. Military Space News .
Commentary: Necessity vs. choice

US panel on wartime contracting to return to Afghanistan
A US commission investigating wartime contracting said it plans to return to Afghanistan on Sunday as part its effort to stem fraud and waste by private defense contractors. Set up in 2008 after audits found rampant abuse in Iraq, the Commission on Wartime Contracting is charged by Congress with reviewing US contracting related to reconstruction, logistics for the military and security operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "This trip is an important part of carrying out our study mandate from Congress, and it's especially important given that we're intensifying our efforts in Afghanistan," commission co-chair Michael Thibault said in a statement Friday. "Among other things, we'll be looking to see whether and how contracting lessons from the Iraq involvement are being applied to Afghanistan," he said of the week-long trip. The commission members will have a chance to share their findings from the Afghan visit at congressional hearings scheduled in September. More than 200,000 contract employees work to support US military operations and reconstruction work in Iraq and Afghanistan, performing a range of jobs from guarding diplomats to washing uniforms and building hospitals. In their first appearance before Congress in June, panel members presented an initial report pointing out waste and serious "problems" in how the US government oversees its vast army of contractors. The commission cited the construction of a 30-million-dollar dining hall at the Camp Delta military base southeast of Baghdad as an example of poor oversight. Replacing the existing mess hall with a larger facility was unnecessary as US troops have to leave the country by the end of 2011. The commission's visit to Afghanistan comes as US commanders weigh cutting back on desk jobs and other support staff to free up troops for combat, a move that could require more private contractors to fill the gap. Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, has warned the United States risks repeating the same mistakes in Afghanistan that have led to billions of dollars being squandered in Iraq on reconstruction. Bowen told lawmakers in March that he estimates between three and five billion dollars have been wasted in the US effort to rebuild Iraq since 2003. The panel's final report is due in July 2010, but Congress could extend the bi-partisan commission's mandate by another year. Photo courtesy AFP.
by Arnaud De Borchgrave
Washington (UPI) Aug 21, 2009
Afghanistan is not only President Obama's war, but it's also what he now calls "a war of necessity." But for Richard Haass, the head of the Council on Foreign Relations who was head of policy planning at the State Department in the run-up to the Iraq War and who voted for Obama, Afghanistan is a "war of choice, not of necessity," which he fears we shall learn to regret. This also reflects public opinion: Half of the American people are now against the Afghan war.

Haass' latest book "War of Choice, War of Necessity" makes clear Iraq was a war of choice, not necessity. It was also a huge distraction from the Afghan war that got short-changed as hundreds of billions of dollars were poured into the Iraqi conflict.

What is now "necessity" in Afghanistan for Obama is "choice" -- and a bad one at that -- for the American people. But little understood is how it became necessity for the president. He tried to make it palatable to his left wing by saying Afghanistan is where al-Qaida -- the monsters of Sept. 11, 2001 -- were located. Actually, that's where they are not located. They are in Pakistan's tribal areas. But had the president come out against war in Afghanistan during last year's campaign, as he did against Iraq ever since he became a U.S. senator 2005, he most probably would have lost the election. Sen. John McCain would have accused him of weak-kneed pacifism and of adopting the proverbial head-in-sand posture of an ostrich who would then look surprised when it got kicked in the most obvious place.

Now that Afghanistan is Obama's necessary war, what are his chances of emerging as the wise warrior? If he persuades the American people that we are engaged there for the long haul, as we were in Germany and Japan after World War II, there would be a better-than-even chance of developing a viable state sans Taliban. And it would cost hundreds of billions more dollars. But Afghanistan is arguably the world's most backward national entity where warlords remain to be convinced that the United States and its friends and allies hold the winning ticket.

As long as the Taliban and al-Qaida enjoy privileged sanctuaries in Pakistan's tribal areas, the United States and NATO will be stuck in a no-win posture in Afghanistan. But Pakistan's army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and his troops have been busy pursuing Taliban terrorists in Pakistan proper. And the much-promised Pakistani offensive against the Afghan wing of the Taliban in North and South Waziristan, two of the seven tribal agencies, is yet to materialize. The cynics in Pakistan argue the Taliban is bound to wear down the allies in Afghanistan over the long haul. And when the Taliban was last in power in Afghanistan (1996-2001), Pakistan enjoyed a secure western front for its defense in depth against Pakistan's principal military concern -- India.

U.S. Gen. David Petraeus, the Middle Eastern theater commander, believes that the current major Afghan commitment by the democratic camp should continue five to 10 more years -- "whatever it takes." But half the American people are already opposed to the Afghan war and off-year elections are 16 months away. NATO allies and friendly nations engaged there -- a total of 40 countries -- are all eyeing exit expectations by 2011. Few of them are committed to combat against the Taliban insurgency.

NATO's outgoing supreme commander, Gen. John Craddock, now retired, says it took him 18 months to get allies to curtail caveats against offensive operations from 80 to 73. But allies respond Craddock failed to point out the United States also has a monumental caveat: U.S. units are forbidden by law to serve under non-American command. Taliban commanders are skillful at exploiting these caveats.

Afghanistan's much-anticipated elections do not a democracy make. Taliban's bombs-vs.-ballots threats predictably kept the turnout low. But donkeys delivering ballot boxes in the foothills of the Hindu Kush were an important first step on the road out of the Middle Ages. Many nations -- Spain, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan -- have demonstrated that democracy without a prosperous middle class is an exercise in self-delusion. In Afghanistan so far, the only prosperity is in the cultivation of opium poppies. Afghanistan's $3 billion drug trade also funds Taliban insurgents' logistics section. In combat, their weapons are frequently more modern than what the Afghan national army takes into combat.

Share This Article With Planet Earth
del.icio.usdel.icio.us DiggDigg RedditReddit
YahooMyWebYahooMyWeb GoogleGoogle FacebookFacebook



Related Links
News From Across The Stans



Memory Foam Mattress Review
Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily
XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News


Outside View: Shock and awe redux
Islamabad, Pakistan (UPI) Aug 19, 2009
The apparent elimination of Tehrik-e-Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud two weeks ago in a Predator strike is, on balance, very good news. Mehsud was a villain, murderer and reportedly the mastermind of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's assassination just after her return home as well as responsible for the killing of 1,500 or more fellow citizens in a reign of terror that lasted ... read more







The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2009 - SpaceDaily. AFP and UPI Wire Stories are copyright Agence France-Presse and United Press International. ESA Portal Reports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additional copyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. Advertising does not imply endorsement,agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by SpaceDaily on any Web page published or hosted by SpaceDaily. Privacy Statement