PMC / Mercenaries in Iraq (catch all)

[2183]

The LA Times did an interesting story yesterday (28 Jan) on TCNs from Latin America who are making good money as security contractors in Iraq. http://http://ebird.afis.mil/ebfiles/e20080128576144.html[/URL]

--Bill Latham

[CT Medic]

DISCLAIMER - I AM NOT DEFENDING SOC NOR THE USE OF TCNS

I have been following this thread as I have first hand experience working with the TCNs in question as well as the PMC in question. I can say that they are doing what they can. Several years ago, money was of no real object to the government. Now however, there has been a dramatic decrease across the board in money that is available. Anyone that has been to Iraq can testify to this...wages for expats are significantly less than they were 3 years ago.

We can comment and critique on the TCNs ability to accomplish the mission, but at the end of the day I have to look at the USG for allowing it to happen...not the PMC. In the following example, please realize I m breaking it down into very simplistic terms for brevities sake. The USG looks at the proposals frm the various PMCs to provide internal security for say Camp Victory. PMC A bids 3million for a one year base period, PMC B 2.5 Million, and PMC 3 2 million. Who gets the contract...C. Why, because they bid the least...now C has to figure out how to man, equip and provide for that contract for less than 2million...the cheaper they do it, the greater the profit. We can say that profit should not be their concern, but at the end of the day, they are a company based on capitalism and need to make money to work. So where do they make money...well instead of hiring Westerner's at 500/day...let's hire TCNs at 800/month....instead of M4s lets use a cheap knockoff... you see the point...who is at fault? The PMC that is out to make money...or the Government to allow them get away with those standards.

My specialty is medicine...so let me give a real world example. Under the current TWISS contracts, the government is asking the PMCs to provide a medical officer to handle the primary healthcare needs for the guard force. The USG will only provide support in cases of life, limb or eyesight. The USG defined a medical officer as a PA, RN or an EMT with 2 years of experience, and that is THE ONLY MENTION OF MEDICAL CARE IN THE RFPs. I can say that on the vast majority of sites that SOC is manning there is a former Special Forces Medic or PA. They are trying to maintain the intent...PMC taking care of itself...however, their competition is bidding contracts using EMT-B's with 2 years of experience. There is a significant difference. An EMT-B is designed to provide a level of care above that of a first responder, but are very limited in their scope of practice. In addition, the USG makes no mention of Medical Oversight (everyone works for a medical director, unless you are a MD or DO) and no mention of medical supplies or medical liability insurance. So in the case of SOC, they attempt to do the right thing in this case, but are underbid by one of their competitors, say Sabre. Sabre, bids the contract based off of the minimums that are put out in RFP...SOC bids on a little more than minimum. Sabre wins...so what does SOC do next time....they bid the minimum, which in this case means a greater drain on the military healthcare system for having to treat patients for coughs and colds.. Again...who is at fault...the PMC or the USG? If the problem is to be resolved...the USG needs to clearly define what the standard is. Not in vague terms.

Just my opinion...now back to my hole.