What's new

US Senate finds Security contractors sub-contracting to Taliban

Lankan Ranger

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 9, 2009
12,550
0
7,961
Afghan contractors fund Taliban, says US Senate report

Heavy US reliance on private security in Afghanistan has helped to line the pockets of the Taliban because contractors often do not vet local recruits and wind up hiring warlords and thugs, Senate investigators said on Thursday.

The finding, in a 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.

Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate panel, said he is worried the United States is unknowingly fostering the growth of Taliban-linked militias at a time when Kabul is struggling to recruit its own soldiers and police officers.

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

"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 said.

The Defense Department does not necessarily disagree but warns that firing the estimated 26,000 private security personnel operating in Afghanistan in the near future is not practical.

In recent months, 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. 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.

Military officials and Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee warn that ending the practice of hiring local guards could worsen the security situation in Afghanistan.

They say providing young Afghan men with employment can prevent them from joining the ranks of Taliban fighters. Bringing in foreign workers to do jobs Afghans can do is likely to foster resentment.

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 is not suggesting that the United States 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 review concludes there were "systemic failures" in the management of the contracts, including "widespread" failures "to adequately vet, train and supervise armed security personnel."

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 Lenoir City, 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," eventually was killed after a US raid that uncovered a cache of weapons, including anti-tank land mines.

ArmorGroup, based in near Washington 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."

The allegation that contractors rely on warlords for local hiring is not new. Last June, a Democratic House of Representatives investigation led by Massachusetts Rep. John Tierney concluded that trucking companies had "little choice" but to pay local warlords "in what amounts to a vast protection racket."

Army criminal investigators are examining the allegations, specifically looking at whether companies hired under a $2 billion Pentagon contract to transport food, water, fuel and ammunition to troops were paying up to $4 million a week to insurgent groups.

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.

US officials responded that they shared the goal but wanted to move slowly enough that military efforts were not harmed.

Levin says he blames lost money to the Taliban on a lack of government oversight until this year. He previously has blamed the Bush administration for not devoting enough resources to the war in general.

Led by Arizona Sen. John McCain, committee Republicans endorsed the investigative findings in a voice vote last month. In a statement included in the report, however, the Republicans said Levin's investigation "falls short of providing a more robust discussion of how slim our options were at the time."

Afghan contractors fund Taliban, says US Senate report - The Times of India
 
Tell us something new, not only private security firms, funds from official sources have flowed into the Taliban.

No one is gonna ask them about it, rather such practices will keep on going on, no one gonna ask them do more to stop it, rather "do more" to increase the flow of funds towards Taliban is gonna be seen.

Pathetic double standards by the super power.
 
Sounds like you believe the US is funding Taliban.

What is there to not to believe ?? This kind of report is not the first of its kind.

Just go in the past and see the multiple stories coming from western media of how money is being poured into the Taliban, US aid money coming into the Taliban through which they are keeping up their insurgency.

And i hope you do remember the Italian forces giving protection money to the Taliban.

We have heard numerous times, how money from US aid is given to the Taliban as bribes, protection money, has anything been done to stop it ?? Have the taliban grown weaker or stronger ?? Don't think so.

Since knowing where some part of their money ends and having done nothing about that, its very obvious US doesn't wants to end this and is knowingly giving money to the Taliban.

And this i am talking about Afghan Taliban, leave aside the TTP thugs.
 
I always thought it was more indirect then direct -- US pays Blackwater, and Blackwater pays protection money to the Taliban, but the commanders were always aware of what was going on.
 
I always thought it was more indirect then direct -- US pays Blackwater, and Blackwater pays protection money to the Taliban, but the commanders were always aware of what was going on.

Its not just Blackwater, its other security firms, as well as NGOs.

Not just one sources, as said multiple sources from where the US aid money given to these NGOs goes into the hands of Taliban.

In the end, it would be millions going to Taliban, more then enough to sustain their insurgency.
 
Senate Finds Corrupt Security Firms Fund Enemy | Foxnews.com

WASHINGTON -- The Senate Armed Services Committee released a scathing report Wednesday on the state of the U.S. military's private security contracts in Afghanistan, concluding U.S. taxpayer dollars are being funneled to Afghan warlords, strongmen linked to murder, and in many cases the Taliban.

Committee Chairman Senator Carl Levin rolled out the report in a press conference Thursday morning, saying there is "significant evidence that some security contractors even work against our own coalition forces, creating the very threat that they are hired to combat."

The Department of Defense has roughly 19,000 private security contractors working in Afghanistan, compared to 95,000 U.S. troops. The State Department employs an additional 7,000. Up until now this supplemental force has been considered critical to the mission.

But the results of Senator Levin's year-long investigation reveals serious flaws with the system.

In one instance the corruption was found to be so bad that a private security contractor used rocks to simulate security personnel who had been paid to stand guard at a U.S. base in the Nangarhar province. In another case, the military hired guards who worked directly for the local Taliban. As a result, $12,000 a month in salaries funded by U.S. taxpayers were going directly into enemy hands.

The report details the story of a 2007 contracting fiasco where a private security firm named ArmorGroup hired local warlords to run security around construction at Shindand Airbase.

ArmorGroup dubbed the warlords: Mr. Pink, Mr. White, Mr. White II and Mr. White III, all drawn from fictional characters in Quentin Terantino's movie "Reservoir Dogs." It turns out they were real life Mafiosi who caused serious problems.

Senator Levin smirked as he told of story of when Mr. Pink had Mr. White murdered, and how the guards loyal to both of these warlords abandoned their posts and went to battle. If that's not bad enough, it was later discovered Pink was a member of the Taliban and had been reporting the movement of NATO forces to the enemy.

In a statement released late Thursday the Department of Defense admits it has problems with contracting, and that it's working to correct them. "DoD has revamped the hiring, training and deployment of those individuals responsible for operational contingency contracting services," the statement reads. It goes on to say "contracting has become a command responsibility requiring military leaders to be aware of those who will benefit from U.S. taxpayer dollars."

The report leaves open many questions about the future of security contracts in Afghanistan. It concludes that the use of private security personnel is "inconsistent with counterinsurgency strategy." This gives credence to Afghan President Hamid Karzai's recent demand for all private security firms to disband by the end of the year. But who will take their place?

President Obama has made clear he has no plans to go above the current number of troops, and wants to start withdrawing in July 2011. NATO is also stretched to the max. The only option is for these hired guards to take government jobs and join the Afghan Security Forces. But according to the report, no such plan exists.

Do you know what the Taliban can do if they are being paid $12,000/mo salary per person by the US? Again giving credence to the fact that once the US leaves, things can only get better since US is knowingly or unknowingly fueling the fire.
 
Senate Finds Corrupt Security Firms Fund Enemy | Foxnews.com

WASHINGTON -- The Senate Armed Services Committee released a scathing report Wednesday on the state of the U.S. military's private security contracts in Afghanistan, concluding U.S. taxpayer dollars are being funneled to Afghan warlords, strongmen linked to murder, and in many cases the Taliban.

Committee Chairman Senator Carl Levin rolled out the report in a press conference Thursday morning, saying there is "significant evidence that some security contractors even work against our own coalition forces, creating the very threat that they are hired to combat."

The Department of Defense has roughly 19,000 private security contractors working in Afghanistan, compared to 95,000 U.S. troops. The State Department employs an additional 7,000. Up until now this supplemental force has been considered critical to the mission.

But the results of Senator Levin's year-long investigation reveals serious flaws with the system.

In one instance the corruption was found to be so bad that a private security contractor used rocks to simulate security personnel who had been paid to stand guard at a U.S. base in the Nangarhar province. In another case, the military hired guards who worked directly for the local Taliban. As a result, $12,000 a month in salaries funded by U.S. taxpayers were going directly into enemy hands.

The report details the story of a 2007 contracting fiasco where a private security firm named ArmorGroup hired local warlords to run security around construction at Shindand Airbase.

ArmorGroup dubbed the warlords: Mr. Pink, Mr. White, Mr. White II and Mr. White III, all drawn from fictional characters in Quentin Terantino's movie "Reservoir Dogs." It turns out they were real life Mafiosi who caused serious problems.

Senator Levin smirked as he told of story of when Mr. Pink had Mr. White murdered, and how the guards loyal to both of these warlords abandoned their posts and went to battle. If that's not bad enough, it was later discovered Pink was a member of the Taliban and had been reporting the movement of NATO forces to the enemy.

In a statement released late Thursday the Department of Defense admits it has problems with contracting, and that it's working to correct them. "DoD has revamped the hiring, training and deployment of those individuals responsible for operational contingency contracting services," the statement reads. It goes on to say "contracting has become a command responsibility requiring military leaders to be aware of those who will benefit from U.S. taxpayer dollars."

The report leaves open many questions about the future of security contracts in Afghanistan. It concludes that the use of private security personnel is "inconsistent with counterinsurgency strategy." This gives credence to Afghan President Hamid Karzai's recent demand for all private security firms to disband by the end of the year. But who will take their place?

President Obama has made clear he has no plans to go above the current number of troops, and wants to start withdrawing in July 2011. NATO is also stretched to the max. The only option is for these hired guards to take government jobs and join the Afghan Security Forces. But according to the report, no such plan exists.

Do you know what the Taliban can do if they are being paid $12,000/mo salary per person by the US? Again giving credence to the fact that once the US leaves, things can only get better since US is knowingly or unknowingly fueling the fire.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom