According to the Huffington Post:
Today, the Pentagon employs more than 217,000 contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, doing the kind of work that enlisted military personnel would have performed in the past, according to a Congressional Research Service report.
Now, there’s a move in Congress to change that. On Tuesday, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) introduced the Stop Outsourcing Security Act, which would make it the military’s responsibility to use its own personnel to train troops and police, guard convoys, repair weapons, run military prisons and do military intelligence activity.
There are strategic reasons to move away from a reliance on contractors, says Schakowsky, a senior member of the intelligence committee. They damage the U.S. reputation with reckless behavior, are overly costly and hurt the morale of troops, who see private guards earning much more money than they do.
Many people tend to look at the military contractors has a big USA investment. They have gotten their training from our military. After the troops serve their time, they retire and sign up with a military contractor such as Blackwater, and make 4 to 5 times more money than if they were with our military.
Other critics fault the lack of discipline and the fact that the military and the contractors have 2 different set of rules of engagement.
How do our contributors feel about the United States scaling back its use of military contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq? Is this a good thing? Will it help troop moral to not have those making the big bucks doing the same jobs? Should this scaling back be done during a war? Why did Blackwater change its name?
Note: Blackwater has changed its name to XE.
Simply put (IMHO) this is more for show… than go. We have been contracting out our wars for a long time. First, the 217,000 Contractors they are talking about probably represents twice that many jobs and second, they will have to replace those folks with men and women in uniform. We actually have more flexibility and access to a broader range of very specific market skills by tapping the Contractor community for the right person at the right time in the right place.
They probably need better rate discipline for contractors and tighter rules; however, they will always be part of America’s defense. My personal experience (and I’ve been on both sides) is that you don’t meed a uniform to be patriotic and while you may point to examples of abuse (in any population of people), most Contractors do their job… and help keep our Country safe.
What do you do about the pay differential, Opinion? I keep reading where the current system demoralizes the troops to have the PMC folks making 4 times as much, especially compared to the lifers.
Nothing. As an “old soldier”, I can say from experience this difference really isn’t an issue to the troops. People make choices… and whether to be in the Military or supporting it as a Contractor is one of those. Career soldiers are an interesting object lesson because they opt to stay in vice go Contractor for a variety of reasons perhaps too complicated to explain; however, this isn’t the Hotel California… they can “check out”. I’m guessing the people you are reading haven’t served.
Soldiers realize this pay difference will be available to them someday. That’s actually an incentive to build your skills on active duty to create the resume and experience that draws the “biig bucks”. Just think of the Military as “graduate school” for the large System Integrators who support the war effort.
The State Department was the employer of Blackwater. They did not want military members being the security as State would then have to deal with the military chain of command and the always changing military ROE. And Blackwater was worth every penny to them. No State employees under Blackwater protection were lost.
Now, the big money is in the support contractors, ie Halliburton/KBR, etc. In my own experience, a retired Marine MSgt was training Navy Reservists on security procedures when I deployed to Kuwait in 2006. This same Marine was attached to the active duty Cargo Handling Battalion that I deployed with in 2003. Same job, except he did not deploy with the Reservists in 2006. The government saved money and freed up an active-duty Marine.
If you want to return to the days of the military doing their own support without contractors, you will substantially increase costs and have to increase manpower. I am unfamiliar with the exact duties that the Congressman is discussing. I am unfamiliar with any prisons or intel work being done by contractors. But, if it is done more efficiently, while being SUPERVISED by the military and conducted according to standards supplied by the military, I don’t see a problem with it.
Having live in a KBR camp, and having worked with their contractors, I see that there are jobs that they do much more efficiently. There is no reason to use military members for jobs like “shipping container mover.” At my supply depot, there were KBR cargohandlers that did nothing but move shipping containers for us. 24 hours a day, whenever I asked.
Were they paid well? Yes. Did they get the same benefits as I did? No. Same with the convoy drivers hired from Bangledesh to drive convoys for the Army.
Remember, the mission is everything. What completes the mission is paramount.
Thanks Opinion and Cargo Squid. I hope it was abundantly clear that I have no opinion on this issue because I don’t know enough to have one. I do know I once called those who were PMC ‘mercenaries’ and someone flew all over me. I always thought mercenaries were people who performed soldier duties for pay and who were outside the regular military for their country. Silly me. The person who flew was not military and had no family members currently military so I still don’t know what the rub was.
Cargo…what is a cargo squid? I don’t know what a KBR is. Help!! I think you were giving out some good info, I just don’t speak the same language.
I chose this topic because I know in the past Blackwater has been controversial and if there is legislation, who better to ask than those who might have dealt with PMC.
@Cargosquid
Cargosquid, well said!
I think that national security is too important to outsource to profiteers. We are less safe when people who have no code of honor other than profit operate in foreign countries as military forces under our contract. I know it’s good to create wealth, I’m all about creating wealth. But using war and military occupation to create wealth is just not worth it. If our military can’t handle the job, maybe it’s just not something we should be meddling in. We have problems at home to deal with and the Blackwaters and the Halliburtons have made enough money of the taxpayer dime to last themselves a lifetime.
Blackwaters and the Halliburtons have made enough money OFF the taxpayer dime to last themselves a lifetime.
The bill has been brought up before and was defeated. I don’t see that changing.
Above posters covered the topic very well.
What’s the difference between a military contractor and a mercenary? I am serious. I don’t know.
If it is a short term need, then outsourcing makes sense. If it is a long term need, then outsourcing in many instances does not make sense financially, other than it is easier to get the budget approved, as you usually do not have to justify the detail.
Cargosquid is my blogging handle. I first started blogging while deployed to Kuwait as a Navy combat stevedore, hence Cargo and Squid….
KBR is Kellog, Brown, and Root. Halliburton, KBR, and a French company are the only companies in the world that can do what they do on such a scale. Halliburton bought KBR. They get tax money because they are the best at supplying logistics support.
Witness, if you don’t want them to get tax money, you have to have a better suggestion for the State Dept and the US govt. I’m all for keeping it in house, except that taxpayers would spend MORE money. Our military can handle it. And they handle it by using Halliburton. Blackwater worked for the State Dept. because the State Dept does not want to be beholden to Military rules of engagement and they want a chain of command that goes through them. Currently, I don’t know who supplies security for State.
I can understand the fears and concerns of using private enterprise. I share them. That is why we have to keep tight control over who does what…..
We are talking about contractors “in theater” performing a full range of professional and logistical support activites from food service, filling up the gas pump to maintinaing mission essential equipment. They are not warfighters. We train our military to be warfighters, which helps to keep both military and peacefime military cost down. Remember too before you go off attacking these folks, that more contractors have died in Iraq than military servcie members. They bring special skills, techology and capabilities at competitive rates to the table that the DoD does not have to manage as an employer. Crargosquid is right in both posts.
Cargosquid, is squid a code name for something other than a marine animal that shoots ink?
See, I told you I shouldn’t have an opinion.
I believe that Steve and Anke Cheney did a very thorough thread on Blackwater over on her blog.
I have always had mixed feelings about using ‘mercenaries.’ Somehow the term mercenary is used generally to designate people who are of another nationality such as the Hessians were sleeping on the job when Washington and the guys crossed the Delaware. There is an implication that if the Hessians had been real ‘Americans’ then they wouldn’t have been sleeping. Perhaps the most famous mercenary unit is the French Foreign Legion. Not sure though.
There is a perceived not spoken implication that those serving in a PMC capacity don’t have the same vested interest in America. *I* am not saying that…I am saying it is a perception .
I’d elaborate; however, Cargosquid has pretty much summed things up (and has done an excellent job of it, IMHO). The role of contractors hasn’t changed that much over the years.
As a funny aside speaking of contractors (very few if any contractors are warfighters; they’re usually support positions, technical expertise or performing jobs that free up the warfighters) anyone ever read up on the history of Pinkerton?
I mean, it’s ironic that its 2010 and we’re talking about PMC’s and how it’s a governmental function. Pinkerton was the largest PMC in the US….in the 1800s. 😉
Pinko, btw thats a VERY complicated question that lawyers don’t agree on because of international treaties… I think the consensus now is the use of the phrase unlawful combatant. Either way, if your captured by the enemy don’t expect much in the way of quarter.
Article 47 of the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention stipulates that ‘a mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war’ but leaves a party to the Protocols the freedom to grant such status if so wished.
I have to go along with Opinion, but with the caveat that we need to be sure to keep pay and benefits increasing for our soldiers.
“Squid” is a nickname for Sailors. Usually used by Marines in a derogatory fashion. However, everyone knows that the squid is a form of sea life superior to all other Marine life…..
Here’s a tidbit: Did Blackwater, now Xe, save one of its critics in Niger?
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/02/blackwater-rescue-alan-grayson-niger-coup
Remember what I said about Blackwater being the security team for the State Dept.?
Thanks, Marin. At least it’s not a stupid question (and I wondered at first if it was).
@Opinion
Er, translation?
@Posting As Pinko
Mercenaries are not highly regarded because they have no allegiance to the Country they are fighting for… they are in it for the money… hired guns so to speak. If captured, they have no Geneva Convention protections and are not considered Prisoners of War. They are usually recognized because they do not wear the uniform of the Country they are fighting for (there are actually complex rules of war which civilized countries follow… including rules about uniforms). Simply put, they are treated as the Country that captured them wishes… usually as spies, criminals, or worse. I could get into a complicated discussion about stateless actors fighting for something they believe in with no allegiance to any particular Country; however, that would take a while.
The United States is kinder than most… think Guantanamo.
For every contractor doing a contractor-style job, there is a fighting man freed up for the battleline. That’s mighty important when your military forces are all volunteer and somewhat limited in numbers compared to what they used to be in other wars where the military draft was in play.
I have to say – what Opinon, Cargosquid, and Wolverine all have said here above is exactly right. It’s nice to see a lot of facts posted here. The press distorts things and makes it sound like contractors are on the firing line or in the middle of the battle. It makes people think a lot of things that aren’t true.
Those 3 covered things quite well here, so I have nothing else to add.
Thank you, Gainesville Resident. Simply put, the Contractors I have worked with over the years are every bit as patriotic as the Soldiers (and, like many people, I have been both).
Thanks to everyone who contributed to this discussion. I learned a lot. Would it be unpatriotic if I said, under my breath, that maybe they should have let the coupe get Alan Grayson?
Thanks Cargosquid. Somewhere…way back to the marine boyfriend days….I seem to recall the term squid now. I didn’t know what it meant.
Marin, you said the bill did not pass?
One more thing…if they care captured by the enemy, any enemy, they do not have to be treated according to the Geneva Convention rules?
Is there any way that the enemy can ever know who is and who is not a contract worker?
Our Geneva Convention Category is on our ID cards.
Okay, this is making more sense, then. Thank you, Opinion and everyone else.
About being treated according to the Geneva Accords……
Unless we go to war with a signatory to the treaty, its not going to happen. Especially in the current war.
Usually mercenaries, during historical times, were covered by the laws of war, as they did wear a recognizable uniform and were soldiers. Currently, mercenaries could be considered regular combatants. If a poor country used mercenaries as their military, then that would be their army. Also, foreign troops, ie troops not of the host nation, routinely train other nations military units. We do it. The British do it. And our nations get paid for it. Oh, and the French Foreign Legion aren’t mercs. They are part of the French military.
When the Rep from IL put forth this legislation in 2007 it went no where. Its not going anywhere today; as has been said above – for every contractor able to fix a tire, serve food, pump gas, or count ammo thats one more sailor, airmen, marine or soldier available to be on the front line.
Thanks Cargo. I stand corrected on the French Foreign legion. I always thought they were. Were they ever considered mercenaries?
So is the word mercenary an offensive one?
Moon said “So is the word mercenary an offensive one?
Do you mean to suggest that amercian logistics support contractors are mercenaries? Yes!!
Apparently, there is a comment missing. I answered your question about mercs. I’ll come back to it if you can’t find it.