"New" Afghan Army costing eight times Afghanistan's annual spending

That little nugget was an aside in a recent New York Times story about contractors in Afghanistan.

Contractors. Have to admit I didn't get the "contractor" thing at the beginning. First time contractors got really big news was when those four guys were hung from the bridge in Falluja.

What the hell, I thought. How barbaric! Why would you want to hang contractors? I know over the years there's been the odd contractor I've had to get a bit pissy with, but hang them from bridges?

Small claims court, maybe. Hanging? No!

Only slowly did I come to the realization that a "contractor" is not a contractor in the conventional sense in which we've understood that word right up until the 21st century.

I thought contractors were electricians and plumbers and framers and drywall guys. Why are they hanging drywall guys from a bridge in Falluja?
Didn't make any sense.

Now I get it of course. "Contractors" is weasel-speak for "mercenaries". Apparently there is a sound business model favoring the use of mercenaries as opposed to your standard US Army troops.

The key word is "business". America is in the process of out-sourcing war to the private sector. And why not? Everybody knows the private sector is more efficient.

According to the Times, there are now more "contractors" in Afghanistan than there are US troops. Every one of them is a profit center. Every one of them is exempt from the rule of law and the laws of war.

And when they die, hey, no big deal, they don't even count as a casualty of war! Talk about a win-win!

Anyway, our private mercenary armies are neck deep in training this new Afghan Army. Training and maintaining this army is costing twelve billion dollars a year.

According to the NYT, every penny of that comes from the American taxpayer.

Something to think about the next time you read a story about Afghan soldiers turning their guns on their American trainers.