Private Security Contractors in Afghanistan
It`s up to America to think about how and why so much of such a vital conflict was attributed to private entrepreneurs — and whether that kind of approach was even partly responsible for the debacle that followed. Maybe. It is not even a question of addressing the question of whether so much of the foreign policy of the most powerful country in the world should be in the hands of companies that do not respond to the people who pay the bill, namely taxpayers. I would have expected more Americans to be outraged. However, the international community in Afghanistan has pushed back on the ban, raising concerns about the relevance of the government`s new security plan. Foreign diplomatic sites, international organizations with diplomatic status and military bases were able to keep their own businesses. The exception also applied to companies participating in police training missions. Thousands of these contractors – often military veterans working for private security companies – left Afghanistan weeks ago and were deployed elsewhere in the region or in the Persian Gulf. This has allowed many companies to gain a foothold in the security sector, Wrote Fabrizio Foschini for the Afghanistan Analysts Network in 2014. Among the war dead in future conflicts, there will almost certainly be Americans who have already served their country honorably in uniform. Their lives should not be considered more consumable as entrepreneurs than as soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines.
This makes sense considering that contractors often did not have a protective shield to support other units. When faced with unexpected threats, their support was less organized and less effective. They were also regularly tasked with different types of missions: less combat work and more logistical, maintenance or security work. These types of missions – for example, driving supply trucks to and from a base – are less protected and have routines that can be detected by insurgents. Contractors continued to advise Afghan troops via video, but former officials said it was no substitute for working with them. There have been calls for an increased role for private companies in the war in Afghanistan. Like CIA personnel, contractors can be nowhere to be found and, by nature, they exist unspeakably while supporting the military with logistical roles such as transportation. Some have darker roles in the dark world of dark proxy operations and mercenaries. Others are helping to operate a billion dollars worth of U.S. equipment and heavy weapons within the Afghan army: contractors take care of all the maintenance of the Afghan Air Force`s Black Hawk helicopters and C-130 freighters. Air traffic controllers at the country`s airports are international entrepreneurs, Watkins said, without an organic local labor pool of Afghans trained for the job.
Jack Detsch is a Pentagon reporter for Foreign Policy and a national security reporter. Twitter: @JackDetsch In 2012, for example, more than 100,000 contractors – armed and unarmed – were employed by the US Department of Defense. This included more than 20,000 private security companies. We are looking at the privatization of security and its implications. In our study, which was conducted on 5. Published in Armed Forces and Society in December, we look for the first time at some aspects of this largely invisible workforce. Because entrepreneurs operate in the shadows, without effective public oversight, they allow policymakers to have their cake and eat it – by retiring while keeping the mandatory staff in the theatre. The situation in Afghanistan highlights the due diligence of clients of private security companies towards local employees and their families […] We expect our government and corporate members to ensure the safety and well-being of all private security personnel working on government and other contracts, regardless of nationality. In addition to security services, which account for 16% of contract work, roles include logistics, translation, basic support, construction and transportation. Experts told Foreign Policy that Afghan troops could still do ground combat bases without U.S. contractors, and they even added some level of capability in repairing military vehicles.
According to their own statements, the Taliban carried out an attack in Afghanistan at the base of the British security company G4S. G4S, one of the world`s largest security groups, is helping to guard the area around the British embassy in Kabul. “The [Afghan army] could still conduct operations without subcontractors – they could fight, maneuver, fire, all the bases. But without the ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] safety net and air support, many Afghan soldiers did not want to compete backwards with the Taliban. Australia is a signatory to the ICoCA, as are private security companies Gardaworld, Hart International Australia and Hart Security Limited, all of which operate in Afghanistan and have been hired by the Australian government at various times. According to the lawyer and former army officer representing the security guards, his clients had not yet received the humanitarian visas, and the about-face was just an attempt by Australian officials to “make it look like they were doing their job when they sat on their hands for so long.” Afghanistan, known as “the graveyard of empires,” has been a sauce train for the global private security industry over the past two decades, as war has been increasingly privatized and outsourced. After two bloody clashes with Afghan civilians, two of the largest private security companies – Watan Risk Management and Compass Security – were banned from escorting NATO convoys on the Kabul-Kandahar highway. The ban came into effect on May 14.
At 10:30 a.m. .m .m that day, a NATO supply convoy passing through the area was attacked. An Afghan driver and a soldier were killed, a truck was overturned and set on fire. Within two weeks, when more than 1,000 trucks were blocked on the highway, the Afghan government allowed Watan and Compass to resume. Watan`s president, Rashid Popal, vehemently denied any suggestion that his men were conspiring with the insurgents or orchestrating attacks to emphasize the need for their services. Compass Security executives did not respond to questions. But the episode and other similar episodes have raised suspicions among investigators here and in Washington who are trying to track the tens of millions of taxpayers` money paid to private security companies to transport supplies to U.S. and other NATO bases. While the investigation is still ongoing, officials suspect that at least some of these security companies — many of which have ties to senior Afghan officials — are using U.S. money to bribe the Taliban.
Officials suspect that security companies could also fight fake battles to increase the sense of risk on the streets, and that they can sometimes carry out attacks against competitors.61 Some very big questions still have no answers. Are entrepreneurs better or worse than the military when it comes to achieving a country`s political goals abroad? Is the U.S. using them effectively, making the most of what they offer, and mitigating areas where they`re not up to the task? What are the unintended consequences of reliance on entrepreneurs in terms of human rights, legal complications, mismanagement and accountability? As of October 2018, there were nearly 2,500 armed private security companies in Afghanistan, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. .
- On March 23, 2022
0 Comments