Is it time to talk about Obama's contractors in Afghanistan? More of them there than U.S. troops.

[bigtree]

Still no count of US Defense contractors in Afghanistan

WASHINGTON: The US government does not know exactly how many contractors it employs in Afghanistan, a US commission said on Monday, raising basic questions about oversight of wartime operations.

Contractors in Afghanistan outnumber US troops there and scandals involving misconduct by employees of private firms on the US payroll in Afghanistan and Iraq have prompted calls by Congress for greater accountability. The Commission on Wartime Contracting, a bipartisan, independent commission mandated by Congress, presented data at a hearing showing major discrepancies in different accounting methods used to determine the number of US contractors. A traditional manual count by the US military’s Central Command turned up nearly 74,000 US Defence Department contractors in Afghanistan as of June 30 - more than twice the number shown in another survey by the Pentagon. “I kind of want to scream.... Why if it’s so important, are we failing to do something so basic?” said Christopher Shays, a former Republican lawmaker and a co-chair of the bipartisan committee.

Gary Motsek, an assistant deputy undersecretary of defence, acknowledged in testimony that US efforts to create a system to better count the number of contractors in Afghanistan had so far come up short. “We failed,” Motsek said, calling for better funding and regulations to require all US agencies to report figures for contractors. “You should be concerned about the gap, because we are concerned about the gap.” Motsek and Redding Hobby, deputy director of logistics, contracting, and engineering at Central Command, indicated that while the manual count system was not 100 percent precise, it was still the best gauge available. Michael Thibault, another co-chair appointed by Democratic congressional leaders, questioned whether not knowing the number and identities of Afghan contractors on the US payroll exposed US personnel to greater security risks.

“It’s going to take one tragedy and there’s going to be a scorched-earth effort looking for accountability, and that’s why it’s so important,” Thibault said. Motsek, however, described the lack of a firm tally as an administrative shortcoming that did not endanger US forces. He said contractors needed separate security clearance to enter US military bases in Afghanistan. reuters

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C11%5C04%5Cstory_4-11-2009_pg20_6

[SammyWinstonJack]

1. K&R!

[Barack_America]

2. Every think that's one of the reasons he's considering sending more troops.

So the contractors can be given the boot first?

[bigtree]

3. the Pentagon

. . . has a bridge they'd like to sell you

[Sinti]

4. The US government does not know exactly how many bought boots they have - no way

did they lose all their IT people or something? Did the power get shut off permanently? Did Rumsfeld's people take all the hard drives when he left? I'd bet they had/have off site backup.

If this is true, you'd have to break a whole lot of laws to get boots on the ground without visibility like that. And it's damn dangerous.

Contracts don't get done without paperwork, and paperwork is in computers now. Fine detail can be pulled upon these contracts, and if they're not doing what they're supposed to do, they pull the damn contract and somebody doesn't get paid anymore - in fact, they might get sued.

Contractors need a "separate security clearance" to go in country - they'd have a table for that. All of this stuff is in databases. They would just have to choose which one to use - the contracts one (how many persons) or the security clearance one, probably more accurate.

Each individual would have a table in the database identified by contractor, job number, individual ID number, link out to job history, history of the contract, personal history, linking back to the overall strategy (likely by sub-operation name), and a bunch more info. You think they don't keep track of this? No way, they run like a business.

This is a ridiculous statement on the part of the DoD. It's a single database call - you can sort by clearances and in-country. I hate the pretense of ineptitude.

Come on, this is not what we spend over half of our tax dollars on. Does anyone actually believe this?

[bigtree]

5. you're right

. . . it's really unbelievable.

[glitch]

6. The "incompetence defense" is not as plausible as they think it is.

It only works for actual Bushes, Bushies need not apply.