Contractors Doing Combat Service Support is a Bad, Bad Idea

[Cavguy]

Well, I'm an historian -- "recently" is last century, especially when there's several thousand years of military history against which the comparison is being made. Many of my colleagues call me a "wonk," because I do 20th century history. So I apologize for the confusion -- you and I just have a way different sense of time.

You can be as inclusive or exclusive as you wish to be in defining the infantryman's job. And throughout history, how that was done never really stopped men from joining the armies of the world. The Roman Legions dug ditches and build roadways when they weren't fighting. You might get a slightly different enlistment mix. That may be a good thing right now -- I could imagine that an enlistment profile that included a degree of increase in interest in such matters might be useful in COIN.

As a historian, I would think you would know better than to compare a 21st century infantryman to a Roman Legionaiire. The number and complexity of skills a modern combat soldier is required to master far outstrips any relevant historical example. It isn't marching in formation and swordplay or even musketry - there's a ton of highly technical, highly perishible skills that must be maintained. You hire an infantryman today to be a highly trained infantryman, not a generalist slave. There's barely time to keep guys proficient in all the core skills required.

Gee, nobody ever complimented me for doing my doctorate.

There's a saying - being a military spouse is the hardest job in the Army (Corps). Somwehat exaggerated, but certainly some major truth.

What I am wondering about is simply best exemplified by the insanity of having steak and lobster on the FOBS when you don't have a decent system for those outside the wire.

Here we disagree. There is a difference between "luxury" and "decent system". We had a decent system in both my tours. Our guys received 1-2quality hot meals, laundry service, mail, and other services daily in the COP. No one was deprived. All it took was a little effort on the part of the chain of command. If someone's not getting that, it's not a logistics/fairness issue, but a leadership issue. We got everything except for the shellfish that the guys on the FOB did.

And the steak and lobster is exaggerated, it happens once every few weeks.

It is a very wierd set of priorities. When you hear from a defense consultant that the bounty on a FOB is excessive, you really have to wonder at what is going on.

Depends on excessive. Yes, there was some amount of overboard. That said, why live badly if you don't have to? I will also say the "bounty" is greatly appreciated by guys rotating off the line.

I am also concerned at the costs and resource usage of our logistics tail. For how much longer will we be able to be profligate in the use of fuel to truck all of this stuff around? Or how about all of the generators that are running? Something is going to have to give soon, because we won't be able to afford this much longer -- just as Vietnam had to end because we couldn't sustain the dollar outflows anymore. This, though, could be a much bigger shift -- it won't just end a war, it will force a change in the way we do everything.

Separate argument. One can argue the main argument FOR the FCS system is that it will reduce the supply tail requirements immensely - common parts, smaller crews, better engines, and more reliability all will significantly reduce logistics tail if they work as advertised (different thread).

Look, here's the point -- I look at the contractor/cs/css issue, and for a variety of reasons I see a problem. If I haven't hit the nail on the head with a solution, well, forgive me, this isn't my day job. I may be wrong about the solution, but I don't think I'm wrong about the problem.

It's also valid to point out an MCO war in the modern era cannot last beyond a few weeks/months - no one quite simply has a war-sustainable industrial base capable of supplying the munitions and equipment a la WW II, or the density of equipment. Therefore, the Army has assessed it only needs organic food support to sustain a 45-60 day war, and anything longer gets contracted. Almost all army "Class A" field rats are now "heat and serve" and not made from scratch, and the MRE is a constant process improvement.

One can argue no one (organizationally) thought Iraq would last this long, and recruiting extra CSS to support what were envisioned as short term demands would carry higher cost than contracting someone to do it.

Consider that the most frequently offered advice on building a better family and enhancing relations between members is to sit down together for dinner. What is a small unit if not a family of sorts?

Units do eat together at the team/squad level often. Especially in a COP. You also seem to assume that there's a lack of bonding going on - trust me, the main thing soldiers desire is often a little privacy from their unit for awhile. However, operations are ongoing 24/7, so an imagined BN mess all happily passing the gravy is a little dream-worldish.

And if you think it too minor an issue to bother with, I would counter with the wisdom of Earl Wavell and others, who have argued that the daily, mundane things in the life of a soldier -- the "actualities" of the soldier's experience -- are important and should be studied. It's why I settled on the subject, because I had never read a memoir or work on the experience of war that did not discuss the good, the bad, and the ugly of food-related experiences. They gave me the idea that this was important, they pointed out what was valuable and why, and what were huge, terrible mistakes

.

Food is certainly not a minor issue - I could argue it's one of the most key components of morale. That's why I don't agree with your assessment of the problem or the solution - ensuring the guys get the best quaility of food possible in adquate amounts immensely contributes to morale. Nothing saps a deployment worse than constantly eating bad food. I never (organizationally) ate better than I ate while deployed to Kosovo in 2000-2001. Better than most all inclusive resorts. I know it significantly impacted my perceptions of the deployment, and made it much more bearable (back when I thought six months was a long deployment). Having high quality food is a morale multiplier. I wouldn't want to go to Army A's.

If you wonder why I have such a bee in my bonnet over the contractor issue, blame General Washington -- his appointment of one of his best combatant commanders, Nathanael Greene, to the position of QM, and the two hundred years of subsequent history that followed his example, is the reason I question the current system. Greene didn't like the new job -- and he made Washington promise that after a year he could get back into the fight -- but he knew the importance to the war effort of what was being asked of him.

I'm confused why you don't think we have the same ethos today - assigning a combat general to oversee a problem area just happened - look at Walter Reed. They took BG Tucker (a tanker) and made him DCO of WR to clean up the mess, which he did. Now he's headed back to the force that the WTU's and other reforms are underway. Shifting a general to oversee what were really leadership (not supply) issues is far different than taking an infantryman and making him pump gas.