Contractors Doing Combat Service Support is a Bad, Bad Idea

[Sargent]

Uboat wrote: That's not that much of an issue as most of the contractors (unarmed I mean, not Blackwater et all) work on the FOB and actually many of them are specifically forbidden to leave the FOB.

And since not everyone lives on a FOB, and since there are not many options on how to support those who don't, then it seems nearly criminal to have put most of the CSS assets in their control. Does it seem right to anyone to send troops into harm's way with no reasonable means to support (feed) them?

We will not always be able to fight based on a FOB concept, where contractors can live and work in nice, safe conditions to support the troops. What happens when troops have to operate in a truly expeditionary manner?

It may require that we have to fight against our natural way of war, per Weigley -- that is, we rely too much on being able to throw money at a problem. It may be that we have to go back to a people solution, specifically a people in uniform solution.

Regards,
Jill

[Sargent]

As regards the responses to the concept that one way to get around the contractor issue in CSS is to have personnel assigned primary and secondary MOS's, so that they can serve in A and B billets, such that more of the CSS can be handled by military personnel:

I have to say, I am not impressed with the picture of soldiers that has emerged from those responses. My son is 5, and he's already learned that he can't always expect to get everything he wants -- and he knows better than to complain when he doesn't. He also knows that the correct response in those cases is "Yes mom," full stop, in a tone of voice that doesn't betray any whining or complaint. I don't know whether to be more disappointed with the state of parenting in this country or the state of leadership in the Army. From what you all have said, it seems to me as though "soldier" has become synonymous with "prima donna" or "spoiled brat." What happened to the ethic of selfless service? Did someone put in a codicil that such service is only on the terms of what the individual wants? In any case, I sure hope my impression is incorrect, that you are all just trying to prove how enthusiastic soldiers are to serve in the most difficult circumstances possible.

Look, if you can get combat arms Marine Corps officers -- the most ooh-rah, get some, there's nothing better than being at the point of "pull string-go boom," group you could ever wish to find -- to accede to a system of rotation between fleet tours in the their MOS's and B-billets in a supporting function, then you ought to be able to do the same with soldiers. I would expect nothing less.

However, if you are truly correct, and you can't teach these old dogs new tricks, then the simple answer is that the system applies to those who will enter the service in the future.

If you don't believe there is a problem with contractor-provided CSS, then there is no reason to contemplate such a solution. However, if you think that CSS may have to be returned to those in uniform, then something is going to have to give.

Pardon me for being blunt.

Regards,
Jill

[John T. Fishel]

guy who really respects the Marines (I never met a dumb Field Grade Marine officer - they could all do the dumb Marine act brilliantly however) it is well to remember that the USMC is NOT the Army writ small. Neither is the Army the USMC writ large. They are different organizations whose missions sometimes overlap but often do not. So they will and should do many things differently although they can certainly learn from each other.

Break

I'm with all of you who think that we have gone too far in contracting out services - even in the vast majority of the cases where the contractors are honest and competent. There is no easy or short term solution. But the beginning is to clearly identify what is a government function and stop contracting for that function as we build the capacity to perform it back into the government/military. We didn't get to this point overnight - as Ken says, it began in the 70s with the AVF - and we won't reach a new desired equilibrium in a year or two. Hopefully, it won't take us 35 years!

Cheers

JohnT

[Schmedlap]

From what you all have said, it seems to me as though "soldier" has become synonymous with "prima donna" or "spoiled brat." What happened to the ethic of selfless service? Did someone put in a codicil that such service is only on the terms of what the individual wants? In any case, I sure hope my impression is incorrect, that you are all just trying to prove how enthusiastic soldiers are to serve in the most difficult circumstances possible.

... if you can get combat arms Marine Corps officers... to accede to a system of rotation between fleet tours in the their MOS's and B-billets in a supporting function, then you ought to be able to do the same with soldiers.

Jill,

That is a very good question and it could be a thread of its own. It is a question that I grappled with when I decided to leave the Army. Had my option been to be a platoon leader or company commander for the next 20 years, then I would have happily continued to sacrifice my social life and risk my mortal life to do it. But I left the Army because I recognized that, as a Captain, the remainder of my career would be about a 5 to 1 ratio, or worse, of staff time to command time. All of that risk and sacrifice, just to do PowerPoint slides, run a TOC, or otherwise do work that a mediocre Soldier with a permanent profile could do. It did not make any sense to me. But then I also thought, "what about selfless service?" My decision making process sounded highly selfish. And maybe it was. Or maybe I am too self-critical. I don't know. My decision boiled down to my recognition that if I hated my job, then I would not have the self-discipline to give it the full attention that it merited. That was how I rationalized it. It is something that I still think about.

[VMI_Marine]

Look, if you can get combat arms Marine Corps officers -- the most ooh-rah, get some, there's nothing better than being at the point of "pull string-go boom," group you could ever wish to find -- to accede to a system of rotation between fleet tours in the their MOS's and B-billets in a supporting function, then you ought to be able to do the same with soldiers. I would expect nothing less.

I don't know that we so much accede to it. We're either relieved to escape from an infantry or artillery battalion environment for a few years, or we're drug off kicking and screaming. I would have been in the latter category, but my XO experience shifted me to the former.

If you have an infantryman running a support service, he'll likely do it with gusto and integrity, because it's his buddies up at the front that he's supporting.

I think rotating combat arms officers into CSS jobs would be a mistake. I had the (mis)fortune of pulling a collateral duty as team embarkation officer while doing my company XO time on a MEU deployment. My complete lack of knowledge about embarkation, logistics, or even what an M1123 HMMWV is (come to find out, it's the one that I had always been taught to refer to as a "highback") was a major hindrance. A trained logistics officer would have done a much better job (but try telling my battalion XO that - I did, and he didn't care). Ultimately, I am a much smarter MAGTF officer for having suffered through that; but I think if we were to rotate guys between CA and CSS across the board, it would turn out to be a disaster. My saving grace in that job was being surrounded by guys who were trained in that field, and could help me figure it out.

Keep in mind, what you are describing is not a B billet, per se. It is a CSS billet in the operating forces. Yes, there are combat arms officers that do a turn in CSS billets in the opfor as a B billet, but they are few and far between. B billets are typically in the Supporting Establishment, like your husband's job at SYSCOM.

I like the point that Ken and some others are making. Defense contracting is here to stay for some time. A similar thing happened in Europe in the Middle Ages - it was easier to hire trained men to do their fighting than to train and maintain their own armies. The way to maintain some quality control is to word the contracts carefully, and enforce the contractual obligations.

I never met a dumb Field Grade Marine officer - they could all do the dumb Marine act brilliantly however

That, sir, is premium signature line material.

[Stevely]

I like the point that Ken and some others are making. Defense contracting is here to stay for some time. A similar thing happened in Europe in the Middle Ages - it was easier to hire trained men to do their fighting than to train and maintain their own armies. The way to maintain some quality control is to word the contracts carefully, and enforce the contractual obligations.

Yes, but in those times you are talking about fielding mercenary fighting forces. Arguably we do that now, and it seems to me we are sliding toward that end, but our society is politically much different than Europe in the Middle Ages - we have a citizen army, still, even if not a conscription army any more. It is politically meaningful that the citizenry have a share in the fights that the government of, by and for the people pick. Fighting wars is one of the most serious and profound things a government can do; contracting it out to private industry would, I believe, alter the political character of the country over the long term. I'm not sure that's a road we want to go down.

[Ken White]

...I have to say, I am not impressed with the picture of soldiers that has emerged from those responses. My son is 5, and he's already learned that he can't always expect to get everything he wants -- and he knows better than to complain when he doesn't....

Do not take umbrage but allow me to point out that your son is not a relatively mature 18 or 19 year old who volunteered to do a particular for remuneration. That guy volunteered to do a job that he thought he would like or at least tolerate for some reason. Two generally distinct personality types go into the CSS and CA spectrums and it was my observation during my service in both the Corps and the Army that this was true and pretty non-negotiable in the eyes of most (not all, a few don't care that much). Officers and EM differ in attitudes on a lot of things and as John said, the Army and Marines differ. I'll also note that I have seen a number of both Army and Marine officers who were able to avoid some jobs they didn't like...

Even know some of both who got all the way to Colonel while avoiding service in DC...

Both services have at times reclassified EM from CSS to CA to fill shortfalls (none the other way to my knowledge, though a few guys get tired of combat and voluntarily switch to CSS); most accept it and adapt. However, if they have less than ten years, they tend to get out at the first opportunity; more than ten they mostly stick around -- and then tend to retire at 20 and not stick around for 30. Different people are attracted to different things and I'm not at all sure that's indicative of indiscipline or lack of motivation. You'd be surprised by the number of folks offered commissions in wartime and turn them down.

What happened to the ethic of selfless service? Did someone put in a codicil that such service is only on the terms of what the individual wants?

Essentially, yes -- the Enlistment contract is pretty specific. Could it be modified? Sure -- but right now it offers the kid what he thinks he wants as a job and that job offer is fairly specific and pretty much by MOSC.

In any case, I sure hope my impression is incorrect, that you are all just trying to prove how enthusiastic soldiers are to serve in the most difficult circumstances possible.

That is the case and I think you inadvertently maligned a lot of Marines and Soldiers. Joe can be hard for many to understand...

Look, if you can get combat arms Marine Corps officers -- the most ooh-rah, get some, there's nothing better than being at the point of "pull string-go boom," group you could ever wish to find -- to accede to a system of rotation between fleet tours in the their MOS's and B-billets in a supporting function, then you ought to be able to do the same with soldiers. I would expect nothing less.

Having some experience of Marine Officers and other various service types, IMO, your statement is correct with respect to some but not all Marine Officers. I'm not sure but suspect your knowledge of other communities that are every bit as Gung Ho -- some even more inclusively so -- may be limited. They're out there.

However, if you are truly correct, and you can't teach these old dogs new tricks, then the simple answer is that the system applies to those who will enter the service in the future.

Could be tried; my belief is that it wouldn't succeed. All the services today are filling combat arms slots with little problem but are having difficulty filling CSS slots. Short a return to the draft, I suspect that will continue because the average enlistee for a CSS job can make more money with less hassle on the outside -- the kid who wants to get in a fight has to go combat arms or be a cop, he cannot do that on the outside -- and the CA Army or Marine route offers more pizazz. As your 5 year old gets older, you'll see what I mean on a couple of levels...

If you don't believe there is a problem with contractor-provided CSS, then there is no reason to contemplate such a solution. However, if you think that CSS may have to be returned to those in uniform, then something is going to have to give.

Pardon me for being blunt.

I thought we were supposed to be blunt? Not a problem. However, I don't think anyone disagrees with you that some CSS contracting is problematic or that in some circumstances, contracting isn't going to work. Seems to me we're in agreement on that and that comments offered to you and to Stevely have been in the vein "it's not as bad as you seem to think" and "that's a good idea but..." and we still end up at the same place -- What, really, is the solution? One that will actually work? How do you get people to volunteer for low paying scut work that comes in an environment filled with petty hassles and regimentation. A guy who wants to fight will put up with all that; one who doesn't want to fight will not.

[Schmedlap]

I understand the concern that an argument was put forth stating, basically, that if the contract were cancelled then troops would be without food. However, that is an exaggeration of a statement that was false to begin with. There would be a delay in transferring back from contractor-provided logistics to Army-provided, but the troops would not go hungry. They would simply eat MREs in the interim.

Any FOB or other type of base in Iraq always has enough MREs to be a buffer against a stoppage in food flow. I know this because I have seen it occur. Certain FOBs have had their food supply cut short due to certain routes being shut down to logistics convoys. During those times, the FOBbits ate MREs. The issue is not that troops would go hungry. The issue is that they would be eating MREs. And if you do not cringe at the though of troops eating anything less than gourmet food prepared in a 4-star dining facility, 3 to 4 times per day, everyday, then you do not support the troops (that was sarcasm). That's right - there is a political angle.

It is important to remember that FOBs are Division/Brigade types of areas. The most significant change at issue here is not one of outsourcing logistics to contractors, so much as that our small units are co-habitating with the higher echelons. As a result of this change, we are observing the logistics activity at the DIV/BDE areas, seeing the co-habitation with the companies, and assuming that companies are now conducting contractor-driven logistics. That is simply not the case.

Our increasing outsourcing of logistics is borne more of choice than need and it is only occurring in any significant fashion at high echelons. And it is not borne so much of necessity as from a quality of life stance. The FOBs dole out lots of cash for $35 plates of KBR gourmet extravaganza because someone early on in this war made the determination that we were weak, soft, fragile little things that would bend under the pressure of doing what we signed up to do, if we did not eat three belly-busting meals of steak, bacon, pizza, red bull, and doughnuts every day. When necessity rears its ugly head, units are perfectly capable of doing logistics old-school style. And they do.

For example, my battalion was located away from a FOB and my company was located away from the battalion. The food at our company patrol base and the food consumed at the battalion mini-FOB (for lack of a better term) were prepared and cooked by our battalion's cooks. There were no contractors at our company PB or at our battalion's mini-FOB. The battalion mini-FOB's ration cycle was A-M-A. Our weekly ration cycle at the company level was M-M-M, M-M-M, M-M-A, M-M-M, M-M-M, M-M-M, M-M-A, repeat.

Before being picked up at a large FOB by our support platoon, the food was shipped from Kuwait to the large FOBs by contractors (with US Army Military Police escorts). But, so what? This makes sense. The fact that we are outsourcing does not mean that we are incapable of the logistics. It just means that outsourcing makes more sense, given the intent. We could switch back, but why? It would be less efficient. If Iran comes across the border, then maybe reverting back to military logistics will make sense. Until then, have another doughnut.