fight as ending the war, kind of.

[Better Believe It]

2. But you have to pay them a lot more money than grunts

[rug]

5. Money, shmoney. The war is over. Hooray.

[Dark]

27. Well, let the Iraqi gov't pay to keep them there.

If they don't want them there then they can not pay them. And we stop footing the bill, and can leave.

Everybody wins.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

3. with Obama, "there has been a 23% increase in the number of Private Security Contractors”

:argh:

[frog92969]

4. The increase has been debunked as an accounting error

It's still sickening that we pay top dollar for a quarter million mercenaries
in a war we shouldn't have started and shouldn't be staying in.

[rug]

6. It's a war begun on a lie, continued with bogus soldiers.

[frog92969]

7. No doubt

A "plastic fantastic" war in more ways than one.

[Better Believe It]

9. On account of what?

[frog92969]

10. The story goes that they were already there

but hadn't been counted.

[Luminous Animal]

11. Link?

[frog92969]

12. Link

http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/PS/p_vault/5A_May_2009_3.doc

Relevant excerpt:

" There was a 23% increase (from 8,701 to 10,743) of armed DoD PSCs in Iraq compared to the 1st quarter FY 2009 census. This increase can be attributed to our improved ability to account for subcontractors who are providing security services."

That's the official story.

[msongs]

8. time to privatize all these contractors - private enterprise and all that nt

[Better Believe It]

13. Private mercenary armies! Way to go!

:)

[nichomachus]

14. Not "military contractors"

"Mercenaries" "Soldiers for Hire" "Armed thugs" Whatever -- but saying "contractor" is like calling torture "enhanced interrogation." Please let's not let them change the language and skew the discussion.

[redqueen]

15. That increase is YoY, not since Obama took office, so the charge is a lie.

He is not "increasing" this shit.

Also, better accounting practices make for some of the inrease as well.

Also, not all contractors are mercenaries. Calm the fuck down for God's sake.

*sigh*


Nice how fast this shit spreads, isn't it? Thanks Scahill! Thanks gullible uber-super-lefties!

[ClarkUSA]

17. +1

What else is new? SSDD. You'd Better Believe It! :eyes:

[chill_wind]

18. Where are you getting the YoY numbers?

Accounting procedure rationales aside, DOD says

There was a 23% increase (from 8,701 to 10,743) of armed DoD PSCs in Iraq compared to the 1st quarter FY 2009 census. There was a 29% increase (from 3,184 to 4,111) of armed DoD PSCs in Afghanistan compared to the 1st quarter FY 2009 census.

This reads to me as a comparison in two consecutive quarters. What am I misunderstanding?

[redqueen]

19. You're right. I misread it.

Either way it's hyperventilating nonsense... because not all contractors are gun-toting mercenaries, and we don't know how much of it is due to the accounting process changes.

[chill_wind]

21. So we would rather trash Jeremy Scahill wholesale as a LIAR

and create strawmen while accepting wholesale the excrable Rumsfeld/Gates DOD's fuzzy accounting as a refutation of an investigative journalist's long respected reputation and a career built on exposing what most Americans would rather not know about this cowboy (and in some cases sordid) industry.

And in the piece itself Scahill clealy stipulates that "These numbers relate explicitly to DoD security contractors."
Mercs. Armed contractors. While scrupulously including and reporting the DOD's additional assertion that

"The report notes that while the deployment of security contractors in Iraq is increasing, there was an 11% decrease in overall contractors in Iraq from the first quarter of 2009 due to the “ongoing efforts to reduce the contractor footprint in Iraq.”

Nowhere is he claiming that all contractors are gun-toting mercenaries.

And while I don't know why he brushes aside the caveat about the DOD revising it's numbers based on better "accounting numbers" in the second quarter in Iraq, the fact remains according to the DOD itself about Afhanistan, unqualified:

"There was a 29% increase (from 3,184 to 4,111) of armed DoD PSCs in Afghanistan compared to the 1st quarter FY 2009 census. The increase correlates to the build up of forces in that AOR."

A few here can attempt to paint Scahill as an anti-Obama "crank" "with an agenda" all they want, when the majority of us paying attention to his investigations over the last 6+ years know he has never politically sugarcoated his investigations on this subject ever.

[redqueen]

22. 3,184 to 4,111... and not due to any of Obama's policy changes.

Yeah... he's a crank.

[chill_wind]

24. You insistently repeated that misinfo in 3 separate theads now, and added a new strawman on top.

Nowhere did Scahill assert in the report that "all contractors are gun toting mercenaries"

"Those increases are YoY. How fucking sad that people are so easily duped.

Fuck Scahill... he's a moron if he doesn't realize those are YoY incrases... and he's an evil manipulator of uncritical minds if not. Either way, fuck him."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5769648&mesg_id=5771716

And Scahill's the crank?

[redqueen]

25. That's how people overreacting to this misleading story are acting.

As if these are all armed thugs.

And yes, he's the crank. I'm not writing shit to be doled out by other gullible progressive outlets on the web.


Are we done yet?

[jonnyblitz]

28. "as if these are all armed thugs". wow you seriously need to

educate yourself about private mercenaries if you think many are NOT that. i would suggest some books to read but i doubt an Obama cheerleader such as yourself is all that interested in facts. I also watched a lecture Scahill gave where he said the most nastiest, unhinged hate mail he ever got was from Obama supporters and I believe that.

[grantcart]

20. It is correct that there was an increase in the first quarter, the following is not correct

1) They are the result of Obama's policy changes. Those decisions and those contracts were let under Bush.

2) The article talks about 250,000 contractors and increases of 23%+. It gives the impression that tens of thousands of mercenaries have been added.

Your reply accurately shows that the actual number is around 3,000, and again those decisions and contracts occured under Bush. A more accurate comparison would be to compare the actual 3rd quarter this year with last year. In any case the use of percents is done in a way to exaggerate the increase, the actual number would have been more responsible.

[earcandle]

16. And the other 732 mercenary contractor companies are located where?

[phleshdef]

23. Please adjust your post with context. The Obama admin. didn't increase the number of contracts.

The Bush administration had most of it in the works at the end of last year.

I have no problems with private contractors voluntarily deciding to get involved in Iraq or Afghanistan. If done CORRECTLY it could alleviate the pressure from our actual troops. What I do have a problem with is when the contracts are "no bid", which results in the private contractors being overpaid. I also have a problem with there not being enough oversight as to what the contractors are doing.

Using private contractors was NEVER the problem, overpaying them, letting them get away with ripping off the taxpayers and letting them get away with criminally violent acts and murder was the problem.

[ieoeja]

26. 2,042 more in Iraq; 927 more in Afghanistan

And most of the increase in the Iraq headcount is due to a better count, not an actual increase in mercenaries.

While overall the number of contractors is lower than it was in the first quarter.

[chill_wind]

29. It sounds inevitable, as troops draw down.

Apr 29, 2009


The good, and bad, news on contractors
By David Isenberg


A United States government report released last week is a classic good news, bad news story on private security contractors (PSCs) operating in Iraq.

The audit report, by the Special Inspector General for Iraq (SIGIR), looked at five Theater-Wide Internal Services (TWIIS) contracts awarded to five PSCs for static, or fixed security, services, in Iraq, at a maximum value of US$450 million. The TWISS contract was created to streamline the contracting process for static security around bases and other installations in anticipation of an increased need for those services in Iraq.

The winning PSCs were Aegis Defense Services Ltd; EOD Technology Inc; Sabre International Security; Special Operations Consulting-Security Management Group; and Triple Canopy Inc. These five are among the seven largest PSC providers in Iraq.

The audit showed that most awards were conducted under full and open competition, and the decision-making process was well supported. The five contracts, and 47 of the 50 task orders, were competitively awarded. Three non-competitively awarded task orders, worth $15.1 million, were appropriately justified as sole-source awards.

Forty of the task orders were justified on the need to replace troops, that is, to substitute PSCs for soldiers who were needed elsewhere or to incorporate an existing PSC contract into TWISS. In 19 of the 40, PSCs replaced soldiers performing static security at an installation. The other 21 task orders involved using contractor personnel in lieu of soldiers to meet increased security requirements or to incorporate an existing PSC contract into TWISS.

At forward operating base Hussaniyah, additional static security personnel were required when the installation size quadrupled. Without PSCs to fill this additional requirement, the base would have had to provide military personnel, jeopardizing its mission to train and develop the Iraqi Army

It is also clear that the military will be increasing its dependence on contractors in the future in Iraq. The Multi-National Force - Iraq plans to add installations in Iraq to future TWIIS new contracts, including Victory Base Camp, which has a requirement for about 2,600 security personnel.

full article: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KD29Ak03.html

(bold emphasis mine)

The SIGIR Audit

The "good news" is how these older contracts from 2007 on were awarded under full and open competition. The other "good news" (for contractors) is that there will be more, as dependence continues to increase.

And the bad news?

With the addition of the upcoming TWISS II, the TWISS contracts will grow in size to a potential $935 million. Such a situation would make these contracts even more vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse.

Read the concerns of The SIGIR Audit for more about issues with oversight. It's not just the unending fraud, waste, abuse, lack of training, lack of oversight and costs, it's the numbers and logistics that will be involved.

March 30, 2009
283 Bases, 170,000 Pieces of Equipment, 140,000 Troops and an Army of Mercenaries
The Logistical Nightmare in Iraq

By JEREMY SCAHILL

http://www.alternet.org/story/133676/283_bases%2C_170%2C000_pieces_of_equipment%2C_140%2C000_troops%2C_and_an_army_of_mercenaries%3A_the_logistical_nightmare_in_iraq/

Wired:

"And while the U.S. works the logistics of withdrawal, the Iraqi Army is only at the earliest stages of being able to equip, fuel, feed and arm itself. "You may have heard some people say Iraqi logistics is broken. I don’t think that’s accurate," Army Brig. Gen. Steven Salazar tells the AP. "It remains under construction."

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/02/the-logistics-o/

As for more on the Iraqi Army readiness to take over for itself....

SIGIR Report April 29,2009.

http://www.sigir.mil/reports/pdf/audits/09-014.pdf

despite an AECOM contract (cited in the report) presence since 2004

http://www.aecom.com/NewsMedia/39/21/index.html

[chill_wind]

30. And as for the State Department's numbers? Good luck

keeping track of possibly many of the same guys in new uniforms and new contracts, and with and without licenses.

By Matthew Lee - The Associated Press
Posted : Wednesday Apr 1, 2009 17:44:49 EDT

WASHINGTON — The State Department said Wednesday it has signed the Virginia-based private security firm Triple Canopy to take over protecting U.S. diplomats on the ground in Iraq from Blackwater Worldwide, now known as Xe.

Blackwater, which earlier this year changed its name to Xe (pronounced “Zee”), had come under heavy criticism for its alleged role in a fatal gun battle in Iraq. The Iraqi government refused to renew the firm’s license to operate in the country.

State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid said the government gave the job to Triple Canopy on Tuesday following a decision made in January not to renew Blackwater’s contract.

“The department awarded Triple Canopy the ground task order for protective security details in Baghdad after a thorough evaluation of proposals from each company that had submitted bids,” Duguid told reporters.

more from The Army Times: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/04/ap_us_blackwater_iraq_040109w/

There appear to be a few twists, though:

On January 31, 2009, the U.S. State Department notified Blackwater that the agency would not renew its security contract with the company.<169> The Washington Times reported on March 17, 2009, that the U.S. State Department had extended its Iraq security contract with Xe's air operations arm, Presidential Airways, to September 3, 2009, for a cost of $22.2 million.<170>

On April 1, 2009, the U.S. State Department announced that Triple Canopy, Inc. would replace Xe/Blackwater as the department's security contractor in Iraq.<171> The contract, for $977 million, was awarded on March 31, 2009, and took effect on May 7, 2009. The Iraqi government has speculated that Blackwater/Xe may still be able to profit from the deal because Triple Canopy may subcontract a portion of its Iraq contract to the Falcon Group, an Iraqi company rumored to have financial ties to Blackwater. A Blackwater spokeswoman, Anne Tyrell, denied that Blackwater had a relationship with Falcon Group.<172> In spite of the ban on Blackwater in Iraq, the State Department issued a task order for Blackwater to provide security for diplomats in Hillah, Najaf, and Karbalah until August 4, 2009.<173>



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_USA

Scahill broke the story about the Triple Canopy contracts awarded in March:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/134594/obama%27s_blackwater_chicago_mercenary_firm_gets_millions_for_private_%22security%22_in_israel_and_iraq_/



April 20, 2009: Blackwater: No license, but still in Iraq

(...)

Employees may simply change companies

"As Triple Canopy's work expands, the logical place to start looking and interviewing and evaluating employees will be those who are already there, those who have some skills and are already employed by Blackwater," said Alan Chvotkin, a senior vice president and counsel for the trade group Professional Services Council.

Xe, DynCorp and Triple Canopy are all members of the council.

Chvotkin added that in view of the controversies over Blackwater's role, "Triple Canopy and other security companies are making an independent assessment of any individual before deciding whether to hire them."

The Iraqi official also said that some former Blackwater officials could remain in Iraq, depending on their experience.

The transition from Blackwater to a new air security firm may be even more complicated. Chvotkin said it will not be easy to find a firm with Blackwater's air resources. Blackwater should not be ruled out as an option, he said.

"Since the nature of the work is so very different, there may actually be authority for them to operate the air services contract even though they don't have a license for private security," Chvotkin said.

Blackwater has been shifting its focus to other lines of business, including international training and air support in places like Afghanistan and Africa.

more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30312789//


Ex-Blackwater Workers May Return to Iraq Jobs

By ROD NORDLAND
Published: April 3, 2009

BAGHDAD — Late last month Blackwater Worldwide lost its billion-dollar contract to protect American diplomats here, but by next month many if not most of its private security guards will be back on the job in Iraq.


The same individuals will just be wearing new uniforms, working for Triple Canopy, the firm that won the State Department’s contract after Iraqi officials refused to renew Blackwater’s operating license, according to American diplomats, private security industry officials and Iraqi officials. Blackwater — viewed in Iraq as a symbol of American violence and impunity — lost the contract after being accused of excessive force in several instances, particularly an apparently unprovoked shooting in downtown Baghdad in 2007 in which 17 civilians were killed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/world/middleeast/04blackwater.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=Ex-Blackwater%20Workers%20May%20Return%20To%20Iraq%20Jobs&st=cse

(all bold and italics mine)