December 21, 2009 10:12 AM
The New Reality About U.S. Contractors
John Nagl is president and Richard Fontaine is a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a nonpartisan national security research organization in Washington, D.C.
Many observers reacted with surprise at reports that forthcoming "surge" in Afghanistan will include up to 56,000 private contractors. They should not have.
Contractors have become an enduring feature of modern American conflicts, and the United States cannot now engage in hostilities or in reconstruction and stabilization operations without them. At their peak, there were more contractors on the ground in Iraq than American troops in uniform and there are already more contractors today in Afghanistan than there are U.S. troops on the ground. However, the increased reliance on contractors has exposed a number of problems, including insufficient oversight, inadequate integration into operational planning, and ambiguous legal status.
In order for the United States to adapt to the key role that contractors will play in future hostilities, it must establish new policies and rules of the road.
Contractors on the battlefield are not a modern phenomenon; in fact, they predate the Constitution. The Continental Army relied on support from various private individuals and firms, including logistical support to George Washington's troops in the field. Japan and postwar Europe under the Marshall Plan saw some of America's first and largest reconstruction efforts, the size of which was not reached again until 2003 in Iraq.
The aftermath of the March 2003 invasion of Iraq saw an explosion in the number of contractors employed by the United States on the battlefield. The scale of deployment of these contractors, who have engaged in activities as diverse as transportation, engineering and construction, maintenance, and base operations, has been, according to the Congressional Budget Office, "unprecedented in U.S. history." The U.S. contracting cadre is very much multinational in character.
American soldiers, diplomats, and aid workers have become accustomed to being greeted in battlefield dining facilities by Indian servers, dispensing food prepared by Filipinos, on a base guarded by Ugandans and partially constructed by Iraqis. In this sense, then, the United States has achieved with its contractors precisely the kind of multinational coalition effort that has at times eluded it when it comes to actual combat operations. In Iraq today, third country nationals comprise the largest share of U.S. contractor personnel.
Future conflicts are likely to be more like American engagements in the Balkans, Colombia (via "Plan Colombia"), Iraq, and Afghanistan, and less like Operation Desert Storm. To the extent that future wars involve messy insurgencies and attempts to boost host government legitimacy, rather than conventional battles between massed armies, contractors will continue to play a large and prominent role. To extinguish support for insurgencies, build the security forces of host governments, expand the capacity to provide services to local populations, create jobs, train civil services, and construct (or reconstruct) infrastructure, the U.S. government will rely to an enormous extent on the use of private contractors.
A series of reports have called for reform in the way the government contracts for services on the battlefield and for expanded oversight of the process, but significant additional reforms are needed. The U.S. government is trying to make up for nearly two decades of neglecting contractor management and oversight - and it is doing so in the midst of two ongoing wars that involve unprecedented contractor participation.
The extensive use of contractors, and their presence on the battlefield along with American troops, poses special dilemmas in command, coordination, and discipline. The very existence of private contractors inserts a profit motive onto the battlefield; their primary responsibility is not the national interest but rather fulfilling the terms of their contracts.
Contractors are not in the chain of command; they can be expected to fulfill their contracts but not ordered to do so in the same fashion as military personnel. Nor are contractors are not subject to the same discipline and order procedures that govern U.S. troops; failure to follow orders can result in criminal prosecution for military personnel, but this is not true of civilians. The contractors, rather than commanders in the field, are responsible for ensuring that their employees comply with laws and orders, and these commanders have repeatedly expressed frustration with their own lack of knowledge regarding contractor activities - or even presence - in the battle space. However, as current and former DOD officials point out, not a single mission in Iraq or Afghanistan has failed because of contractor non-performance. Most private contractors appear to make a positive contribution, and to be honest, patriotic, and dedicated to the mission at hand.
The great reliance on contractors in wartime raises foreign policy questions that go well beyond the domain of DOD. To cite one example, the United States has brought to Iraq and Afghanistan tens of thousands of workers from developing countries in which labor costs are low. Given Pakistan's acute sensitivity to the perception of Indian encroachment in Afghanistan (the Pakistani government, for example, has routinely objected to the presence of Indian diplomats in consulates there), what are the foreign policy implications of hiring Indian nationals in Afghanistan? To address these sorts of questions, it will be necessary to bring the State Department increasingly into the decision making process.
At the same time, the way in which the United States handles contractors in its current conflicts will set precedents and establish norms that will influence not only America's future behavior, but also that of other countries around the world. Given the high stakes involved, and the reality that contracting in conflicts is here to stay, it is time for a new strategic look at the role they play in hostile environments.
The aim should be a new approach that neither rejects the role played by contractors in wartime nor merely reflects the status quo. This new approach will require changes to the culture and awareness of contracting at DOD, State, and USAID, and will mean calling on policy makers to consider in depth how the increased reliance on contractors can best be leveraged to further American national interests abroad. When our nation goes to war, contractors go with it. We must get on with the task of adapting to this reality.
By Richard Fontaine and John Nagl
Special to CBSNews.com
Many observers reacted with surprise at reports that forthcoming "surge" in Afghanistan will include up to 56,000 private contractors. They should not have.
Contractors have become an enduring feature of modern American conflicts, and the United States cannot now engage in hostilities or in reconstruction and stabilization operations without them. At their peak, there were more contractors on the ground in Iraq than American troops in uniform and there are already more contractors today in Afghanistan than there are U.S. troops on the ground. However, the increased reliance on contractors has exposed a number of problems, including insufficient oversight, inadequate integration into operational planning, and ambiguous legal status.
In order for the United States to adapt to the key role that contractors will play in future hostilities, it must establish new policies and rules of the road.
Contractors on the battlefield are not a modern phenomenon; in fact, they predate the Constitution. The Continental Army relied on support from various private individuals and firms, including logistical support to George Washington's troops in the field. Japan and postwar Europe under the Marshall Plan saw some of America's first and largest reconstruction efforts, the size of which was not reached again until 2003 in Iraq.
The aftermath of the March 2003 invasion of Iraq saw an explosion in the number of contractors employed by the United States on the battlefield. The scale of deployment of these contractors, who have engaged in activities as diverse as transportation, engineering and construction, maintenance, and base operations, has been, according to the Congressional Budget Office, "unprecedented in U.S. history." The U.S. contracting cadre is very much multinational in character.
American soldiers, diplomats, and aid workers have become accustomed to being greeted in battlefield dining facilities by Indian servers, dispensing food prepared by Filipinos, on a base guarded by Ugandans and partially constructed by Iraqis. In this sense, then, the United States has achieved with its contractors precisely the kind of multinational coalition effort that has at times eluded it when it comes to actual combat operations. In Iraq today, third country nationals comprise the largest share of U.S. contractor personnel.
Future conflicts are likely to be more like American engagements in the Balkans, Colombia (via "Plan Colombia"), Iraq, and Afghanistan, and less like Operation Desert Storm. To the extent that future wars involve messy insurgencies and attempts to boost host government legitimacy, rather than conventional battles between massed armies, contractors will continue to play a large and prominent role. To extinguish support for insurgencies, build the security forces of host governments, expand the capacity to provide services to local populations, create jobs, train civil services, and construct (or reconstruct) infrastructure, the U.S. government will rely to an enormous extent on the use of private contractors.
A series of reports have called for reform in the way the government contracts for services on the battlefield and for expanded oversight of the process, but significant additional reforms are needed. The U.S. government is trying to make up for nearly two decades of neglecting contractor management and oversight - and it is doing so in the midst of two ongoing wars that involve unprecedented contractor participation.
The extensive use of contractors, and their presence on the battlefield along with American troops, poses special dilemmas in command, coordination, and discipline. The very existence of private contractors inserts a profit motive onto the battlefield; their primary responsibility is not the national interest but rather fulfilling the terms of their contracts.
Contractors are not in the chain of command; they can be expected to fulfill their contracts but not ordered to do so in the same fashion as military personnel. Nor are contractors are not subject to the same discipline and order procedures that govern U.S. troops; failure to follow orders can result in criminal prosecution for military personnel, but this is not true of civilians. The contractors, rather than commanders in the field, are responsible for ensuring that their employees comply with laws and orders, and these commanders have repeatedly expressed frustration with their own lack of knowledge regarding contractor activities - or even presence - in the battle space. However, as current and former DOD officials point out, not a single mission in Iraq or Afghanistan has failed because of contractor non-performance. Most private contractors appear to make a positive contribution, and to be honest, patriotic, and dedicated to the mission at hand.
The great reliance on contractors in wartime raises foreign policy questions that go well beyond the domain of DOD. To cite one example, the United States has brought to Iraq and Afghanistan tens of thousands of workers from developing countries in which labor costs are low. Given Pakistan's acute sensitivity to the perception of Indian encroachment in Afghanistan (the Pakistani government, for example, has routinely objected to the presence of Indian diplomats in consulates there), what are the foreign policy implications of hiring Indian nationals in Afghanistan? To address these sorts of questions, it will be necessary to bring the State Department increasingly into the decision making process.
At the same time, the way in which the United States handles contractors in its current conflicts will set precedents and establish norms that will influence not only America's future behavior, but also that of other countries around the world. Given the high stakes involved, and the reality that contracting in conflicts is here to stay, it is time for a new strategic look at the role they play in hostile environments.
The aim should be a new approach that neither rejects the role played by contractors in wartime nor merely reflects the status quo. This new approach will require changes to the culture and awareness of contracting at DOD, State, and USAID, and will mean calling on policy makers to consider in depth how the increased reliance on contractors can best be leveraged to further American national interests abroad. When our nation goes to war, contractors go with it. We must get on with the task of adapting to this reality.
By Richard Fontaine and John Nagl
Special to CBSNews.com
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved.
