PMC / Mercenaries in Iraq (catch all)

[Old Eagle]

Edison once said that he never failed in his experiments, but in the process of developing something like the incandescent light bulb, he discovered 10,000 ways that didn't work.

Well, we have discovered a host of ways that don't work in the security force assistance business.

The is documented evidence from multiple previous advisory efforts demonstrates that advisors need certain psychological skills and that they need to be developed in order to be successful. Yet, as sandbag points out, HRC uses the shotgun method of assigning advisors. There are combat advisors in Iraq or on their way who have NO combat experience and stale tactical experience. Luckily, they had a wealth of "dwell time", so they would obviously make great advisors.

You can also look at the experience HRC (I love Sean Byrne like a brother) sent to John Nagl to train advisors out at Riley -- Very few former advisors. Even now that the assignment process has improved, the ratio of advisors to the rest of the faculty ain't great.

Ministry-level advisors. Gotta disagree w/John T. At the ministry level, contractors (the right ones, guys like John T. and others who have served on national-level staffs) make great advisors, as long as they have other skills. Or maybe the Service chiefs just need greater recall authority. MRD moves a lot of talent out of the Army (and other Services). Haul these guys back in and put them in uniform. I'd take the tax breaks, awards, financial accouterments and add'l 2-1/2 percent retirement increase any day of the week.

Essentially government services. Although this belongs on the contractor thread, let me just say that the definition of what government essential services subsume has been debated long and hard, and to date no one has come up with a meaningful solution. The sound bites offered by talking heads conveniently dodge major war-stopping issues, but sound good. I can tell you that the mindset of government employee good, contractor bad is not useful.

Have a great Memorial Day!

[John T. Fishel]

took me a while to figure out what we disagree about. I think I've got it though. I would not reject pulling in as contractors for MSTs old geezers like us although, as we both said, recall from the Retired Reserve would be a better option.

I do think that in the 350th, 351st, and 352nd CA Commands there are probably enough relatively senior folk - with the needed civilain skills (unless we've lost those guys in the last decade) - to man the required MSTs (perhaps with some augmentation by contractors or recalled retirees as above). Or, do we disagree on this?

Have a super Memorial Day, all.

Cheers

JohnT

[Old Eagle]

Well, they certainly have a lot of sr folk. Don't think I've ever seen so many COLs in an MTOE.

I think that we actually agree that contractors can have a place in MSTs. They should not be the sole source of personnel, and arguably not even the major one.

I think that one of the challenges in the current contingencies is the fact that CA have been over-subscribed in the plans. It's not a question of capability, but rather one of capacity. Even when I was "over there" years ago, the CA guys we worked with had endured multiple deployments -- and that was in the early days of the wars. Can't imagine what it's like now. During the small wars of the 90s, many of the same folk were being sent off on all expense paid forays to Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, then Afghanistan and Iraq.

In looking at the solution to overuse of contractors, whatever it is has to be very broad. Maybe now is time to fix the military force structure and the civilian one. Maybe every employment contract above GS-10 ought to have a deployment clause. There is also a need to grow overstructure in the O-3 to O-5 and E-6 and above paygrades. Maybe "dwell time" for non-TPU reservists needs to be cut, also. Or maybe we just need to continue to rely on exceptionally talented and good-looking contractors, but possibly with better management.

In short, before fixating on the bitch about contractors, let's examine some of the easy solutions to replace them. Not willing to do that? Then there's no bitch!

[Ken White]

...Maybe now is time to fix the military force structure and the civilian one. Maybe every employment contract above GS-10 ought to have a deployment clause.

Agree!!!

There is also a need to grow overstructure in the O-3 to O-5 and E-6 and above paygrades.

I submit we already have overstructure -- too many CPT to LTC folks are just not in the right places and in my observation most staffs are too large. I also suspect that in about four years we're gonna have a glut of Majors. Company Commanders, perhaps???

Also need to figure out what we're going to do with the overstrength in SSGs that's looming.

For Officer and enlisted ranks, is up or out really that good an idea...

...Maybe "dwell time" for non-TPU reservists needs to be cut, also...

A lot of those folks used to get a lot of AD time built up working for the CA Brigades and Commands overseas back in the days of peace. While the war may make some less anxious for AD, I suspect there's still a pretty good flow. Might be worth looking at...

In any event, HRC needs to get rid of their 'fill the hole' mentality and the force structure guys need to undo some of the 'balance' they've applied to the force to facilitate said hole filling. Whatever is done, you're totally correct in saying that:

In short, before fixating on the bitch about contractors, let's examine some of the easy solutions to replace them. Not willing to do that? Then there's no bitch!

Totally true and it seems to me the onus is on the pachyderms and HRC...