America's Big Businesses That Made the Most Money from the War in Afghanistan

“From 2001, Dyncorp International has stood shoulder to shoulder with our government clients and their allies in Afghanistan. We provide a wide range of critical support to our clients, ”said a company spokesperson in response to a BBC Mundo query about its activities in Afghanistan.

He added that because it is a private company they do not reveal the details of their contracts or their finances.

Fluor, a Texas-based corporation, was in charge of the construction of US military bases in southern Afghanistan.

According to the company on its website, also came to operate 76 Forward Operating Bases in that country, supporting more than 100. 000 soldiers and serving more than 191. 03 meals per day.

In total, Fluo r Corporation received contracts for US $ 13. 500 million, of which US $ 11. 600 million correspond to LOGCAP contracts, according to Peltier calculations.

BBC Mundo sent a request to Fluor to inquire about its activities during the war in Afghanistan, but at At the time of publishing this note, we had not received a response.

Kellogg Brown Root (KBR) , meanwhile, has been in charge of engineering and logistics work to support US troops by providing them with lodging, food and other basic services.

This company was also in charge of providing ground support to NATO air operations at different airports in Afghanistan, which included all kinds of tasks: from the maintenance of the runways to the service of the aircraft and aeronautical communications management.

According to Peltier estimates, KBR received contracts from the Pentagon in the amount of US $ 3. 600 million.

“KBR has supported the United States Armed Forces in Afghanistan since 2002 until 2010 through a competitive contract within the Logistics Increase Program with Civilian Personnel, which we won in December 2001 “, a spokesperson for that company told BBC Mundo.

” Through that program , we provide support in 82 different bases of the United States Army with services such as food, laundry, electricity, sanitation and maintenance. In July 2009, the Army awarded continuation contracts under this program to Dyncorp and Fluor, which jointly took over the services provided by KBR. KBR services terminated in September 2009 ”, he added.

The fourth company with the highest turnover was Raytheon , one of the largest aerospace and defense companies in the United States, which won contracts for US $ 2. 500 millions to provide services in Afghanistan.

Raytheon developed some technologies used in the Osprey V aircraft – 22, manufactured by Boeing and widely used in Afghanistan.

One of his most recent assignments was training the Force Afghan Air, for which it obtained a contract for US $ 145 million in 2017.

Aegis LLC , a security and intelligence company Based in Virginia, it was the fifth highest-grossing company in Afghanistan, where it reached contracts for US $ 1. 200 millions.

Among his work stands out having been in charge of providing security services for the United States embassy in Kabul.

BBC Mundo contacted Aegis to ask them about their activities in Afghanistan, but at the time of publishing this note had not responded.

And the defense companies?

The experts consulted by BBC Mundo agree that Major US defense contractors such as Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman were major beneficiaries of the war in Afghanistan.

“ They made a ton of money with the war “, says Linda Bilmes.

Without However, it is difficult to determine how much money they actually billed because their contracts were not directly linked to operations in Afghanistan.

“They all got contracts to make things in the United States that were used in Afghanistan, but are not reported as part of the expenses in that country, ”says Peltier.

A report published this week by the project Cost of War features these five companies as major beneficiaries of US military spending since 10 – S.

“Between fiscal years 2001 – 2020 only these five companies shared about US $ 2.1 billion in Pentagon contracts (calculated in dollars of 2021 ”, says the report.

BBC Mundo sent inquiries to these five companies about how the war in Afghanistan had affected their businesses and contracts.

General Dynamics declined to comment, while the others had not responded to the request at the time of publication.

Peltier uses the case of Raytheon as an example and points out that that company made much more money than US $ 2. 500 millions indicated above, since that amount corresponds only to the contracts obtained to be executed directly in Afghanistan.

“If Raytheon got a contract for a weapons or communications system and they built it in the United States and then it was used in Afghanistan, that is not reflected in the database as a contract related to that country ”, he indicates.

This aerospace technology company offers a wide range of weapons, navigation, communications, among others, which in many cases have been developed to respond to the specific needs of the Armed Forces and that are integrated into the military equipment used in Afghanistan.

Thus, for example, Raytheon is responsible for the radar and vision system nighttime using new versions of Osprey V – 22, a multi-role aircraft with vertical take-off capability developed by Boeing and widely used in Afghanistan.

Boeing is also the manufacturer of the F-fighter jets – 15 and F – 18 which, as explained by Linda Bilmes, were the “workhorses” of the US forces in Afghanistan.

But Boeing does not appear on the list of major contractors, and neither does Lockheed Martin , another large defense company, manufacturer of Blackhawk helicopters, which were used extensively in the Asian country.

“In the case of General Dynamics , they manufactured the largest part of light armored vehicles and they did a lot of work related to cybersecurity in Afghanistan ”, says Bilmes.

The expert explains that these large defense companies they made a lot of money with a lot of things that cannot be directly linked to the war that just ended.

“Let’s say, for example, that you sold an airplane. It could have been used in Afghanistan, but it could also have been used for training in Kansas, “he says.

” These are things that are manufactured under long-term contracts and it turns out that because we were involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, these companies did very well during these 20 years of war , but we can’t attribute that specifically to operations in Afghanistan, ”he says.

In response to a query From BBC Mundo, Pentagon spokeswoman Jessica Maxwell confirmed the difficulties in determining how much money these five large defense contractors obtained for their equipment and services used in Afghanistan.

“ It is impossible to obtain such an estimate . The Department of Defense purchases a wide variety of products and services from these companies, but these are not purchased ‘just for’ Afghanistan. We buy them for operations around the world. Some were used in Afghanistan: some for a short time or intermittently (like transport planes) and others for longer periods, ”he noted.

Monopolies and exorbitant prices

Bilmes points out that during the war in Afghanistan, contractors had the upper hand when setting prices for their services.

“Many of these contracts were awarded without competition or with very little competition . This is because in some cases the supplier was a monopoly, but also because there were not many companies capable of doing the work that was needed. Thus, they could ask for almost the price they wanted ”, he indicates.

He assures that in many cases, companies increased prices, arguing the deterioration of the security situation and the resulting difficulties in reaching the places where services had to be provided.

Asked about the way in which contracts were awarded during the war in Afghanistan, the Pentagon spokeswoman pointed out that, although they do not have an estimate on the related contracts with Afghanistan, the Pentagon “normally hires competitively around 95% of its contracting operations and around 50% from dollars [usados] for contracts. ”

“The policy of the Department of Defense is to recruit as competitively as possible. Although most of the weapon systems were tendered during the early stages of their development, it is true that in most cases, there is a single source of production n ”, he added.

Bilmes points out that sometimes there was enormous usury, but other times it was simple corruption.

“There was the case in which I painted a building and charged 20 times the cost, which was usury. There was also a level of corruption where you pocketed money and didn’t paint the building. And then there was what I call ‘ghost budget’ that happened when there was nothing to paint and you just kept the money, ”he says.

“That was the level we were at in Afghanistan, particularly with some local contractors “, Point.

Bilmes states that there were also many subcontractors, but that the information about how much money they charged is not available, so it is difficult to keep track of the money.

In this regard, the Pentagon spokeswoman assures BBC Mundo that federal laws and regulations contain “ a robust system of protections to guarantee prices fair and reasonable for goods and services, even in processes in which there is only one supplier ”.

“Specifically, the Law of Accurate Data on Costs or Prices – previously known as the Law of Truthfulness in Negotiations (TINA) – requires that non-commercial contractors that are sole suppliers provide up-to-date, accurate and complete data on costs and prices to allow the government to negotiate fair and reasonable prices. ”

Regarding allegations of alleged corruption, Maxwell indicates that any evidence of fraud, abuse, Usury or corruption should be reported to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense for investigation.

The Inspector General’s office has reported that between 2008 and 2017, the United States lost about US $ to misuse or fraud 15. 500 millions earmarked for efforts reconstruction in Afghanistan, as reported The New York Times .

In any case, for Bilmes the war did not benefit a single type of company but to a variety of these which include defense companies, but also logistics companies, construction companies and fuel suppliers, as well as those specialized that offered services or goods that no one else could provide such as pieces or critical software programs for the military operation in Afghanistan.

“Actually, there were many companies that did very well with this,” he concludes.

Now you can receive notifications from BBC Mundo. Download the new version of our app and activate them so as not to miss our best content.

• Already do you know our YouTube channel? Subscribe!