The Corporate Takeover of U.S. Intelligence

[goesh]

Along the general vein of privatization, an article in the local newspaper reports there are now more private contractors in Iraq than US troops. The article reported there are 180K civilians working under US contracts. Peter Singer from the Brookings Institute said, "This is not the coalition of the willing. It is the coalition of the billing." Mercenary numbers were not in the tally, err, I mean private security contract personnel were not in the head count. Estimates vary on the number of 'guards' in country, from 6-30K. Gen. Nash (ret) claims the Pentagon "is hiring guns. You can rationalize it all you want, but that's obscene." Who are the real camp followers here - the US military or private contractors?

[Abu Buckwheat]

Along the general vein of privatization, an article in the local newspaper reports there are now more private contractors in Iraq than US troops. The article reported there are 180K civilians working under US contracts. Peter Singer from the Brookings Institute said, "This is not the coalition of the willing. It is the coalition of the billing." Mercenary numbers were not in the tally, err, I mean private security contract personnel were not in the head count. Estimates vary on the number of 'guards' in country, from 6-30K. Gen. Nash (ret) claims the Pentagon "is hiring guns. You can rationalize it all you want, but that's obscene." Who are the real camp followers here - the US military or private contractors?

In fact the article said there were only 21,000 Americans contractors in Iraq... not armd contractors but all total contractors... the rest of the numbers were TOTAL subcontractors for all work in Iraq reconstruction. 114,000 were Iraqis at work ... whcih is what we want right?

PSCs are approx 6,000 men made up of Americans, Brits, Colombians, Fijians, Nepalis and Ugandans... this is not an obscene figure.

[Steve Blair]

And this is yet another "blast from the past." The Pawnee Battalion was mentioned in another thread, and some folks in the historical community love to wax long about Crook's use of packers and Indian scouts. PMCs by any other name. Scouts and packers were both classed as quartermaster employees and paid more than regular troopers (in some cases they made more per month than a first sergeant). The more things change....

[goesh]

"Coalition of the billing" is the operative phrase regardless of nationality at the tax trough. The fact remains there are more scouts than Indian fighters in Iraq and tip of the pith helmet to Mr. Blair for setting the historical stage to draw such an Indian analogy.

[Mark Eichenlaub]

Are all these contractors Americans or Iraqis as well?

[Ken White]

cut the strength of the Army in half. They did that. I believe that's properly called "You get what you pay for." Or are willing to pay for...

War is an art, not a science but it does take 'X' people to do 'Y' job. If the Army cannot be expanded rapidly enough to provide those additional people in the required skills, substitutes must be found. It could not but we found some. It works.

Whether the Army should have been committed to do a job it was not able to do properly is another issue but that is a political question for other venues. For here, that issue is irrelevant. We're there.

Possibly the Army in the 1989-2001 period misspent money and effort. It did not properly structure and train for the jobs it was likely to have to do. Those are both political and military questions but other than as an indicator of failures on many levels as a cautionary factor -- and hopefully a significant lesson learned at the highest levels for the near future -- that's also sort of immaterial. We are where we are.

Congressional posturing on Iraq (both sides) is not about Iraq, it is not about the taxpayers, it is not about the Troops nor is it about Contractors -- it is about the 2008 elections.

[Dr Jack]

If the Army cannot be expanded rapidly enough to provide those additional people in the required skills, substitutes must be found. It could not but we found some. It works...

Possibly the Army in the 1989-2001 period misspent money and effort. It did not properly structure and train for the jobs it was likely to have to do.

There is another issue that I've not seen anything written about... the Army and DoD over the past 10-15 years have made a number of decisions to make structural changes in a variety of areas: A-76 contracting to replace civil service; military to civilian conversions; and the elimination of the dual compensation rules for retired military. The net effect has been that we see many qualified soldiers retire or leave the service and take essentially the same positions as either a civil servant or as a contractor.

It is incredible to watch someone retire one day and then assume the same job the next day -- with the difference being that the individual changes out of uniform and shows up in civilian clothes at the same desk. In a similar fashion, we see many leave the service and then become contractors, doing the same work for more pay -- but less control and accountability.

With uniformed military, you buy the service; with civil service, you are leasing; with contractors, you are are renting the service.

Even though we are in a war, we are still having mandatory retirements and some of the up-or-out policies. These type of policies make sense if you are in a "surge" that is short-term, but they don't make sense if we are trying to fight a long war. In the long run, "renting" costs you more money.

The current grade structure is, however, a limiting factor... the law restricts the senior grade population based on overall end strength. With the push towards more interagency coordination, greater civil affairs requirements, and an emphasis on advisors, it may well be time to relook the grade structure in the military.