Report: Trump Administration Considering Privatizing Some U.S. War Efforts In Afghanistan
- 7 years ago
The Trump administration is reportedly considering hiring private contractors to take over much of the U.S.’s fight in Afghanistan.
The Trump administration is reportedly considering hiring private contractors to take over much of the U.S.’s fight in Afghanistan.
As Erik Prince, one of the security firms involved, indicated to USA Today, his proposal involves “5,500 private contractors, primarily former Special Operations troops, [to] advise Afghan combat forces. The plan also includes a 90-plane private air force that would provide air support...”
In addition to offering a new approach to the drawn-out war, Prince has suggested his plan could save the government money; it has been estimated to cost under $10 billion a year compared to the $40 billion-plus allocated in the Pentagon budget.
The option comes at a time when President Trump is said to be increasingly frustrated about the lack of progress being made in the Afghan conflict which has been going on for nearly 16 years and has been responsible for thousands of deaths and more than $700 billion in spending.
According to NBC News, he told officials last month, “We aren't winning. We are losing.”
Despite a general consensus agreeing with the president’s assessment of the fight against the Taliban, the administration is reportedly divided on the way to move forward.
One group, reportedly consisting of chief strategist Steve Bannon and senior adviser Jared Kushner, appears to be open to the possibility of hiring outside firms to take over; in fact, the New York Times says the pair requested proposals from Prince’s firm Blackwater Worldwide and another notable military contractor, DynCorp International.
Meanwhile, the other group is said to include Trump’s military officials, national security adviser Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster and defense secretary Jim Mattis--the latter of whom reportedly does not support the use of external help in Afghanistan.
Critics have also pointed out that consulting with private companies about a way forward could present conflicts of interest since the people involved would likely benefit financially if a deal is mad
The Trump administration is reportedly considering hiring private contractors to take over much of the U.S.’s fight in Afghanistan.
As Erik Prince, one of the security firms involved, indicated to USA Today, his proposal involves “5,500 private contractors, primarily former Special Operations troops, [to] advise Afghan combat forces. The plan also includes a 90-plane private air force that would provide air support...”
In addition to offering a new approach to the drawn-out war, Prince has suggested his plan could save the government money; it has been estimated to cost under $10 billion a year compared to the $40 billion-plus allocated in the Pentagon budget.
The option comes at a time when President Trump is said to be increasingly frustrated about the lack of progress being made in the Afghan conflict which has been going on for nearly 16 years and has been responsible for thousands of deaths and more than $700 billion in spending.
According to NBC News, he told officials last month, “We aren't winning. We are losing.”
Despite a general consensus agreeing with the president’s assessment of the fight against the Taliban, the administration is reportedly divided on the way to move forward.
One group, reportedly consisting of chief strategist Steve Bannon and senior adviser Jared Kushner, appears to be open to the possibility of hiring outside firms to take over; in fact, the New York Times says the pair requested proposals from Prince’s firm Blackwater Worldwide and another notable military contractor, DynCorp International.
Meanwhile, the other group is said to include Trump’s military officials, national security adviser Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster and defense secretary Jim Mattis--the latter of whom reportedly does not support the use of external help in Afghanistan.
Critics have also pointed out that consulting with private companies about a way forward could present conflicts of interest since the people involved would likely benefit financially if a deal is mad