Follow us on social

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

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.


Asia-Pacific
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less
On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants
Top Photo Credit: (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants

Europe

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there "for however long it takes" has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

keep readingShow less

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.