Contractors Doing Combat Service Support is a Bad, Bad Idea

[Old Eagle]

Without commenting on the merits of the article, since I haven't read it (I know --doesn't stop some people), I ask Jill the same question I have asked on other similar threads -- what's the solution?

I have been on a C-C-C ration cycle and I can tell you that it leaves a lot to be desired.

I have also had my units gutted for "details" back in the day. I know others here have also lived through that era, so feel free to help me here.

[wm]

Without commenting on the merits of the article, since I haven't read it (I know --doesn't stop some people), I ask Jill the same question I have asked on other similar threads -- what's the solution?

I have been on a C-C-C ration cycle and I can tell you that it leaves a lot to be desired.

I have also had my units gutted for "details" back in the day. I know others here have also lived through that era, so feel free to help me here.

One answer might be the M85 or new MKT, T-Rats, and Unitized Group Ration (UGR).

[jkm_101_fso]

We used our cooks on convoys and patrols. I lived on a small Iraqi Army FOB in 05-06. Army cooks only cooked dinner chow and spent the rest of the day on missions or guard duty. I think they enjoyed that more than cooking.

[Sargent]

JKM wrote: We used our cooks on convoys and patrols. I lived on a small Iraqi Army FOB in 05-06. Army cooks only cooked dinner chow and spent the rest of the day on missions or guard duty. I think they enjoyed that more than cooking.

Last year, when they could not settle the food issue for my husband's unit in Fallujah -- they were stationed at the government center downtown, and given the security situation the contractors refused to go there -- they ultimately sent the only Marine messman at Camp Fallujah out there to cook for them. He did one meal a day, and spent the rest of the time cleaning and prepping -- being the only guy on the job, he was kept busy taking care of that. But yes, cooks, etc., assigned to combat units must be prepared to fight. Providing front line logistical support is dangerous.

I will admit that this issue is my bete noir -- see my recent comments on this issue.

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...7399#post47399

However, beyond my peculiar interest in the subject, what caught my attention with this article, and what really gets my blood boiling, is the fact that the contractors basically threatened the troops and DoD caved -- and then gave them a bonus.

This last piece is why I think the practice must end. Management has demonstrated that their bottom line -- not the troop needs, not operational capabilities -- is the priority. And with that priority they have demonstrated that they are not at all suited to support the operational needs of deployed forces. Let them handle the cafeteria's stateside, but in war, you need a reliable system, not just a cheap one. Again, it's time to realize the wisdom of a 200+ year old lesson.

Regards,
Jill

[jkm_101_fso]

You'd probably find it interesting that during my last tour, there were KBR contractors that worked at the BSB, fixing vehicles. Oddly enough, the BSB soldiers that didn't do combat logistics patrols basically worked for the KBR guys...it was strange. I think one issue is that with the FOB concept (a terrible idea, btw) there aren't enough cooks in a BDE to feed everyone. I think that with the evolution of "irregular warfare", contracted services maybe inevidable. You are absolutely right that the government should put the needs of the Soldier first and not the contractor. I do find myself engaged in a lot of conversations in regards to why KBR gets all of the "no-bid" contracts in Iraq. One reason is probably because not many companies are capable of doing what they do, but another is because we don't have the support elements in the military to do it; short of deploying the entire Army to Iraq, which of course, will not happen.