Friday, July 16, 2010

US Taxpayers funding Enemies more than Opium?

[pic source]

Are taxpaying, working Americans being mugged everyday by the US Government, a Government who does not represent them for their taxation? Is the US Government run by the organized criminals who profit from war, drug smuggling, committing bankster corporate fraud, and by keeping the American public misinformed and fearing “Terror”?

The below found [here]

Extortion and Corruption Along the U.S. Supply Chain in Afghanistan

Letter of Transmittal

To the Members of the Subcommittee:

Today I present to you a report entitled, Warlord, Inc.: Extortion and Corruption Along the U.S. Supply Chain in Afghanistan, which has been prepared by the Majority staff of the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

After a six-month investigation, the report exposes the circumstances surrounding the Department of Defense’s outsourcing of security on the supply chain in Afghanistan to questionable providers, including warlords.

The findings of this report range from sobering to shocking. In short, the Department of Defense designed a contract that put responsibility for the security of vital U.S. supplies on contractors and their unaccountable security providers. This arrangement has fueled a vast protection racket run by a shadowy network of warlords, strongmen, commanders, corrupt Afghan officials, and perhaps others. Not only does the system run afoul of the Department’s own rules and regulations mandated by Congress, it also appears to risk undermining the U.S. strategy for achieving its goals in Afghanistan.

To be sure, Afghanistan presents an extremely difficult environment for military operations, logistics, and business practices. Nevertheless, the evidence indicates that little attention was given to the cost-benefit analysis of allowing the system to continue in a fashion that injected a good portion of a $2.16 billion contract’s resources into a corruptive environment. The ‘fog of war’ still requires a direct line of sight on contractors.

This report is confined to the facts pertaining to the Host Nation Trucking contracts, and in that limited sphere there are constructive changes that can be made to the U.S. supply chain in Afghanistan to improve contracting integrity while mitigating corrupting influences. This report offers some realistic recommendations to serve as a catalyst for what appears to be a much-needed reconsideration of policy.

However, the Department, the Administration, and Congress will have to determine if the information presented here, along with other information and developments, will require reconsideration of the overall strategic approach to our mission in Afghanistan. The critical new information contained in the report will inform the Subcommittee and Congress as a whole as it formulates and oversees an Afghanistan policy that must serve vital U.S. interests. In turn, the Department of Defense would be well served to take a hard look at this report and initiate prompt remedial action.

John F. Tierney Signature


Executive Summary

We have to do a better job in the international side to coordinate our aid, to get more accountability for what we spend in Afghanistan. But much of the corruption is fueled by money that has poured into that country over the last eight years. And it is corruption at every step along the way, not just in Kabul.

You know, when we are so dependent upon long supply lines, as in Afghanistan, where everything has to be imported, it’s much more difficult than it was in Iraq, where we had Kuwait as a staging ground to go into Iraq. You offload a ship in Karachi and by the time whatever it is – you know, muffins for our soldiers’ breakfasts or anti-IED equipment – gets to where we’re headed, it goes through a lot of hands. And one of the major sources of funding for the Taliban is the protection money.

– Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
December 3, 2009

In Afghanistan, the U.S. military faces one of the most complicated and difficult supply chains in the history of warfare. The task of feeding, fueling, and arming American troops at over 200 forward operating bases and combat outposts sprinkled across a difficult and hostile terrain with only minimal road infrastructure is nothing short of herculean. In order to accomplish this mission, the Department of Defense employs a hitherto unprecedented logistics model: responsibility for the supply chain is almost entirely outsourced to local truckers and Afghan private security providers.

The principal contract supporting the U.S. supply chain in Afghanistan is called Host Nation Trucking, a $2.16 billion contract split among eight Afghan, American, and Middle Eastern companies. Although there are other supply chain contracts, the HNT contract provides trucking for over 70 percent of the total goods and materiel distributed to U.S. troops in the field, roughly 6,000 to 8,000 truck missions per month. The trucks carry food, supplies, fuel, ammunition, and even Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles (MRAPs).

The crucial component of the HNT contract is that the prime contractors are responsible for the security of the cargo that they carry. Most of the prime contractors and their trucking subcontractors hire local Afghan security providers for armed protection of the trucking convoys. Transporting valuable and sensitive supplies in highly remote and insecure locations requires extraordinary levels of security. A typical convoy of 300 supply trucks going from Kabul to Kandahar, for example, will travel with 400 to 500 guards in dozens of trucks armed with heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs).

The private security companies that protect the convoys are frequently involved in armed conflict with alleged insurgents, rival security providers, and other criminal elements. The security providers report having lost hundreds of men over the course of the last year alone, though the veracity of these reports is difficult to judge. Many of the firefights purportedly last for hours and involve significant firepower and frequent civilian casualties. Indeed, in an interview with the Subcommittee staff, the leading convoy security commander in Afghanistan said that he spent $1.5 million on ammunition per month.

From one perspective, the HNT contract works quite well: the HNT providers supply almost all U.S. forward operating bases and combat outposts across a difficult and hostile terrain while only rarely needing the assistance of U.S. troops. Nearly all of the risk on the supply chain is borne by contractors, their local Afghan truck drivers, and the private security companies that defend them. During the Soviet Union’s occupation of Afghanistan (1979-1989), by contrast, its army devoted a substantial portion of its total force structure to defending its supply chain. The HNT contract allows the United States to dedicate a greater proportion of its troops to other counterinsurgency priorities instead of logistics.

But outsourcing the supply chain in Afghanistan to contractors has also had significant unintended consequences. The HNT contract fuels warlordism, extortion, and corruption, and it may be a significant source of funding for insurgents. In other words, the logistics contract has an outsized strategic impact on U.S. objectives in Afghanistan.

The Department of Defense has been largely blind to the potential strategic consequences of its supply chain contingency contracting. U.S. military logisticians have little visibility into what happens to their trucks on the road and virtually no understanding of how security is actually provided. When HNT contractors self-reported to the military that they were being extorted by warlords for protection payments for safe passage and that these payments were “funding the insurgency,” they were largely met with indifference and inaction.

Specifically, the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs Majority staff makes the following findings:

1. Assume Direct Contractual Responsibility for Supply Chain Security Providers. If the United States is going to use small armies of private security contractors to defend its massive supply chain in a war zone, the Department of Defense must take direct responsibility for those contractors to ensure robust oversight. Trucking companies are wholly incapable of overseeing this scale of security operations. The U.S. government needs to have a direct line of authority and accountability over the private security companies that guard the supply chain.

2. Review Counterinsurgency Consequences of the HNT Contract. The Department of Defense needs to conduct a top-to-bottom evaluation of the secondary effects of the HNT contract that includes an analysis of corruption, Afghan politics and power dynamics, military utility, and economic effects.

3. Consider the Role of Afghan National Security Forces in Highway Security. In the future, Afghan security forces will have a role to play in road security. Proposals to reform the convoy security scheme ought to take a medium- to long-term view of the role of Afghan security forces, while developing credible security alternatives that address the immediate U.S. military logistics needs.

4. Inventory Actual Trucking Capacity Available to the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense should conduct a survey of the available trucking capacity in Afghanistan under the HNT contract to ensure that its needs will be met with the additional forces under orders to deploy to Afghanistan.

5. Draft Contracts to Ensure Transparency of Subcontractors. Contracts between the Department of Defense and its trucking and/or security prime contractors need to include provisions that ensure a line of sight, and accountability, between the Department and the relevant subcontractors. Where Department of Defense regulations already require such provisions, the Department needs to enforce them.

6. Oversee Contracts to Ensure Contract Transparency and Performance. The Department of Defense needs to provide the personnel and resources required to manage and oversee its trucking and security contracts in Afghanistan. Contracts of this magnitude and of this consequence require travel ‘outside the wire.’ For convoys, that means having the force protection resources necessary for mobility of military logistics personnel to conduct periodic unannounced inspections and ride-alongs.

7. Analyze Effect of Coalition Contracting on Afghan Corruption. The national security components of the U.S. government, including the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Department of Justice, and the intelligence community, need to systematically track and analyze the effects of U.S., NATO, and other international contracting on corruption in Afghanistan.


Letter From Chairman Tierney, Methodology, and Contents

Executive Summary

Background [PDF]

Finding 1:
Security for the U.S. Supply Chain is Principally Provided by Warlords [PDF]

Finding 2:
The Highway Warlords Run a Protection Racket [PDF]

Finding 3:
Protection Payments for Safe Passage Are a Significant Potential Source of Funding for the Taliban [PDF]

Finding 4:
Unaccountable Supply Chain Security Contractors Fuel Corruption [PDF]

Finding 5:
Unaccountable Supply Chain Security Contractors Undermine U.S. Counterinsurgency Strategy [PDF]

Finding 6:
The Department of Defense Lacks Effective Oversight of Its Supply Chain and Private Security Contractors in Afghanistan [PDF]

Finding 7:
HNT Contractors Warned the Department of Defense About Protection Payments for Safe Passage to No Avail [PDF]

Recommendations [PDF]

Endnotes [PDF]


Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs

John F. Tierney, Chair
Jeff Flake, Ranking Member
Carolyn Maloney
Patrick Kennedy
Chris Van Hollen
Paul Hodes
Chris Murphy
Peter Welch
Bill Foster
Steve Driehaus
Stephen Lynch
Mike Quigley
Judy Chu
Dan Burton
John Mica
John J. Duncan
Michael Turner
Lynn Westmoreland
Patrick McHenry
Jim Jordan
Jeff Fortenberry
Blaine Luetkemeyer


I found a link to all of the above from a Ralph Lopez article on [found here]


[click here] for:

Disposing of annoying liberty and warring for profit



I live in Vermont. I'm asking US Congressman Peter Welch's staff to forward this post to him, asking for his response to this and to the [use of depleted Uranium rounds in war]. Please email me.

This is the text, I typed into his email form:

Mr. Welch,
As a constituent, I have a request.

I came across official documents that I assume you have read, called, “Warlord, Inc.” about how US taxpayer dollars are used to pay Taliban in Afghanistan “Protection Money”. If this is the case, shouldn’t the plug be pulled on all the money being stolen from taxpayers for the farce going on in Afghanistan and Iraq?

As a constituent, I would like to propose legislation banning all use of radioactive depleted uranium as munitions. It isn’t safe for our troops to use and for the billion years or so the stuff isn’t safe on the ground, it should also be a war crime to use.

I would like ten minutes of your time here in Vermont. I would like to discuss how there isn’t access for the average person to initiate legal investigations, to submit evidence, to safely redress grievances to elected officials, feel safe exercising free speech rights, nor to have access to justice in courts.

I am posting the text of this email to you on the internet, as I feel these issues are that important. I also have links that further explain my points. Please email me about how we can further discuss these issues.

Thank you, Steven G. Erickson

Vermont US Congressman Peter Welch
[source of photo]


[click here] for:

United States Invades Costa Rica?


2 links I hope Congress Welch and/or is staff review are:

To share this post, click white envelope below


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not that I'm a big fan of Clinton, but it was the Mellon descendant, Richard Mellon Scaife, who personally funded the "bimbo" investigations of Clinton in Arkansas, just to smear his image, leading to the $40 million tax-dollar Clinton investigation by Ken Starr.

For comparison, investigating 9-11 Ground Zero was only allocated $600,000, so 66 times more was spent on Monica than Sept 11. Clinton really WAS a criminal in other ways, but Bimbogate was an embarrassment to our whole country. It made us look like a bunch of 16th Century superstitious nutcases.

Friday, July 16, 2010 8:58:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

View My Stats