Asia-Pacific

US spending on Afghan security contractors slammed

(Agencies)
Updated: 2010-10-08 15:16

WASHINGTON - A heavy US reliance on private security in Afghanistan that is poorly monitored and often results in the hiring of Afghan warlords is profiting the Taliban and could endanger coalition troops, according to a Senate report. Military officials warn, however, that ending the practice of hiring local guards could worsen the security situation.

Sen. Carl Levin, Democratic chairman of the Senate panel, said Thursday that he is worried the US is unknowingly fostering the growth of Taliban-linked militias and posing a threat to US and coalition troops at a time when Kabul is struggling to recruit its own soldiers and police officers.

Related readings:  5 Afghan children among 9 dead in Kandahar blasts  Afghan, Pakistani war policies won't change  Photos show US soldiers posing with Afghan corpses  Karzai weeps as he urges faster Afghan peace effort

The report by the Senate Armed Services Committee follows a separate congressional inquiry in June that concluded trucking contractors pay tens of millions of dollars a year to local warlords for convoy protection.

"Almost all are Afghans. Almost all are armed," Levin said of the army of young men working under US contracts.

"These contractors threaten the security of our troops and risk the success of our mission," he told reporters. "There is significant evidence that some security contractors even work against our coalition forces, creating the very threat that they are hired to combat."

"We need to shut off the spigot of US dollars flowing into the pockets of warlords and power brokers who act contrary to our interests and contribute to the corruption that weakens the support of the Afghan people for their government," he added.

The Defense Department doesn't necessarily disagree but warns that firing the estimated 26,000 private security personnel operating in Afghanistan in the near future isn't practical.

This summer, US forces in Afghanistan pledged to increase their oversight of security contractors and set up two task forces to look into allegations of misconduct and to track the money spent, particularly among lower-level subcontractors.

The Defense Contract Management Agency has increased the number of auditors and support staff in the region by some 300 percent since 2007. And in September, Gen. David Petraeus, the top war commander in Afghanistan, directed his staff to consider the impact that contract spending has on military operations.

The military says providing young Afghan men with employment can prevent them from joining the ranks of Taliban fighters. And bringing in foreign workers to do jobs Afghans can do is likely to foster resentment, they say.

Also, contract security forces fill an immediate need at a time when US forces are focused on operations, commanders say.

"As the security environment in Afghanistan improves, our need for (private security contractors) will diminish," Petraeus told the Senate panel in July. "But in the meantime, we will use legal, licensed and controlled (companies) to accomplish appropriate missions."

Levin says he isn't suggesting that the US stop using private security contractors altogether. But, he adds, the US must reduce the number of local security guards and improve the vetting process of new hires if there's any hope of reversing a trend that he says damages the US mission in Afghanistan.

His report represents the broadest look at Defense Department security contracts so far, with a review of 125 of these agreements between 2007 and 2009.

The panel's report highlights two cases in which security contracting firms ArmorGroup and EOD Technology relied on personnel linked to the Taliban.

Last week, EOD Technology was one of eight security firms hired by the State Department under a $10 billion contract to provide protection for diplomats.

A statement released by EOD Technology said the Tennessee-based company had been encouraged to hire local Afghans and that it provided the names of its employees to the military for screening. The company said the military has never made it aware of any problems with its handling of the contract.

In the case of ArmorGroup, the Senate panel says the company repeatedly relied on warlords to find local guards, including the uncle of a known Taliban commander. The uncle, nicknamed "Mr. White" by ArmorGroup after a character in the violent movie "Reservoir Dogs," was eventually killed after a US raid that uncovered a cache of weapons, including anti-tank land mines.

ArmorGroup, based in Virginia, lost a separate contract this year protecting the US Embassy in Kabul after allegations surfaced that guards engaged in lewd behavior and sexual misconduct at their living quarters.

Susan Pitcher, a spokeswoman for Wackenhut Services, ArmorGroup's parent company, said the company only engaged workers from local villages upon the "recommendation and encouragement" of US special operations troops.

Pitcher said that ArmorGroup stayed in "close contact" with the military personnel "to ensure that the company was constantly acting in harmony with, and in support of, US military interests and desires."

In August, Afghan President Hamid Karzai announced that private security contractors would have to cease operations by the end of the year. The workers, he said, would have to either join the government security forces or stop work because they were undermining Afghanistan's police and army and contributing to corruption.