Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: Military Interactions with Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 120mm View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Presley Cannady; 04-26-2009 at 10:18 PM.
    PH Cannady
    Correlate Systems

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •