

Contracting with the enemy: 80% of DOD contracts in Afghanistan may fund Taliban - rdl
http://e-ring.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/11/contracting_with_the_enemy

======
lolcraft
> Contracting with the enemy: 80% of DOD contracts in Afghanistan fund Taliban

No. We have here a classic case of the submitter not reading the article.

 _What this article is about_ is the perfectly boring fact that DoD's funding
overseeing is not anal enough to extend to 80% of contracts made in
Afghanistan, since they're so piss cheap, and checking for compliance is so
difficult. Yeah, it would be cool if those contracts were taken by Taliban
shell companies to fund their warfare operations. And I'm sure a few of them
are. But that's not what the article is about, and that's largely not what's
happening.

Take that away, and what we get is, I'm afraid, a very boring story that could
interest some accounting wonks somewhere, but not many more. Not nearly as
interesting as the title hints at. Massive dissapointment.

~~~
rdl
I'm very familiar with Afghanistan (I spent a few years there as a
contractor), and _very_ familiar with the subcontracting process. The article
actually understates the problem.

Virtually 100% of the contracts in Afghanistan which involve transport are
contracted to local vendors. Those vendors pay off the Taliban to not attack
them; this has been known inside the contracting community ~forever, and
publicly since at least 2005. The going rate is about 10-15% of total project
expenses; usually it goes from DOD to prime to potentially a sub to a local
trucking company to either a relative who is Taliban affiliated, or via a
local government/warlord person who is Taliban affiliated.

The risk isn't that random contracts are possibly to Taliban front companies;
it is that virtually every trucking and logistics operation (except air) funda
the Taliban with a substantial percentage of contract amount.

For the high dollar contracts, or those with substantial on-base performance
requirements (e.g. GD/L-3 supplying IT personnel), the prime contract isn't
the issue, but the subsidiary support contracts those contractors sign. E.g.
when they pay for their living trailers to be brought on base, the trucking
company is either closely Taliban affiliated, or pays 10-15% of the trailer
contract to Taliban. This means even the big contracts are paying a few
percent to the Taliban, indirectly.

The issue is that if the US had zero presence in Afghanistan, none of these
contracts would exist. After opium, contracting-related extortion is the major
funding source for the Taliban; higher than extortion of the local Afghan
economy (other than opium).

If we decriminalized [Afghan] opium, either by buying/destroying or
buying/medicalizing (or just decriminalizing narcotics worldwide), and pulled
out of Afghanistan, there would be no funding to keep the bad guys going.

~~~
nhebb
Your response seems credible, and I'm glad you brought this to everyone's
attention. It's just one more reason I think we should get the hell out of
Afghanistan. But please don't submit misleading titles.

~~~
rdl
It was mostly that the stupid title "Contracting with the Enemy" is itself
relatively context-free when linked from outside, and figuring out a useful
title for the remaining characters is non-trivial. I hate sites that use
anything but bland and descriptive titles for articles; the subtitle can be
"cute" if they want it to be. Traditional print publications presume you're
reading their articles in context within their publication.

------
hostyle
Please don't link to sites that require you to sign-up to read their articles.
Yes, you can hack the DOM and remove the pop-over to make it readable, or hit
the escape key at the right time, but why bother?

~~~
nhebb
I didn't have any trouble reading it, but here is a link to the report the
article is based on [PDF]:

<http://www.sigar.mil/pdf/audits/2013-04-10audit-13-6.pdf>

~~~
hostyle
Thanks. I was able to read it after a quick refresh and escape key juggle, but
that I should have to do so is annoying.

For reference: this is what I get when i click on link (and every previous
link from HN to that site)

