Follow us on social

google cta
Contractors

The military signed contracts for Afghanistan well into 2023. That's their problem.

According a new report private companies could sue if the U.S. pulled troops out May 1.

Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

This is clearly the week that every argument against getting U.S. troops out of Afghanistan by May 1 is being thrown up — to borrow a line from Robin Wright — like spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks.

The latest, this little nugget highlighted by CNN’s Oren Liebermann this morning, which suggests Washington will be sued by private companies that have contracts with the U.S. government if they cannot continue operating in Afghanistan through 2022 and 2023. In fact, according to Liebermann, some 18 contracts totaling $931 million dollars were signed after the Doha Agreement in 2020 that outlined the U.S. departure this spring.

Much of the contract work involves private security, weapons transfers, training, and information technology. According to the report, there are at least 18,000 private contractors working on behalf of Uncle Sam in Afghanistan right now — including 6,350 Americans (that’s twice the size of the estimated 3,500 US troops there now).

The contracts were signed even as troops were drawing down under President Trump’s demands. Either one hand wasn’t watching the other, or the military ecosystem truly didn’t think that the May 1 deadline would happen. Business as usual in the military industrial complex.

None of this is particularly surprising. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan elevated the private contractor to a level in which the U.S. military was no longer capable of waging operations overseas without them. At the peak of these wars in 2009, there were some 242,000 U.S. contractors, nearly a one-to-one match with active duty 280,000 military personnel, overseas. We have heard much about the private security industry (like Blackwater) that metastasized during this period, but Washington became reliant on huge suppliers like Halliburton and KBR and a galaxy of sub-contractors for everything from building and maintaining forward operating bases, to training foreign forces, waste disposal, supplying food, and IT networking. 

Contractors soon found themselves in the driver’s seat and waste, fraud, and abuse were along for the ride. Turns out the private sector could take advantage when the military was no longer capable of doing even the most fundamental things on its own. And believe me, the taxpayers paid. And, according to the SIGAR reports that everyone seems to ignore, it’s still happening. The fact that Afghanistan has one of the worst corruption problems on earth doesn’t help: last year, SIGAR reported that the U.S. lost some $19 billion to fraud and abuse in Afghanistan since 2002, mostly likely through local contractors subbing with American companies.

Now the U.S. government is at risk of litigation if it abides by the agreement with the Taliban and withdraws its forces — and contractors — from the country. According to SIGAR John Spoko, the Afghan government now relies on these contractors for building, training and security. Bringing them all home would hurt Afghanistan security forces and the state even more than our troops leaving would. Let them stay and ink new deals with President Ghani then. Those who don’t should start preparing to leave. As the military should be.


google cta
Asia-Pacific
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.