Senate Report Slams U.S. Spending on Afghan Security Contractors

Associated Press SHARE

WASHINGTON — U.S. 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, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee which issued the report, said Thursday that he is worried the U.S. is unknowingly fostering the growth of Taliban-linked militias and posing a threat to U.S. and coalition troops at a time when Kabul is struggling to recruit its own soldiers and police officers.

[See who donates the most money to Levin.]

The investigation 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, a Michigan Democrat, said of the army of young men working under U.S. 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 U.S. 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.

[Check out a roundup of political cartoons on Afghanistan.]

This summer, U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. stop using private security contractors altogether. But, he adds, the U.S. 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 U.S. 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 contractors ArmorGroup and EOD Technology relied on personnel linked to the Taliban.

Last week, EOD Technology was one of eight security companies 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, Tenn.-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.