Playing the numbers game in Afghanistan
The Obama Administration has restricted the number of US troops that are deployed to Afghanistan so that the public is fooled into believing that they are drawing down our presence in that conflict. However, according to the Washington Post, those restrictions are impacting maintenance and training of organic components that would normally deploy. So, the Pentagon is forced to use contractors to fill the gaps;
According to an Army document, the use of civilian labor in one of the Army’s combat aviation brigades, or CABs, in Afghanistan has had negative side effects because the contractors are being used in lieu of the brigade’s maintenance soldiers. Those soldiers should be deploying with their units, but are not because of the “constrained troop level environment” in Afghanistan, the document says.
[…]
According to the Army document, three CABs have deployed to Afghanistan since 2013 with reduced maintenance staffs. A typical CAB usually deploys with 1,500 soldiers but can swell above 2,500 depending on the mission. In 2013, a brigade deployed with 1,900 troops, but as U.S. forces were reduced in Afghanistan, only 800 deployed in 2015. Despite the reduction in troop levels, the brigade was still expected to maintain and fly its roughly 100 aircraft.
Using civilian contractors in the global war against terror is nothing new, except, in this case, it’s being used to intentionally deceive the American public about our involvement in Afghanistan.
While U.S.-led combat operations in Afghanistan officially ended in 2014, last fall, as the Taliban gained momentum throughout the country, President Obama agreed to keep about 9,800 U.S. troops in Afghanistan through 2016, and 5,500 into 2017.
According to the Post, there were 26,000 civilian contractors in Afghanistan in April, half of whom are assigned to logistics and maintenance duties – more than twice as many civilians as troops are in Afghanistan. Gives that Nobel Peace Prize a special kind of luster, doesn’t it?
Thanks to Chief Tango for the link.
Category: Terror War
Kind of sounds like the modern version of Lop-Eye Shing and the Sand Pebble.
Well, when a contractor is killed, will OSHA be brought in to investigate? Or is it a case of workplace violence?
We can get as indignant as we want to, but it won’t do any good. We’ve been fed BS from Day One. We all know it. My only question is related to cost of contractors, as opposed to troops. Isn’t it more costly to hire contractors than to send troops?
When is this going to be OVER???
Generally no, because while the average troop makes less than a contractor per day, the cost of supporting the troop exceeds what the government pays for the contractor.
At least that was my experience as a contractor. YMMV
Depends. In some deployed locations the govt provided quarters and rations for supporting contractors. Not positive about medical, but I’m reasonably certain that was provided as well – at least emergency medicine.
Those three are the bulk of support costs. And I can guarantee you that the loaded cost of mil labor, even for senior personnel, was considerably less than what the govt was paying for contractor labor in the same locations.
I’m guessing that the government saves in legacy costs – they don’t have to pay for healthcare or retirement benefits for contractors.
Would expect those legacy costs to be built into the cost of the contract. Can’t really imagine that it would truly be cheaper, just provide more plausible deniability for those wanting it.
Meaning that nothing those clowns suggests costs less actually does.
Since when HASN’T the current administration lied, cheated, and played shell games?
There’s a lovely little shell game being played on our southern border. You may have heard the preezy state that “my administration has deported more illegals than any other”. That’s because they “adjusted” the definition of “deport”. If somebody climbs the fence, then climbs back over to avoid being detained by CBP, it’s counted as a “deportation”. Hence, they can truthfully make the aforementioned claim.
I understand this does little to nothing to benefit unit cohesion, I also wonder about the financials….
How cost effective is this plan to use contractors? Does the cost of straight payments end up being less than salary and benefits for troops?
With Blackwater becoming the almost benign sounding Academi, and at least a dozen other serious mercenary options available does this become something more prevalent in the next couple of decades rather than less prevalent?
Yeah, I did private military contracting in Afghanistan when the war was still going on and after leaving the Marines. Contractors are not mercenaries as they aren’t legally allowed to participate in hostilities. Security contractors (Academi [hasn’t been called Blackwater in years], Triple Canopy, etc) either stand perimeter post so a uniformed member doesn’t have to or guard convoys. Big difference between working in a hostile environment and seeking hostiles in that environment. While contractors do make more than a 19 year old E-3, we don’t make as much as people think. We got no federal benefits (health and life insurance was either minimal or nonexistent when I was there). Nowadays companies are offering like 70-80k a year for 7 day/12-14 hour shifts – and those are jobs that require a college degree, military and deployment experience, and a TS clearance (logistics, intelligence, etc). Security contractors make a whopping 50-60k a year. It isn’t worth it and many of us have gone back to military contracting stateside where we don’t have to be away from family/friends for a year+ while taking pay cut after pay cut. And that’s not getting into the “us versus them” relationship we often have with the military despite being honorably discharged veterans ourselves, never allowed to complain or ask anything because of their belief that we make “so much money.”
Well, the real difference is that by using contractors instead of uniformed sworn-in military troops, the government can continue with its shell game, as per SFC D, because contractors are independent of the military and don’t count. They get no VA benefits such as disability out of if, because that’s the responsibility of their employer.
Go back to the argument about/by Joe Teti, who insists that he is a veteran of the Middle East conflict, even though he was there as a contractor, not in the military.
I get that one might want to be considered a “veteran” of a conflict if they pulled a quasi-military function as a contractor, but combat veteran? Fuuuuck no. The closest action jackson thing you’re doing in country is guarding shit, not going after the enemy. The most kinetic thing I did in country as a contractor was feed information from behind a desk about bad guys to be nominated for drone strikes.
I’m currently deployed to KAF. As far as pure numbers go, there are 2.5 times more civilian contractors than green suiters. I’d estimate 65-70% of them are TCN’s, another 20-25% look like a bunch of drug addict criminals that got recruited from their trailer park, and the last portion, retired military guys. It’s mind boggling