Military Interactions with Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan

[John T. Fishel]

good soldiers and bad soldiers, good contractors and bad contractors, good reservists and bad reservists, and good guardsmen and bad guardsmen. As in all human endeavor, most of these folk are individually pretty good. The issue, as I see it, is not good people v. bad people but rather, what functions should belong exclusively to the government and what can legitimately be contracted out. At the opposite ends of the scale it is pretty obvious. But in the gray area in the middle, reasonable people can disagree. My personal bias is that when in doubt, one should not contract it out. But how quickly can you go from an overuse of contracting to an appropriate level?

Cheers

JohnT

[120mm]

I prefer to question why contractors have become necessary.

I propose that the Army's personnel system has become so "broke", that they are unable to get the right person in the right job. I just finished reading "The Sling and The Stone" last night, and was ready to stand up and cheer when Hammes got to making suggestions on how to improve the personnel system.

[tulanealum]

What's wrong with being a contractor? I've done three deployments as a contractor in Bosnia and Iraq and my teams were usually given more work than the military and were making more significant contributions. I think what should be remembered is that contracting composes a wide spectrum...from intel to protective services to mess hall activity.

I've never understood the fear of contractors or the whole, "greedy bastards" bit.

I'm deployed as a soldier now and think our contractors are great.

[120mm]

I have to agree, to a certain extent. I'm currently working as a contractor, on the equivalent of "half pay" of my Active Military pay.

I provide the "green-suiters" with a product that frees up active military personnel for other duties, and provide them with a handy scape goat if things go wrong.

Also, in some MOS' contracting may be the way to go. For example, operation of the HIIDE system needs to be contracted out, as it is nearly impossible to get a soldier of the correct rank trained to competency before they get promoted out of the position for HIIDE operator.

The answer, then, is to either get rid of our obsolete and inefficient personnel system, and let competent people stay in jobs longer, while receiving competitive pay for their skill (as well as *gasp* treating them respectfully, and as competent human beings).

The contractor system is a symptom of the overall problem, and that is that the current personnel system is broken, badly.

[Presley Cannady]

I prefer to question why contractors have become necessary.

Generally for the same reason as draftees, reservists and auxiliaries throughout history, to defray the cost of maintaining given capability in an active force through the normal budgetary cycle. $100 billion for 190,000 personnel--20-30,000 in armed roles--compared to in excess DoD operating and personnel line items + $500 billion for 130-160,000.

I propose that the Army's personnel system has become so "broke", that they are unable to get the right person in the right job.

I don't think an occupational specialty is something to change lightly. If you can free up more dollars in the normal budgeting process for riflemen by purchasing the services of cooks, bodyguards, package handlers, network geeks and truck drivers as needed, why wouldn't you?

I just finished reading "The Sling and The Stone" last night, and was ready to stand up and cheer when Hammes got to making suggestions on how to improve the personnel system.

Hammes, of course, is talking about a uniformed service reform that would eliminate the need for 20-30,000 contractors in shooting roles and anyone else that could stand substantively impact the security or operational aspects of the mission. If we're for expanding the budget as much as necessary and taking as long as it takes to build and maintain such capability permanently, I'm all for it. I'd suspect at the end of the day you could probably do more, faster and for less by taking the experience and assets brought to the table by companies like Xe and marrying it with a clearer legal regime, guidance on matters of US interests in fighting counterinsurgency, and assigning clear accountability for contractor performance on the contracting authority. At the end of the day, while bodyguards--and by extension, their principals--may get into nasty business that can unduly impact operations, men in those roles are men not out bringing security to the host nation population and the fight to the enemy.

I provide the "green-suiters" with a product that frees up active military personnel for other duties, and provide them with a handy scape goat if things go wrong.

You've got to love theory. It occurs to me. Is it really constructive to have a conversation about the strategic costs and benefits of using contractors without talking about how authority (mis)shapes the political and media terrain at home and abroad? I submit that 20-30 thousand people, mostly Americans, getting tarred in domestic print, television and even in government circles more viciously and consistently than Islamic jihadists is evidence of a severe communications breakdown.

[goesh]

A moral predisposition, IMO, is clearly identified with the initial wording. IMO any identified 'bad contractor' would get special consideration and further inquiries made by some other agency. This is clearly more punitive than scientific and the intent of said survey is valid and I'm sure needed, it's just the approach that bothers me - seems intellectually dishonest. There are no real mechanisms or venues given to the participant for input on the dynamics and interplay that causes a disconnect between military and civilian which in turn opens the door for rogue behavior. The approach of getting the bad guys and all the rest will fall into place got us into a bad mess in the first place in Iraq and Afghan and this is more of the same mentality.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

I prefer to question why contractors have become necessary.

Part of the problem lies in Congress and part lies with both the military and civilian personnel systems.

Congress likes to set caps on military personnel, mostly to save money for nice expensive toys the manufacture of which employs constituents, rather than actually support the personnel needs and requirements of the services, particularly in time of war. Service members typically don’t factor in a Congressman or Senator’s reelection strategy.

The personnel systems are both out of touch with basic human resourcing. The military system takes a significant time to “grow” a military member. This is recognized by the services and there really isn’t a whole lot to do about it, particularly with Congressionally imposed personnel caps. The government personnel system is also too slow to hire and equally too slow to fire (in fact nearly impossible to fire).

Hence the contractor: Government needs expertise in A, writes a RFP, RFP is responded to by several companies, proposals are evaluated, contract let, contractors show up. All in about a month or two. Plus the contractors are usually working for their company “at will” and the government includes clauses that allow them to terminate the work at any time for any reason usually with no penalty.

It’s not so much that contractors are necessary, they are just much easier to hire and fire and typically are not employed for 20 years thus saving the government having the burden of a retirement payment.

A better question is: Why are government employees unionized?

[CloseDanger]

A better question is: Why are government employees unionized?