Forgotten Victims of War…Contractors

Thursday, May 12, 2011
L-3 employee James McLaughlin Jr., 55, was shot to death by an Afghan pilot on April 27
When the human price of fighting the Iraq and Afghanistan wars has come up over the past decade, it’s been the death toll of American soldiers that media stories have focused on. But this choice has ignored the fact that thousands of defense contractors also have given their lives in support of the U.S. military missions in both countries.
 
According to a new academic paper by Steven L. Schooner, a professor at George Washington University Law School, and law student Collin D. Swan, 2,300 contractors were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2001 through the first quarter of 2011 (1,537 in Iraq; 763 in Afghanistan). Another 51,031 contractors were wounded during this time.
 
Over the course of 10 years of war, contractor deaths have represented about 27% of U.S. fatalities. But this rate has climbed in recent years. From 2008 through 2010, the percentage was 40%, and during the first quarter of 2011, contractors represented 45% of all fatalities.
 
In Iraq, the situation is even more extreme: since 2009, more contractors have died than soldiers.
 
Overall, employees of L-3 Communications lead the list with 366 deaths, followed by The Supreme Group at 222 and Service Employees International with 125.
 
In FY 2010 the U.S. government paid 199,783 contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of these, 23.5% (46,982) were Americans. The rest were Iraqi and Afghani citizens or nationals of other countries.
-Noel Brinkerhoff, David Wallechinsky
 
The Uncounted Contractor Casualties (by David Isenberg, PMSC Observer)
Dead Contractors: The Un-Examined Effect of Surrogates on the Public’s Casualty Sensitivity (by Steven L. Schooner and Collin D. Swan, George Washington University Law School) (pdf)
Attack in Kabul Worst to Hit Air Force in 15 Years (by Noel Brinkerhoff and David Wallechinsky, AllGov)

Comments

Mark M 13 years ago
contractor is a weak euphemism for mercenary......... i would suggest you look up the term mercenary and have yourself in a more informed position isabelle. "a mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict, who is not a national or a party to the conflict, and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that party" so, now we have a clearer understanding maybe you could highlight which side the security contractors have been 'fighting' for? answer......... none. security contractors are not employed to fight for a side, they do however protect themselves and their principals with force when at risk of or under attack.
Isabelle5666 13 years ago
i am not a heartless freak. every man in my family who was physically capable volunteered for official u.s. military service, a fact i am very proud of. after scanning their paper, i feel compelled to remind steven l. schooner & collin d. swan of the following: 1 - contractor is a weak euphemism for mercenary. 2 - mercenaries are in it for the money. 3 - depending on the contract, most mercenaries make more in a month than a stand-up g.i. makes in a year. 4 - unlike recent boot camp graduates, mercenaries have prior experience. they go in with their eyes wide open. 5 - when a mercenary's contract is over, he'll often take a couple of months off & then go looking for a new contract, someplace. these guys are not patriots, they are professionals. going, going, gone to the highest bidder. 6 - their numbers are underreported on purpose: the government wants to hide the cost of mercenaries and hide the fact that they *are* paid so much more than regular military. uncle sam doesn't want us to know exactly how many sets of boots we have on the ground or how many countries we are rally messing about in. most people who can read or listen to a radio know all of the above. that's why we don't think too much about the mercs. it's mercs or the reinstating the draft. if the draft were to be reinstated, people of all ages would, once again take to the streets in riot & protest. the government doesn't want that, but they do want to continue their empire building spree. the tone of misters schooner & swan's paper suggests that we should weep at the death of men who kill for a living by choice. if you're going to count their death rate, count them a casualties among paid assassins.

Leave a comment