Contractor Deaths Accelerating in Afghanistan as They Outnumber Soldiers

[unhappycamper]

Contractor Deaths Accelerating in Afghanistan as They Outnumber Soldiers
by T. Christian Miller, ProPublica - April 14, 2010 2:09 pm EDT

A recent Congressional Research Service analysis obtained by ProPublica looked at the number of civilian contractors killed in Afghanistan in recent months. It's not pretty.

Of the 289 civilians killed since the war began more than eight years ago, 100 have died in just the last six months. That's a reflection of both growing violence and the importance of the civilians flooding into the country along with troops in response to President Obama's decision to boost the American presence in Afghanistan.

The latest U.S. Department of Defense numbers show there are actually more civilian contractors on the ground in Afghanistan than there are soldiers. The Pentagon reported 107,292 U.S.-hired civilian workers in Afghanistan as of February 2010, when there were about 78,000 soldiers. This is apparently the first time that contractors have exceeded soldiers by such a large margin.

Using civilian contractors to haul food, prepare meals and act as bodyguards has kept the Pentagon's official casualty figures lower than they would have been in past conflicts, where contractors were not as heavily used.

Contractor casualties are, by and large, invisible to the public, disguising the full human cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are not reported in totals given by the government. If they were, the death toll in Afghanistan would have surpassed 1,000 -- 848 soldiers, 289 civilian contractors -- from 2001 to 2009, a milestone that has gone entirely unmarked.


Rest of article at: http://www.propublica.org/feature/contractor-deaths-accelerating-in-afghanistan-as-they-outnumber-soldiers

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

Another form of numbers game.

[sabrina 1]

2. The private army is growing. The are mercenaries, not contractors.

When Republicans criticize Democrats who do not vote to fund this war, they accuse them of 'not supporting the troops'. Why don't Democrats respond by letting the public know that most of the money is NOT going to the troops, it is going to war profiteers. They troops are lucky of they get enough drinking water.

Most Americans are shocked when they find out that they are funding mercenaries.

I remember when Kerry had voted against a funding bill and he was accused of not supporting the troops, during teh campaign. What he wanted at the time was an accounting of where the money was being spent. Republicans refused. But now we have a majority. So, why have we still not been able to get a break down of who is getting this money?

That is Congress's job. They should not be allowed to call it 'money for the troops' anymore.

[unhappycamper]

3. Good point.

The problem is that much of what's going on is not (conscious decision) reported on. One thing the military learned from Vietnam is that on the spot reporting is bad, and as a result we no longer have the real media reporting on the daily SNAFUs and fuck ups. And as far as I can see it's the only thing the military learned from Vietnam.