Afghanistan: an examination of American Resolution to Private Militarization

by Sourour Inoubli

As the last plane took off from Kabul airport on August 30, a video showing Afghans clinging to a moving US Air Force jet in a desperate bid to flee permeated world media marking the end of the longest war in US history as well as the uncertainty among remaining allies. In a televised speech, President Biden declared that he will not extend this "Forever war", adding that the choice to disengage from Afghanistan was the right decision.

Some political experts and prominent critics are skeptical since American involvement in the area wasn't only reliant on its official military forces, but also on Private Contractors that are hard to keep track of or hold accountable after its retreat. This article will expose the Internal as well as the external ramification of relying on private contractors in conflict zones.

Afghanistan has always been the center of heated debates and speculations with its continuous upheavals, it encompasses years of trauma and foreign meddling from different powers. It is easy to forget that this country had a peaceful history before the communist coup of April 1978. In fact, in their book L'Afghanistan: histoire, description, mœurs et coutumes, folklore, fouilles (1937) Rene Dallot called Afghanistan the “Switzerland of Asia.”

Its current adversity stems from the void of major clashing powers left upon their departure as Afghanistan's peaceful aspirations took a back seat to competing superpowers. It is worth exposing some historical background to understand the USA's long-term engagement in this area.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States had taken on the futile task of policing the world. This part came naturally as the USA emerged as a superpower with the most vibrant economy and the strongest army. Consequently, this made it a target for opposing ideologies, a reaction heightened by the attacks of 9/11 and the alleged involvement of Iraq together with Afghanistan's active collusion with terrorist groups. The latter became a central security concern for the USA.

This entanglement was gradually eclipsed by the changing economic world order, the growing anti-Americanism, and the military failure in Iraq which shifted the American public opinion to the disapproval of military involvement in troubled regions.

True to its security concerns, the USA maintained a long-term presence -especially with the lingering threat of al qaeda while progressively delegating control to private contractors to reduce troop requirements and redirect its foreign policy towards China and Russia. As the price tag was made public by the end of the war (estimates at two trillion dollars over two decades spent in Afghanistan – equaling approximately 300 million dollars a day), the American voter was left contemplating wartime costly efforts. While devoting resources to crucial issues (climate change, health system, public service,etc) remains subject to bipartisan negotiations, the government seems to be more permissive to its defense industry.

The Pentagon’s reliance on hired contractors was particularly highlighted by the Pentagon spending,which has totaled over $14 trillion, one-third to one-half of which went to defense contractors. Hired contractors are independent corporations that offer a wide range of services to national governments, international organizations, and substate actors.

This concept is well rooted in American military history. The deployment of contractors in late 2001, as part of the US-led coalition-where they were required to accompany the military forces-marked a turning point in the use of force in terms of spendings and state reliance. The latter became more pronounced over time and reached an unprecedented level in military operations.

As of March 31, 2010, the United States deployed 175,000 troops and 207,000 contractors in the war zones, (armed and unarmed contractors represented 59 percent in Afghanistan). The devolution was symptomatic of the federal government's progressive disengagement from the theater of war which eventually left Afghanistan a breeding ground for corrosion. With minimal monitoring, the practice of outsourcing governmental functions turned out to be profitable for major manufacturers and entrepreneurs;in 2020 alone, the US military employed nearly 53,000 private contractors throughout the Middle East.

A distinguished example of this can be found in the Senate hearing called "Contracting to feed U.S. troops in Afghanistan: How did the defense department end up in a multi-billion-dollar billing dispute? (U.S. Government Publishing Office) ". The hearing disclosed financial abuses by "supreme Group" as this company not only overcharged the pentagon by 100 million dollars for transportation costs but also created fake sub-contracting agencies to monopolize different contracts and get paid for nonexistent services.

One congressperson referred to it as "an astounding amount that could have paid for nearly a hundred thousand children to have access to the Head Start program" (educational program in the US). Although the company's CEO Stephen Orenstein was required to pay a 389 Million dollar compensation, no further sanctions were held against him and his wealth remained intact.

This lack of accountability remains a feature in the contractor-government relationship, Blackwater (now Academi) is a stark example of this approach. Aside from accumulating wealth, this company is known for the Nisour Square massacre, when a group of its employees killed 17 Iraqi civilians and injured 20, for which four guards were sentenced in the United States but later pardoned on December 22, 2020, by former President Donald Trump.

Although this occurred in Iraq, similar transgressions were reported in Kabul and are under investigation to the present day.

Despite many attempts to rein in private contractors through different legislations (e.g.; a house bill, sponsored by Rep. David E. Price), such efforts were met with strong political skepticism. This can be traced around to the conflict of interest as many elected officials have stock investments in private defense companies. It is worth mentioning that 47 members of congress hold between 2 million and 6.7 million worth of stock in top defense companies.

Whilst holding posts in private companies is not a violation of House ethics, Members of Congress’s investments in defense contractors present consequential bias as contractors rely heavily on defense spending and inevitably, prolonged wars to sustain their wages. Among these members of Congress with shares in the defense industry are several who sit on committees that determine major funding sources for defense companies and by association martial contractors.

Several voting patterns are a testament to the contracting lobby in American politics as some proponents of privatization in the arm services committee voted to increase defense spending by 24 billion dollars (more than what president Biden suggested), another example of this in the 2020 defense appropriation bill, the subcommittee approved 1.85Billion for more F-35 joint strike fighter aircraft and spare parts from Lockheed Martin, a giant Aerospace company in which subcommittee Sen Roy blunt owns approximately 100.000 worth of stock. Numerous measures documented such conduct.

This institutes a moral hazard in public policy making. Spokespeople call for better transparency through lawmaking and to balance expenses while focusing more on public reforms rather than foreign diplomacy. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq initiated a new phase for private contractors. With increasing recruitment they've evolved to be indispensable to modern military operations. It is crucial that we address the consequences of this phenomenon on the local society to partially explain the growing anti-American sentiment in the area.

As the USA suffered a shortage in its workforce, few well-trained troops were left in-theater to deal with the disorder in Afghanistan, which compelled the Pentagon to turn to contractors to fill the immediate operational needs. This resulted in poorly conceived contracts that not only generated cost increases but also grave human rights violations. Repeated reports of substandard construction, fraud, and violence highlight the problems associated with non-vetted contractors.

The UN for instance had documented incidents where a company employed by the US forces was directly involved in abuses against civilians (in collusion with local criminals) such as rape, mutilation, and abduction, one of them famously known as the "dancing boys' incident". Similarly, a scandal broke out as an American superintendent shot his local interpreter during an argument without any legal repercussions.

Unaccountability in the wake of these incidents has accentuated the negative perception of American involvement and problematized any future role the US may play in the region. As the US retreated, the official Afghan state fell shortly after to the Taliban, this is a by-product of a prolonged, yet futile deployment of force without genuine diplomacy.

The president’s decision to fully disengage from Afghanistan unleashed waves of bipartisan criticism. While Democrats acknowledged that president Biden had to carry on some version of his predecessor’s policy, as discussed in Danny Tomas’ 2018 book America First: Understanding the Trump Doctrine, Republicans criticized the chaotic way the White House maneuvered the withdrawal. Many representatives were concerned with the major human rights set back and urged the government to protect vulnerable individuals. As Robert Menendez put it in his letter to Secretary Blinken, this is a problem “Particularly for women who are currently targets even hunted by the Taliban fighters.”

Many others viewed this withdrawal as a diplomatic failure due to the lack of oversight. As the last American troops departed from the area, contractors' presence was no longer required. This has left a logistical void in Afghanistan considering that the local population is unfamiliar with American equipment left in the area. This will most likely result in indirect support of American allies through more contracting deals. “I see it as a total boondoggle,” said one analyst, Jason Dempsey.

This statement is a reflection of the lobbying strategies many contracting companies pushed for to keep its presence in Afghanistan and protect their financial gain. Five of the top defense companies, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman, spent a combined $34.2 million in lobbying in the first half of 2021 compared to about $33 million in the same period of 2020. Some private security organizations managed to extend their contracts to 2023 and 2026 like Aegis Defense Services. Many of those who failed to delay the president's decision to pull out, have enormous shares in those companies and held positions of influence in the Afghanistan Study Group relentlessly lobbied to hinder the withdrawal.

Further complicating the situation, the fate of foreign contractors remains unsolved. The U.S. war effort in Afghanistan has relied heavily on so-called Third Country workers who were employed and trained by defense companies for two decades. With the retreat of American troops,unemployment holds little appeal for most veterans. A majority of them are currently looking for the next war as they disperse into different conflict zones like Iraq and Syria,countries with little regard to human rights. They are a loose cannon in the midst of unstable areas, another alarming indicator on how little the US government has control over its shadow army.

This past experience has its relevance in the current context. As the world order is being disrupted by the recent aggression in Europe, Russia seems to rely on mercenaries to wage its proxy war, while the USA, as well as the international community, are trying to support Ukraine while condemning Russia's way of aggression, its credibility remains questionable. As Clare Daly accurately phrased it "It may suit some to condemn the war crimes of their enemies while turning a blind eye to those of their friends. But unless the law applies equally to all countries, we will never have an international system of justice for the victims of war."