Sometimes it takes me awhile to catch up on the news. Yesterday I finally read an article from the September 2010 issue of Service Contractor magazine that I'd been carrying for awhile in my Land's End canvas attaché bag.

The news: It concludes that more than 2,000 contractors have died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Contractor deaths now represent over 25 percent of all U.S. fatalities" in those conflicts, write Steven Schooner and Collin Swan of the George Washington University Law School. (I would bet that contractor KIAs are far higher, since there is no indication that non-U.S. deaths have been tracked with any fidelity.)

In Iraq in both 2009 and 2010, and in Afghanistan in 2010, contractors were running ahead of the U.S. military in losses, the article indicates.

Speaking of Iraq: Can you imagine the family conversations amongst Iraqis fleeing homeward from Cairo? "Let's go to Beirut, you said, it's nice. And then it wasn't so we moved to Egypt -- you said, it's stable, the same old guy has been in charge for 30 years. Where next, Mr. Smart Guy, Libya?!"

And speaking even more of Iraq, here, courtesy of Joel Wing and Best Defense commenter Stephen Donnelly, is everything you ever wanted to know about the map of Iraq, and more. The thing to remember is that, contrary to widespread belief, Iraq is not an invented country:

This myth, with accompanying imagery of British adviser Gertrude Bell and Winston Churchill dividing up the Middle East during an English Garden party (before jumping down Alice's rabbit hole for further entertainment), is incorrect and misleading.

The general political and administrative boundaries of modern Iraq conform with well-understood historical and physical boundaries with three exceptions: Kuwait, the waterways south of Basra, and the undefined desert regions: Kuwait, once part of the Ottoman Basra province, emerged as a separate "nation" under British tutelage; the desert boundaries, with few permanent inhabitants, remains a somewhat ill-defined place (despite paper demarcations); and, the waterways were further defined by much later treaties between adjacent Iran, but the "Thalweg," the center line of the waterways, continues to naturally shift against Iraq's interests.

With few exceptions (Kuwait and minor Iraq/Iran border areas), the settled Iraqi population has known where Iraq was, including Kurds (who were very aware of which part was Iraqi, Iranian and Turkish Kurdistan), on a generational basis, and those boundaries remain unchanged.

The U.S. Army/Flickr

 

FERAL JUNDI

5:19 PM ET

February 9, 2011

Actually....

The Department of Labor tracks contractor deaths through DBA. The latest figure for contractor deaths is 2,540 (09/01/2001 to 12/31/2010). The link provided also goes into injuries and the totals per company for KIA and WIA.

Although I would put the figure higher than this if we were to count local national subcontractors like the ones we see in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or if we were to count the contractors that died in defense of NGO's and business interests in war zones.

http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/dbaallemployer.htm

 

RUBBER DUCKY

5:36 PM ET

February 9, 2011

The math still sucks

We regularly see the number of US and coalition military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. For a more honest count, though, that figure should be plussed with the count of individuals in each place who are there under a DOD or Service contract.

To be clear: the US outsourced national defense to the AVF and the AVF in turn has outsourced a hefty chunk of that to contractors. Let's get the math right: what's our total footprint?

 

IRONCAPT

7:09 PM ET

February 9, 2011

Every Generation reinvents itself

With due respect to Joel Wing, (who runs the best Iraq blog out there) and Mr Donnelly, I'd offer this quote:

"If one can speak of an Iraqi state, it is not yet possible to speak of an Iraqi nation. Iraq's present borders incorporate a diverse medley of peoples who have not yet been welded into a single political community with a common sense of identity."

From Phoebe Marr's The Modern History of Iraq 1985.

Ms Marr backed off that some after the US invasion of Iraq, but the durablity of the national identity was and is kind of a big deal.

I agree that Iraqis see themselves first as Iraqis. But too often that is the beginning of a more disturbing sentence like "I'm an Iraq first, but I'm also a Shia, the rightful rulers of Iraq" or "I'm an Iraqi first, and as an Iraqi Sunni, I deserve to have the same rights and position (or maybe a slightly higher position) than any other Iraqi" or "I'm an Iraqi. I'm also a Kurd. Leave us alone. We'll be fine."

The question of the Iraqi national identity is a wonderful debate for Iraqi historians and poli sci geeks. The practical question is what do those labels mean to the young guys with the guns. A guy who was a teenager in the 90s would have a very different idea about what it means to be an Iraqi if was raised in Mosul vs Basra vs Ramadi.

I don't see Iraq breaking up into three parts like the doomsday scenarios Tom concluded Fiasco with. I think it will merely be a festering sore foreign policy problem and plagued by waves of sectarian violence for quite a while. I think have seen the bottom of the current wave. I'm hoping the next wave isn't as bad.

I guess that would make me an optimist.

 

JWING

4:00 AM ET

February 10, 2011

Would disagree with some of this

Sect and ethnicity is one driving force in Iraqi politics but only one. Federalism, and relations with neighboring countries are other driving forces. What does it mean to be a political Shiite for example? Are you a pro-Iranian member of the SIIC who supports a federal southern region for Shiites? Are you a Sadrist who supports a strong central government? There are also Sadrists who don't like Iran, and those who work with them. Are you a follower of Maliki and his State of Law list who likes his nationalist and strong central government position, or are you one of those that's trying to crackdown on alcohol in Baghdad and other more religions inspired policies? Are you a supporter of Fadhila that's an offshoot of the Sadrists and is basically just concerned about Basra? Are you one of the longstanding resident of Basra that wants to make it an autonomous region? Are you a supporter of one of the Special Groups like Hezbollah Iraq or the League of the Righteous that works with Iran and wants to fight against the Americans and wants an Iranian style clerical run government? Ethnosectarian identity then only explains a little bit of the state of present day Iraq.

 

STEVE358

1:12 PM ET

February 10, 2011

Are we talking about Iraq???

Where Iraqis are at least as bad as Europeans in hotly debating politics at any coffee shop or street corner. Two Shia next door neighbors with identical backgrounds and affiliations can still argue from dusk 'til dawn if its about politics (under any leaders).

An Iraqi asked why the "Sons of Iraq" were being renamed as "Concerned Local Citizens" (CLCs).
It made no sense to him since everybody in Iraq is concerned about its future (and especially the bad guys).

It is a daily debate by Iraqis.

 

LITTLEMANTATE

7:16 PM ET

February 9, 2011

"Fake" countries never tend to last, an argument in Iraq's favor

Public perception aside, which won't catch up for years (some people's ideas of Middle Eastern geopolitics are still informed by a collection of Iron Age texts) I'd say the heady days of academic Post-Colonialism are over. There has been a shift away from the idea that all, or even most, developing nations are the product of backroom deals in European capitols or by the Bolsheviks. The realization being that many of these new nations had a preexisting basis and, contra Edward Said, colonial administrators did have a realistic understanding of local history and culture which informed their decisions. For these new nations to have legitimacy and for their rulers, or administrators in the case of the Soviet stans, to have political capital there had to be something there to build on.

 

BELTWAYCYNIC

1:51 PM ET

February 11, 2011

Contractors Do Work ---who else is going to do it?

I'm halfway laughing at your comment because its so ridiculous, and halfway dismayed because I wonder how many people out there feel the same way.

Arvay, I'm taking a guess you've never been in a 21st century, U.S.-led military conflict, but I won't go there.

My point here is -- contractors do work, Because, there is Work to be done...so much Work that the military doesn't have enough manpower to do it All. So, without the contractors, there would be no one to do the extra work. How do you solve that problem? Do make everyone that works for ISAF and USF-I a military person? Or...do you just not let that work get done?

For instance, I will use the example of the Post Office and the Laundry. Do we train military people to work in the Post Office? If not -- how will the troops get their mail and care packages? Or are you suggesting they should go without care packages and letters from home? Will they be asked to wash their own clothes? Will we need to train troops on this?

I think over the past couple hundred years of U.S. Army history, there have been Postal worker MOS's but over the past 30 years or so the miltitary thought it would be better from a cost-benefit standpoint to outsourse that kind of work. Are you saying we should go back and reverse all that?

Another point -- interpreters....are you saying we should keep a huge cadre of linguists and terps in the miltary just in case we go to war in some place that requires those linguist skills? What if we go to war in the Congo? How many people in the military speak Lingala? What happens if suddenly we are working all over the Congo and we need hundreds of Lingala interpreters? Since some normal Congo citizens and 1st generation American Conglese want to go back help out their country according to your logic, they are mercenaries? Or, are we going to train a bunch of GI"s to speak Lingala overnight?

 

BELTWAYCYNIC

10:53 PM ET

February 11, 2011

Bring Back the Draft

However, somehow we managed to fight major wars without contractors on this scale. Maybe we need to face up to what these wars actually cost, rather than trying to cut corners and get lots of companies involved in the bonanza of supplying these temps to the military.

Arvay,

I don't disagree with you on this point. Which, is why I think we should bring back the draft. Maybe then, there would be more debate before getting involved in these wars where "national security" is at stake. In the meantime, though, it is what it is....I don't think you can fault the special advisors, terps or the laundry guy for being there. If there was a military MOS that accepted them, maybe they'd join up. You don't fault the military for being there -- yet its completely voluntary. Are you saying that the 18-yr old infantry guy is more patriotic than the 19 year old that is doing his laundry and delivering his mail? Or the 55-year old that is too old for the Army but wants to help the U.S. effort? Or are you saying the effort isn't worth it in the first place? Which would make every enlistee after 9/11 at fault for being there in the first place?

 

BEINGTHERE

2:44 AM ET

February 14, 2011

No draft necessary - Many military wonks love what they do

Seems there are plenty of volunteers to cover our obscenely expensive but small wars. Men and women volunteer for this stuff. Let them. Wars are wrong, and the draft is wrong. Having a strong military is only wise, but there's very little reason for the U.S. to have sponsored the Iraq War and even less reason for our remaining in Afghanistan.

People who join the military and pursue it as a career do it for various reasons, and serving their country is probably close to the bottom of the list. They like the drama and "rush" of the very thought of war and strategy, and they like being away from home-front responsibilities.

 

Thomas E. Ricks covered the U.S. military for the Washington Post from 2000 through 2008.

Read More