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
Dan Caine
Top photo credit: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine conduct a press briefing on Operation Epic Fury at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

Did Caine just announce the Morgenthau option for Iran?

QiOSK

Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation of American war aims in Iran is remarkable not because it is bellicose, but because it is strategically incoherent.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not describe a limited campaign to suppress missile fire, blunt Iran’s naval threat, or even impose a severe but bounded setback on Tehran’s coercive instruments. He described a campaign against Iran’s “military and industrial base” designed to prevent the regime from attacking Americans, U.S. interests, and regional partners “for years to come.” In an earlier briefing he put the objective similarly: to prevent Iran from projecting power outside its borders. Rather than the language of a discrete coercive operation, this describes a war against a state’s capacity to regenerate power.

keep readingShow less
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

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.