Congress Questions Blackwater's Service in Afghanistan

Sen. Levin asked Defense Secretary Gates to consider the company’s performance before awarding more work

March 16, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (3)

Hundreds of pages of documents demanded months ago from the defense corporation formerly known as Blackwater were still flowing into Senate Armed Services Committee offices on the eve of a hearing on private military contractors, according to committee investigators. When they arrived, the papers illustrated what Chairman Carl Levin of Michi­gan called "reckless" behavior among private contractors in Afghanistan—and "failures" in U.S. government oversight that "allowed it to persist." Those failures, in turn, could jeopardize the U.S. exit strategy of training Afghan soldiers and police to provide security for their country when U.S. troops begin pulling out in July, 2011.

The investigation highlighted a series of reckless events that now has lawmakers urging the Pentagon to take a hard look at a potential contract worth as much as $1 billion to once again engage Blackwater--now known as Xe Services--to train Afghan police. Blackwater remains a frontrunner for the job, although the inquiry found that its subsidiary Paravant was operating "with almost no consideration of the rules it was legally obligated to follow," says Levin (who uses Blackwater and Paravant interchangeably because, he says, "there is no meaningful distinction between the two"). This included stealing assault rifles and pistols intended for Afghan forces, even as the U.S. Army was denying requests for the contractors to carry arms at all.

The contractors apparently ignored that stricture. In November 2008, Paravant Vice President Brian McCracken wrote in an E-mail to a fellow contractor obtained by Senate investigators: "I got sidearms for everyone. . . . We have not yet received formal permission from the Army to carry weapons yet but I will take my chances." McCracken, now Afghanistan country manager for Raytheon—which hired Paravant to train Afghan forces—told the senators that the U.S. military did know that Paravant contractors were armed.

Another Paravant employee took more than 200 semiautomatic rifles from a U.S.-run armory and signed for them under the name Eric Cartman, a South Park cartoon character. This gem, uncovered by Senate investigators, prompted laughter among attendees at a briefing last month. But it was nervous laughter: Many of these weapons remain unaccounted for.

The behavior of the contractors in question ranged, according to interviews with current and former Blackwater employees, from sophomoric to criminal. In December 2008, a Paravant worker "recklessly" shot a Black­water colleague in the head with an AK-47 assault rifle after members of the Paravant team came up with the "wild idea" of shooting from the top of a moving car while riding it "like a stagecoach," Paravant program manager Johnnie Walker told Senate staffers. Equally troubling, staffers say, is that the U.S. military never investigated the shooting. Levin found this "dis­regard" for safety "particularly striking" given that the team was hired for the purpose of teaching Afghan troops to safely use their weapons.

Contractors are meant to train Afghan forces to handle security when American troops leave. But the result of their work has long been a source of frustration for U.S. commanders, who complain about the quality of instruction that recruits receive. The hearing "raised a number of very serious questions about Blackwater's conduct" throughout its contract tenure, and prompted Levin to send a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently, asking him to "consider the deficiencies in Blackwater's performance...before a decision is made to award the police training work" to the company.

And any violations have long-term consequences that "has undermined our mission in Afghanistan," Levin wrote to Gates. That's because few Afghans differentiate between private contractors and the U.S. military. "What's killing me about this incident with Black­water is that we have two sets of rules and one image," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat. And until the military takes contracting oversight "more seriously," she added, commanders' efforts to train future Afghan replacements --and in turn prepare for a viable American drawdown--will remain stalled.

Tags:
Blackwater USA,
Claire McCaskill,
Carl Levin,
Afghanistan

Reader Comments Read all comments (3)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Hi ma name is Asad and I want to work in your company

Asad khan of HI 4:43AM December 21, 2011

Think4yurself, the reason you are able to spew your left viewed thinking is because of the past wars. Most of our freedoms that we have today is because we fought for others and for what was right. You are lucky that you aren't speaking Germnan, or worse yet locked up because of lack of freedom of speech. You talk about history, I think it is you that probably didn't study it.

Right now, the reason you are safe in your little environment is because we are keeping the crazies in other countries. As soon as we vacate the areas we are fighting in there will be no need for the foriegn fighters to fight us out of country. Rest assured we will have the things that happen to us here soon that happens in other parts of the world.

On the part of freeing up dollars, the way to do that is to quit throwing our money away on broken social programs. Let's get rid of welfare, make people work for their money!

So enjoy your little life here in a FREE COUNTRY where you can say stupid things and not get hauled off to prison for being ignorant. When you begin to do real research and stop believing the media, then maybe, then you will understand why you are able to walk so recklessly around with yur head below the sand.

P. Walker of CA 1:41PM March 19, 2010

If it isn't obvious to you yet that the United States makes it's economic machine run on warfare yet, then you're either ignorant, or you haven't been taught history or haven't bothered to learn history, or you're just playing dumb.

The Defense Sector (or what I call Offense Sector) and BIG OIL interests pay our Senators and Representatives millions upon millions of dollars every year in order to ensure the government uses the majority of it's tax dollars to fund new techy military equipment, expensive attack jets, submarines, ships, and tanks that cost us trillions of dollars. And they ensure that we take control of these lands, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and next Pakistan and Iran, in order to provide this truly expensive and much saught after resource for our salivating oil companies. Hence, enormous Exxon/Mobile Profits at a time when the economy is struggling and money for JPL and Lockheed and Northrup Grumman to produce more un-needed military equipment/products.

War is business. Vietnam proved that. The Persian Gulf War proved that. WWII proved that. And WWI proved that. If you really take away all these wars from the US, do you think we would be the same economic powerhouse that we are now? If we took away the need to bomb foreign nations in useless wars do you think we would have a need for Lockheed, JPL, and Northrup Grumman? If we took away these wars do you think we would more tax dollars freed up to spend in areas of social reform such as Healthcare, Social Security, and Education?

I think the answers are clear... Unless you wanta just plain ignore the facts...

THINK4YURSELF of CA 2:47PM March 17, 2010

Photo Galleries

Women on Death Row

Only 12 women have been executed on death row in the U.S. since 1976.

advertisement

Latest Videos