The Leavenworth Way of War

History Discussion at CGSC

H102: Afghanistan: A Contractor Solution

In a recent article Eric Prince (posted in the BB H100 folder), former CEO of Blackwater, proposed using Contractors as an alternative to US military forces to provide expert advice and training to the Afghan military. He asserts that this COA will substantially reduce the cost in both dollars and human resources of pursuing US policy in the region. He also maintains it will be effective.  Is this a viable COA? Do the downsides of mercenaries discussed in H102 apply to the use of contractors in the way described by Prince? Why do you think the idea is not acceptable to the US military and the US Government?


September 7, 2017 - Posted by | Uncategorized

1 Comment »

  1. Eric Prince is trying to reason that there is a difference between mercenaries and contractors. His argument seems to be that his army of contractors – expressly identified as former military service members – would not be “making weapons decisions,” serving more as mentors to the Afghan Army. I do not think this is a viable COA for a number of reasons; it could magnify the impression that the Afghan Army is being propped up by the U.S., it knowingly places his contractors in positions where they will likely have to defend themselves (contractor vs. mercenary argument), thereby bringing them into the fight. Finally, as MG Smeadly Butler pointed out, it continues an ugly tradition of a small number of people making money off of war, to the expense of the American people.

    Comment by Andrew Scott | September 7, 2017

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: