Privatization of our military forces has some big risks

WASHINGTON DC. – The American military is no longer simply a branch of government, it now goes to war as a complex of public agencies and private companies. As a result, the substantial expansion of the U.S. presence in the war in Afghanistan will be accompanied by an increase of up to 56,000 contractors, joining the over 100,000 already in the country.

A recent study by the Congressional Research Service said that 69 percent of US defense personnel in Afghanistan were actually from the private sector, which “apparently represented the highest recorded percentage of contractors used by the Defense Department in any conflict in the history of the United States.”

There is a tendency to portray the privatization of public services as a panacea, capable of introducing cost savings and increases in quality. However, the experience across many different sectors – not just military contracting and post-conflict reconstruction – is mixed. Privatization does not deliver on all its promises and there are significant potential pitfalls in using the private sector for public ends.

This week I attended a special hearing on Afghanistan contracting of the Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, chaired by Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).

A former Jackson County executive, Missouri State Auditor and now a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCaskill has become concerned about the abuses of government contracting in conflict zones.

In her opening statement, she spoke of visiting Iraq and Kuwait and being shocked by the way “contracting went wild.” The lack of proper oversight and waste of tax dollars were, she said, “seared into my harddrive.”

“In Iraq we saw how poor contract management, including contractors overseeing contractors; poor coordination of interagency efforts; continual personnel turnover; and the challenges of contracting in a war zone resulted in projects the Iraqis didn’t want or couldn’t use, shoddy construction, and billions upon billions of dollars in waste,” said McCaskill.

From the podium she claimed she was determined to make sure that the “billions of dollars that went up in smoke in Iraq” doesn’t happen again in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, federal auditors have reportedly identified almost a billion dollars wasteful spending in Afghanistan.

But wasted money is not the only problem. In my study of landmine clearance contracting in Afghanistan, as well as Bosnia and Sudan, I found that the drive to lower costs made commercial companies more likely to cut corners and commit dangerous safety violations than many nonprofit and governmental organizations.

Multiple journalistic and academic accounts have shown how many private security companies engaged in highly irresponsible behavior in Iraq and Afghanistan, sullying America’s reputation and failing to treat local people with respect and dignity.

In McCaskill’s hearing, several government representatives claimed that contract oversight is improving and becoming more thorough. This is welcome news. However, one cannot forget that, ultimately, government agencies and companies work for different people.

Contractors work for the private gain of their companies’ owners and shareholders. This is a different purpose than the public good that government agencies, accountable to the electorate, are called upon to uphold. To pretend that this would have no impact on the results of contracting is naive.

While privatization is not inherently a bad thing, it will not solve every problem. Indeed, in places like Afghanistan, where there is little rule of law, a pervasive political economy of corruption and it is far away from American voters, there is considerable potential for abuse.

Matthew Bolton’s new book, Foreign Aid and Landmine Clearance, examines contracting of foreign aid for demining in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Sudan, will be released later this month. Learn more at us.macmillan.com/foreignaidandlandmineclearance