Contractors Doing Combat Service Support is a Bad, Bad Idea

[jkm_101_fso]

The Marine is proud that can't be associated with FOBs or being a FOBBIT...the worst possible name that you could be called in Combat. The current culture in the Army and Marines is such, "if I'm not on a FOB (with KBR) then I am not a FOBBIT. That's why the Army is converting to sexy names like "Patrol Base Smith" or "Combat Outpost Jones". No one, particularly in the combat arms realm wants to be labeled FOBBIT; although it has nothing to do with you mission or performance, rather than being "spoiled" with KBR chow, movie theaters, basketball gyms and "salsa night" at the MWR facility.

[Sargent]

The Marine is proud that can't be associated with FOBs or being a FOBBIT...the worst possible name that you could be called in Combat. The current culture in the Army and Marines is such, "if I'm not on a FOB (with KBR) then I am not a FOBBIT. That's why the Army is converting to sexy names like "Patrol Base Smith" or "Combat Outpost Jones". No one, particularly in the combat arms realm wants to be labeled FOBBIT; although it has nothing to do with you mission or performance, rather than being "spoiled" with KBR chow, movie theaters, basketball gyms and "salsa night" at the MWR facility.

Definitely the anti-Fobbit sentiment is part of it. However, given my diss subject this notion that there can be too much is very interesting to me. It's not what one would expect on a superficial level. It's certainly not what the "Support The Troops" mindset would expect.

Furthermore, I think the reaction against the FOBs reflects something of an innate or subconscious recognition that the conspicuous consumption is not serving our war effort. When the Iraqi civilians are pissed that they cannot get reliable electricity, it doesn't help anything that the American forces are eating ice cream. Hell, a military analyst I met told me he thought the food service at Camp Fallujah was over the top.

This all ties into an idea that has emerged in my mind that there must be parity in suffering between troops and civilians in a war zone. American troops mutinied in the Rev War because they were starving in a land of plenty. In WWII, the sharing that went on between the Allied troops and the liberated civilian populations probably went a long way to assisting the war effort. In Iraq, I doubt our effort is helped by the fact that the vast majority of American troops are living high off the hog while the Iraqis can't even get the basics.

However, I do think that there may also be some valid concerns that such indulgences conflict with operational readiness.

There are always a number of factors at work with any given opinion.

Regards,
Jill

[marct]

Hi Jill,

This all ties into an idea that has emerged in my mind that there must be parity in suffering between troops and civilians in a war zone. American troops mutinied in the Rev War because they were starving in a land of plenty. In WWII, the sharing that went on between the Allied troops and the liberated civilian populations probably went a long way to assisting the war effort. In Iraq, I doubt our effort is helped by the fact that the vast majority of American troops are living high off the hog while the Iraqis can't even get the basics.

I think that is a really good point. It is probably even more important in the ME where there is a tradition that conquerors live well at the expense of the populace (happened in other places too, but the memory of it goes back a long way in the ME). This is one of those times when the logic of rhetoric is more important that that of reality .

[Ken White]

With all its flaws -- and it has plenty -- contracting basic services has merit. The troops hate that kind of stuff and the cessation of a lot of grass mowing, rock painting and, yes K.P or Mess Duty plus a lot of other minor annoyances has helped keep folks in all the services. The Navy can't do that on ships and thus, they have a very minor retention problem because of that scut work. Add it back into the Army, Marines and AF and it will cause retention problems. In an era of an aging population and a kinder gentler world where military service is eschewed by many that may not be a good idea.

It's easy for those who don't have to do that kind of make work (which is what some of it is) and necessary but unpleasant work to overlook the inhibiting effect on Joe. Joe doesn't do windows if he can avoid it -- and, if we're going to train him well enough to go risk his life (which we don't do well) then the least we can do id let him skip washing windows.

The the Army and Marines get plenty of enlistees for the combat arms and for both services, the re-up rates in the combat skills are great. Not so in the Combat service support arena. Enlistments are down and reenlistments are far lower than in the combat arms.

I'm not sure that a reversion to the WW II / Korea / Viet Nam era Army (all effectively the same; little changed) is a good idea. Having been a part of it, there was a lot of crookedness and corruption, petty and major theft by people in uniform. There was also a lot of mediocre performance. Even stupidity -- like the 1LT who futilely and rather foolishly told me and about 15 armed, dirty and smelly troops who needed shaves and haircuts we couldn't eat in his Chu Lai Mess Hall...

The Revolution was a long time ago, so was the Civil War which had the same 'contractor' problems. In fact, all wars seem to have contractor problems. The mostly Korean and Japaneses contractors in Korea were crooked and bore a lot of watching; the Consortium RMK-BRJ in Viet Nam got wealthy (the BR being then Brown and Root, now part of KBR. BR in the day were friends of Lyndon...). I suspect it's a human frailty problem and there's no fixing it, just a lot of watching.

My belief is that contracting is probably going to be with us absent a return to the draft (to which I am very strongly opposed) and that aside from the services getting a lot smarter about it -- and eliminating a lot of the Congressionally imposed bureaucracy involved in the contracting process as well as continuing Congressional influence in that process (NOTE: Which has a whole lot to do with the apparent DoD willingness to 'overlook' possible chicanery...) -- it seems to me that design of structure and equipment should be undertaken in the future with elimination of as much contract support as possible as an essential goal.

Consider also that the wants and needs of armed forces in peacetime and those in wartime differ considerably. The US has effectively been at peace since 1945 -- parts of the services have been to war many times since and are there now but Congress and the Pentagon have not been at war in a long time...

No easy solutions to this one...

[jkm_101_fso]

Ken,
Great points; also consider a lot of jobs on military posts (mess hall, range control, MPs, maintenance, etc) used to be manned by the military. Come to any post now and you will see that it's all pretty much been contracted. Mainly because we don't have enough Soldiers to do it. In a 2 million man army, we would see military members guarding the gate, running range control and serving chow. This obviously carries over to theater.

There was also a lot of mediocre performance. Even stupidity -- like the 1LT who futilely and rather foolishly told me and about 15 armed, dirty and smelly troops who needed shaves and haircuts we couldn't eat in his Chu Lai Mess Hall...

I've heard that now at LSA Anaconda you MUST have your reflective PT belt to get into the chow hall! You can't eat without it!

[Ken White]

...I've heard that now at LSA Anaconda you MUST have your reflective PT belt to get into the chow hall! You can't eat without it!

I'm sure there's some logic in that somewhere but I'm certainly having a hard time figuring out what it might be.

[Stevely]

I'm not sure if it's such a good idea, this reliance on contracting for government services, and if there is a positive effective on retention, I don't think it ultimately makes up for the negative effects in so many other areas.

I remember when the contracting craze got underway in earnest, back in the early 90s. It was supposed to streamline and make more efficient many operations ("let industry do it - they have to make a profit ergo they are more efficient!"), and save the government a lot of money. I think neither goal has been achieved; unfortunately since that time, contracting and outsourcing have grown and grown, giving defense industry great influence and leverage over the formulation and execution of defense policy, and today, I think the department is in a bad shape due to that.

Like Jill, my blood boils hearing that a contractor held the troops hostage to their bottom line, but I am not suprised (just saddened) to see things come to such a pass, out at the front. It already happens here in echelons above reality. I have personally witnessed a dispute between my command and a service that shall remain nameless, where government interest was subverted and a corporate agenda was pushed in the place of legitimate military needs. Said service's training network was actually owned by a major contractor and only leased by the service, and refused to follow proscribed government networking standards and refused to connect their network to ours so that the Joint community could gain access to certain simulation resources there. When we held meetings between the sides to work it out, the service's representatives were actually contractors from the company that owned the network (well the first time; we threw them out and told the service next time to send only military or goverment civilians in the future). A short time later, this company sent its representatives to some installations belonging to another service, and tried to convince them not to use the already-installed Joint network to do Joint training, but to spend government money to buy nodes on their network, if they ever hoped to have access to their host service's training resources in the future. One example of defense contractor shenanigans among many I have witnessed.

I think things started going wrong when contractors shifted from being only providers of equipment to performing services. Performing services makes you a part of the chain of command, full stop; but unlike military/ government members of that chain, companies have a second set of loyalties, that their company's own bottom line. Thus it is impossible to have unity of command, or assurance that your private sector subordinates will do what the boss commands, unless the corporate folks abide by an ethic that the bottom line takes a back seat to the good of the government where those two collide. Example above and from Jill's post demonstrate that is not the case, nor have I ever heard of that happening anywhere else. Conflicts of interest are built in to this.

Over-reliance on contractors to do government business can also lead to a loss of control of government functions, again like the unnamed service no longer really being in control of their training network, and the Army's CSS support cited in the original article. Costs get out of hand - I think that almost goes without saying now, looking at endemic contract cost overruns, and

I haven't really talked about the massive consolidation of defense industry in the 90s but that plays a big role, too. There's really very little domestic competition out there to curb the worst excesses of the few contractors left in the field, often the government has nowhere to turn. This could be mitigated somewhat by using foreign contractors, but then the spectre is raised of the loss of domestic military production capability. The giant contractors are aware of this, and exploit that fact as a license to print money.

Unfortunately I don't see this changing much - too many in politics are beneficiaries of the status quo.

(Of course, I caveat all this with "I have nothing against contractor employees - I used to be one - just some of their corporate masters." Don't want anyone to take this as a slam against the worker bees)

[Ken White]

I'm not sure if it's such a good idea, this reliance on contracting for government services, and if there is a positive effective on retention, I don't think it ultimately makes up for the negative effects in so many other areas.

Wouldn't that depend on the numbers?

I remember when the contracting craze got underway in earnest, back in the early 90s.

Actually, it started in the mid 70s as a result of the cessation of the Draft.

... giving defense industry great influence and leverage over the formulation and execution of defense policy, and today, I think the department is in a bad shape due to that.

Interesting. in what way do you see them influencing policy (other than in the retirees who work for contractors or the contractors who get appointed to defense positions, something that's been happening since WW II).

I have personally witnessed a dispute between my command and a service that shall remain nameless, where government interest was subverted and a corporate agenda was pushed in the place of legitimate military needs. ... One example of defense contractor shenanigans among many I have witnessed.

Stuff like that happens. I have also seen turf battles between commands (and services..) that got worse than that -- and everyone involved was wearing a war suit.

I think things started going wrong when contractors shifted from being only providers of equipment to performing services. Performing services makes you a part of the chain of command, full stop; but unlike military/ government members of that chain, companies have a second set of loyalties, that their company's own bottom line. Thus it is impossible to have unity of command, or assurance that your private sector subordinates will do what the boss commands, unless the corporate folks abide by an ethic that the bottom line takes a back seat to the good of the government where those two collide. Example above and from Jill's post demonstrate that is not the case, nor have I ever heard of that happening anywhere else. Conflicts of interest are built in to this.

The US government is one massive conflict of interest -- look at the FAA or the Department of Agriculture; any of them. Life is a conflict of interest. The Company has no loyalty to the government or to the chain of command; their only loyalty is to their bottom line, period. Any contract written without that thoughy firmly in mind will leave loopholes that corporate lawyers will find and wiggle through. Sorry, but to me, that's human nature at work, to be expected (not desired, not nice but expected) and part of the way things work. Better contracts and fewer changes can stop that.

Over-reliance on contractors to do government business can also lead to a loss of control of government functions, again like the unnamed service no longer really being in control of their training network, and the Army's CSS support cited in the original article. Costs get out of hand - I think that almost goes without saying now, looking at endemic contract cost overruns, and
money.

Unfortunately I don't see this changing much - too many in politics are beneficiaries of the status quo.

(Of course, I caveat all this with "I have nothing against contractor employees - I used to be one - just some of their corporate masters." Don't want anyone to take this as a slam against the worker bees)

While I don't dispute that the system is far from perfect and that there's graft and corruption in it; I gotta ask Old Eagle's question; Bearing my subject line in mind, what's your solution?

[Stevely]

The US government is one massive conflict of interest -- look at the FAA or the Department of Agriculture; any of them. Life is a conflict of interest. The Company has no loyalty to the government or to the chain of command; their only loyalty is to their bottom line, period. Any contract written without that thoughy firmly in mind will leave loopholes that corporate lawyers will find and wiggle through. Sorry, but to me, that's human nature at work, to be expected (not desired, not nice but expected) and part of the way things work. Better contracts and fewer changes can stop that.

I don't have a problem in principle with the way businesses work in trying for government contracts, but I think it is a problem when contractors are integrated into the government workforce. You get personnel who serve two masters in one organization, and that's trouble.

You could mitigate some problems with more careful contract writing, but there are a lot of problems with that, I think. Contracted workforce is now pretty common throughout the department, so we're going need probably more lawyers than what we have currently, or rely less on them, or allow contracts with very broad statements of work. Where I work, we've got close to 1000 contractors, who have all been unified under one big contract. We (my boss and me and his other minions) spent the better part of a year combing through the task order to ensure that we closed all the little loopholes, but we still get conflicts over "that's not in the task order, so pay us more or go away." We have a big and technically diverse mission, you really just can't cover it all and I don't believe we could write a foolproof contract to cover the mission, if we have specify all the things the contractor must do (and we do). Squabbles with the contract over what is legitimate work are common here, and depressing.

This is not good in a COCOM HQ, would be much worse out in the field. Do we want contractors parsing their statement of work on the battlefield? I think the obvious solution is that we need more troops, then we wouldn't have a need to push contractors out to do jobs that have traditionally been done by soldiers, or reduce our commitments to the level that can be supported by the numbers we have in uniform. Failing that, fill the billets with GS (make that NSPS) personnel.

Past my few suggestions, I don't have any schemes to solve this current impasse. Though if I do find some clever solution to it all, I will start my own consultancy and go hunting contracts to sell my wisdom to Uncle Sam.

[Sargent]

With all its flaws -- and it has plenty -- contracting basic services has merit. The troops hate that kind of stuff and the cessation of a lot of grass mowing, rock painting and, yes K.P or Mess Duty plus a lot of other minor annoyances has helped keep folks in all the services. The Navy can't do that on ships and thus, they have a very minor retention problem because of that scut work. Add it back into the Army, Marines and AF and it will cause retention problems. In an era of an aging population and a kinder gentler world where military service is eschewed by many that may not be a good idea.

This is why I limited the critique to combat service support. Sure, use contractors to do the scut work on bases in the states -- maybe they could send a few over to my house to keep it clean while my husband is deployed, I wouldn't complain. But where the bullets are flying, the only people you are going to get to work amidst them are soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen. The contractors won't do it.

On a side note, every time I see a Navy commercial with aviators or SEALS, I chuckle and imagine the commercial that highlights the scut work -- "Join the Navy, scrape barnacles!"

The the Army and Marines get plenty of enlistees for the combat arms and for both services, the re-up rates in the combat skills are great. Not so in the Combat service support arena. Enlistments are down and reenlistments are far lower than in the combat arms.

It might be worth looking into whether the system they have for Marine officers might work with enlisted personnel. For the former, even if they are in a combat arms MOS, they alternate between A billets (fleet tours, usually, in their MOS) and B billets (office jobs doing some sort of support work -- at MARCORSYSCOM, MCCDC, recruiting, etc.). The B billets, while not jobs most enjoy, are usually good for down time from deployments, usually have a lighter workload, and are thus pretty good for family time. Sometimes they are a complete waste of time, but again, short days with little to do give a guy or gal a chance to catch up on all of the administrative scut work of their household that they've missed out on while on a strenuous deployment schedule.

Thus, you could increase the number of personnel who can join up in the combat arms MOS's, and get the rest of the work done by cycling them through A and B billets. You could make it nice and organized and efficient by assigning a primary MOS (their combat arms specialty) and a secondary MOS (the type of office work they will be assigned to), that way you'll know that the jobs will get done.

But again, they don't need to be cutting the grass or painting rocks. Unless, of course, they get themselves in trouble -- because that is great work for brig rats.

I'm not sure that a reversion to the WW II / Korea / Viet Nam era Army (all effectively the same; little changed) is a good idea. Having been a part of it, there was a lot of crookedness and corruption, petty and major theft by people in uniform. There was also a lot of mediocre performance. Even stupidity -- like the 1LT who futilely and rather foolishly told me and about 15 armed, dirty and smelly troops who needed shaves and haircuts we couldn't eat in his Chu Lai Mess Hall...

This is why you make everyone be a combat arms person first. This is why Marines really want Marine aviators to be there for CAS -- [and why they hate that the Air Force wants all air assets under a single control, because this means they might not get their guys flying the really hairy missions] -- because those aviators have gone to TBS and know a bit about what the guy on the ground is going through. 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. It's why my husband was so aggressive at SYSCOM -- because the system he was deploying was for the artillery community, and the guys getting it were his colleagues, and one day he'd be using it as well.

The Revolution was a long time ago, so was the Civil War which had the same 'contractor' problems.

The Rev War wasn't so long ago that the lesson doesn't bear remembering. And, if my recollection serves, the guys charged with actually delivering the food to the troops were soldiers, not contractors. (Contractors may have provided the food, and that's probably where the problems came in.) That's why there's a memorial to McKinley the soldier at Antietam for delivering a hot meal and coffee to the battle weary soldiers.

No easy solutions to this one...

No, but if we don't even bother looking for one, then there are no solutions.

Cheers,
Jill

[Ken White]

This is why I limited the critique to combat service support. ... But where the bullets are flying, the only people you are going to get to work amidst them are soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen. The contractors won't do it.

True, to an extent; you'll always find a few but they'll cost big bucks -- that's why I say the key is to design our systems, organizations and equipment to minimize the contractor requirement * .

..."Join the Navy, scrape barnacles!"

It was paint that got scraped and the Navy got smart and bought a better quality of paint that needs replacement less often -- so the contractors in the Yards do it when the ship cycle through (as in * above)...

It might be worth looking into whether the system they have for Marine officers might work with enlisted personnel.

That's done to an extent but it doesn't answer the CSS dirty work problem. My bet is that if you offer a lot of combat arms NCOs the unrefusable option of alternating between a CA and a CSS job; they'll leave the service. I would have.

This is why you make everyone be a combat arms person first...

I agree -- unfortunately, the Air Force and Army personnel folks don't; "inefficient" they say. As if there were anything more inefficient than a war. Even bigger problem is my guess would be about half (+ or - 10% or so) the CA enlistees wouldn't go for the CSS rotation. NCOs as a body differ from Officers in a number of respects. Most do not want to be generalists or multi spectral.

The Rev War wasn't so long ago that the lesson doesn't bear remembering.

True -- and WW II, Korea and Viet Nam with all their systemic ineffectiveness, logistic cock-ups, outright failures (which got covered up by the brass and didn't make the papers as contractors did and do -- but the Troops affected knew) crookedness and black marketing by folks in uniform were even less long ago. Balancing both lessons and applying them to tomorrow is the problem.

No, but if we don't even bother looking for one, then there are no solutions.

Agree. See above *.

[Uboat509]

This is why I limited the critique to combat service support. Sure, use contractors to do the scut work on bases in the states -- maybe they could send a few over to my house to keep it clean while my husband is deployed, I wouldn't complain. But where the bullets are flying, the only people you are going to get to work amidst them are soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen. The contractors won't do it.

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. That said there are quite a few contract drivers out doing convoys and they are definitely out where the bullets are flying.

It might be worth looking into whether the system they have for Marine officers might work with enlisted personnel. For the former, even if they are in a combat arms MOS, they alternate between A billets (fleet tours, usually, in their MOS) and B billets (office jobs doing some sort of support work -- at MARCORSYSCOM, MCCDC, recruiting, etc.). The B billets, while not jobs most enjoy, are usually good for down time from deployments, usually have a lighter workload, and are thus pretty good for family time. Sometimes they are a complete waste of time, but again, short days with little to do give a guy or gal a chance to catch up on all of the administrative scut work of their household that they've missed out on while on a strenuous deployment schedule.

Thus, you could increase the number of personnel who can join up in the combat arms MOS's, and get the rest of the work done by cycling them through A and B billets. You could make it nice and organized and efficient by assigning a primary MOS (their combat arms specialty) and a secondary MOS (the type of office work they will be assigned to), that way you'll know that the jobs will get done.

That will never work for a variety of reasons with the biggest one being that most CA and CSS soldiers joined CA or CSS specifically because they did not want to be the other. Tell the average support guy like a cook, a clerk, a mechanic or a tanker that he has to do a tour in combat arms and he is going tell you to get bent and he will get out and go find a job somewhere else. Tell the average infantryman that he has to do a tour as a support guy and his response will be somewhat more profane but the end result will be the same. This system works for officers because they will spend a great deal of their career in staff jobs anyway.

This is why you make everyone be a combat arms person first.

The Army has been trying to do this since Schoomaker and it hasn't worked all that well. The problem is partially cultural, supporters don't really have much interest is being CA first and partially practical, supporters don't really have the time, knowledge or resources to build and maintain those skillsets.

While I don't dispute that the system is far from perfect and that there's graft and corruption in it; I gotta ask Old Eagle's question; Bearing my subject line in mind, what's your solution?

I agree with this completely. Lots of people don't like that we use so many contractors, me neither but what is the solution? We don't have enough servicemembers to do everything that contractors do now and we aren't going to anytime soon.

SFC W

[Andrew Steimer]

First, to Schmedlap, the problem of paperwork rigamarole never should have happened to your unit, as a current loggie, and former infantryman (even if I was a dirty nasty leg), I always hate hearing about the utter laziness of certain Soldiers in my branch, and guaranteed that we never turned down a job (within reason). The only reason loggies have jobs is to make sure the door-kickers have all the ammo, food, and working equipment they need, and any leader who doesn't understand that deserves a relief for cause
--END RANT--
Contractors are a touchy subject, and I think the Army misuses them, both in theater and otherwise. Obviously, the military manpower shortage plays a major role in this, but, as stated in other threads, I think part of this is due to a short-sighted view when writing contracts. I know quite a few peers in my branch who deployed only to find KBR, or a subcontractor, conducting their wartime mission, leaving the unit to perform some other function, sometimes completely wasting resources (MWR support, etc.)
As far as CSS serving in CA roles, it has already happened in multiple BCTs, and will continue to happen. While training time is limited in most CSS units due to workload while state-side, if a unit expects to do something in theater, they will find the time to train. As far as the argument about CSS Soldiers only joining the Army to do their specific MOS, there are quite a few Soldiers in my unit reclassing into MFE MOSs or going to SFAS because of experiences they had while deployed. The Soldiers are willing to do the job, and if they're not willing to be a rifleman (or riflewoman) first, they should leave the Army. I disagree with the Marine A/B Billet idea for the Army, to echo Uboat, if you want to piss off a young Infantryman, tell him to go work in the DFAC.

[Stevely]

First, to Schmedlap, the problem of paperwork rigamarole never should have happened to your unit, as a current loggie, and former infantryman (even if I was a dirty nasty leg), I always hate hearing about the utter laziness of certain Soldiers in my branch, and guaranteed that we never turned down a job (within reason). The only reason loggies have jobs is to make sure the door-kickers have all the ammo, food, and working equipment they need, and any leader who doesn't understand that deserves a relief for cause
--END RANT--

I feel your pain . I am a former QM, dealt with my share of this. A fair few soldiers in CSS join the Army for the wrong reasons, and are perennially surprised (and become surly) when they are required to be soldiers and do their mission. Some of that can be fixed by good leadership example (when I was in Support Squadron, 11th ACR, all the log troops were pretty highly motivated, not so much in the FSBs I was in later). It is grating though, because the bad ones smear everyone else's reputation.

I know quite a few peers in my branch who deployed only to find KBR, or a subcontractor, conducting their wartime mission, leaving the unit to perform some other function, sometimes completely wasting resources (MWR support, etc.)

(repeating what Jill said)

This I can't understand. What happens if we have a higher intensity conflict, or are in an environment where we don't have the luxury of sprawling FOB complexes with all the comforts of home? Who will do the logistics then? If CSS soldiers aren't doing their jobs, they won't be ready to do them when there is no alternative to using soldiers.

[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

[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.