It is no secret that the role of Private Military Contracots is on the rise. Some have speculated that we are in a new Golden Age for Mercenaries. However, only 10-15% of all Military Contractors are the "armed" variety. That means the vast majority are cooks, drivers, mechanics, and other support and logisitcs positions. This morning I heard the re-run of an interesting discussion about the Military Contractors and how they are handled in/by the U.S. Government and Military.
No transcript.... sorry. It is about 45 minutes to an hour long.
However, it shed some interesting light on the role of these contractors (both armed and unarmed) and how they are treated and utilized by our government.
Easy E wrote: It is no secret that the role of Private Military Contracots is on the rise. Some have speculated that we are in a new Golden Age for Mercenaries. However, only 10-15% of all Military Contractors are the "armed" variety. That means the vast majority are cooks, drivers, mechanics, and other support and logisitcs positions. This morning I heard the re-run of an interesting discussion about the Military Contractors and how they are handled in/by the U.S. Government and Military.
No transcript.... sorry. It is about 45 minutes to an hour long.
However, it shed some interesting light on the role of these contractors (both armed and unarmed) and how they are treated and utilized by our government.
Give it a listen and share your thoughts.
My thoughts are this: the rise of mercenaries being employed by America could be symptomatic of a country that has abdicated its ability to project global power, and has become aversive to the risks that warfare entails. The US military of old, confident in its ability, and possessed of genuine strength, would never have resorted to using contractors.
Two examples of this
1) casualties. In my view, America likes starting wars, but doesn't like it when the body bags start coming home. Who does, but I think this effect is more pronounced in the USA. Vietnam was arguably the first example of this instance. The employment of mercenaries negates this. Yes, mercenaries get killed just as well as Marines, but dead soldiers have more of an emotional impact than dead private contractors.
2) Iraq: Iraq was an unpopular war that cost America a lot of global political credit and won it few friends. Politically, having mercenaries acting as proxies for you is far less damaging than having actual military units. I may be wrong, but aren't mercenaries subject to different laws if they commit war crimes?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: dead soldiers have more of an emotional impact than dead private contractors
Fascinating point. If it is true, I wonder why.
I hope I didn't come across as demeaning dead people. After all, they're somebody's husband/father/son etc
But I'm a keen follower of American politics, and I love my American history and I noticed this: during the Iraq war, whenever soldiers were killed, the newspapers and tv news were respectful to the dead for obvious reasons.
Whenever contractors got killed, it was a shrug of the shoulders...
Military Service Members are told to go to combat/deploy to accomplish whatever goals set by POTUS. Military Contractors are paid six digits.
As for Combat Mercenaries I never ever ran across units compose entirely of Mercenaries who conduct combat for pay by the US Military. I ran across Security Guards in Qatar/Kuwait from Triple Canopy, Four Horsemen, Blackwater (DoS), and various small organizations that were subcontracted by a bigger organization to meet their contract obligation.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: dead soldiers have more of an emotional impact than dead private contractors
Fascinating point. If it is true, I wonder why.
They talked a bit about this point in the interviews. It basically boiled down to stereotypes.
Troops= Our loyal boys and girls who are selflessly putting the national interest above themselves. Their death is a tragedy!
PMC= Dirty, filthy, greedy Mercenary scum. Good riddance.
Edit: Also good point about backign away from our committment and ability to project power. As a nation loses this ability, it is natural to turn to Mercenaries. Therefore, the use of Mercenaries could be a sign of national weakness. Interesting.
Jihadin wrote: Military Service Members are told to go to combat/deploy to accomplish whatever goals set by POTUS. Military Contractors are paid six digits.
As for Combat Mercenaries I never ever ran across units compose entirely of Mercenaries who conduct combat for pay by the US Military. I ran across Security Guards in Qatar/Kuwait from Triple Canopy, Four Horsemen, Blackwater (DoS), and various small organizations that were subcontracted by a bigger organization to meet their contract obligation.
The two are not mutually exclusive, though, Jihadin.
How many private contractors did the US military have in world war 2? Vietnam? Gulf War 1? The American revolution?
Like I said, I believe that the US military is abdicating responsibilities that years ago it would have shouldered.
Look at the troop draw downs over the history. Units are deactivated that would have supported ongoing operations in a combat zone. We no longer have the draft, US military is formed to fight a two front war before OIF/OEF, US Military is a volunteer force.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: dead soldiers have more of an emotional impact than dead private contractors
Fascinating point. If it is true, I wonder why.
They talked a bit about this point in the interviews. It basically boiled down to stereotypes.
Troops= Our loyal boys and girls who are selflessly putting the national interest above themselves. Their death is a tragedy!
PMC= Dirty, filthy, greedy Mercenary scum. Good riddance.
Edit: Also good point about backign away from our committment and ability to project power. As a nation loses this ability, it is natural to turn to Mercenaries. Therefore, the use of Mercenaries could be a sign of national weakness. Interesting.
Thanks for saying I made a good point. High five. It's true though. If you have to pay people to fight for you...
Here's a historical example of how to do it right.
Rommel once said that the British were clever because they got other people to fight its wars : Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians etc. etc.
But these soldiers from the Empire were volunteers who believed in the Imperial goals, who believed in protecting the Motherland i.e Britain
That's a massive difference.
I include this example because some people have compared what the US military is doing in this day and age to what the British empire did.
Look at the troop draw downs over the history. Units are deactivated that would have supported ongoing operations in a combat zone. We no longer have the draft, US military is formed to fight a two front war before OIF/OEF, US Military is a volunteer force.
Big three clue are given
I agree that the US military is obviously a volunteer force, but if the 'cause' and the incentives were worthwhile then I believe you would have the numbers.
The Roman Republic could always recruit volunteers, the British army was a volunteer force, but it was never short of achieving its goals. Both Rome and Britain had an ethos that people bought into. I'm not saying that Imperialism is a good thing, but America does not have that ethos. It had it during the cold war where is stood as the defender of liberty, but that's gone now.
I think we're getting to deep into geo-poitics and what makes nations tick.
"I need you to go collect honey from those bee hives. I'll lend you this bee keeper suit for use, and instruct you on how to use it, and pay you $40. Or you can go do it without the suit and instructions and I'll pay you $100."
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Because the prevailing notion is that a soldier chooses to serve for God and country, while the mercenary choose to serve for his wallet.
So basically selfless > selfish.
That probably is the explanation. I'm just not sure why people believe that distinction ...
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Because the prevailing notion is that a soldier chooses to serve for God and country, while the mercenary choose to serve for his wallet.
So basically selfless > selfish.
That probably is the explanation. I'm just not sure why people believe that distinction ...
Easy E wrote: So, then the question is.... why is that ethos of Liberty gone? What has replaced it?
"You cannot ask a man to die for sixpence a day or for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul in order to electrify him..."
- Napoleon Bonaparte.
In other words, people have to believe in something, rightly or wrongly.
The Roman Republic had it.
The British Empire had it - look how many volunteered in 1914 to fight the Germans.
The American rebels in the revolution had it
and so on.
These days, people know the horrors of war, and there's a perception that big business runs the world and that democracy is not worth a damn because every politician answers to Wall Street.
Honestly, who's going to charge into battle for google or coca cola?
MrDwhitey wrote: Frankly, from what I hear a great deal of the soldiers do it for their wallets too.
It's a strange one.
Its also a "accomplishment" one goes to combat to experience combat (to an extent). Also as a leader its a major accomplishment and a sense of pride to lead troops in combat.
I think people are too sensitive to violence that they aren't willing to risk anything. So when they see casualties they immediately overreact(not to diminish the deaths of soldiers) but really every war the US has been involved in since the Civil war has seen casualty rates fall through the floor.
We're too sensitive to casualties. But when it comes to war things have to boil down to numbers, not emotion. And the numbers are not too high.
Basically, people need to accept that in war people die. And that really not very many of our guys end up dying, so playing up US casualty numbers as being bad really shows ignorance of the real horrors of war. WW2 and the Civil War were true metrics of horrible casualties, not any modern war we've had.
I think people are too sensitive to violence that they aren't willing to risk anything. So when they see casualties they immediately overreact(not to diminish the deaths of soldiers) but really every war the US has been involved in since the Civil war has seen casualty rates fall through the floor.
We're too sensitive to casualties. But when it comes to war things have to boil down to numbers, not emotion. And the numbers are not too high.
Basically, people need to accept that in war people die. And that really not very many of our guys end up dying, so playing up US casualty numbers as being bad really shows ignorance of the real horrors of war. WW2 and the Civil War were true metrics of horrible casualties, not any modern war we've had.
In my view, America's never been bombed. When I say bombed, I don't mean the terrorist attacks, but proper aerial, world war two style bombing from a foreign air force.
As a result, they're more keen to get involved in warfare in my view.
In the UK, there are plenty of people alive who remember the Luftwaffe bombing, and as a result, we're less likely to be pro-war IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: There are no US soldiers who don't get paid.
Mercenaries nowadays work differently than what people usually think about. They are less of the "Oh see, he pays more, we'll join up with him!" sort. They are...assistance companies. Sort of. They know that repeatedly getting employed by the same employer is more worthwhile than turning your back on him. Furthermore, they are well aware of politics and alliances. Germany has no idea how to have a working military, so it's mostly the US who hires but there's no reason why you would turn against the US after having been employed before.
Easy E wrote: If you are a Private Military Contractor- what are the benefits like if you are injured in the field? How about retirement? Does anyone here know?
I didn't watch the Video, but here is my point of view on it.
Defense contracting is a huge industry. Several Fortune 100 companies in the US are Defense contractors, like Lockheed Martin. There are plenty of retirements, and long term jobs available.
The primary purpose is generally to be "Experts" on a System, or something of that nature. The Soldiers jobs is generally to be the basic maintenance level, or to push the "Fire" button when it comes to weapons. This is a bit of an overs implication, but that's how it works.
So when anything outside the scope of the soldiers happens to the system, it's the contractors job to fix/replace, whatever. The Nature of warfare has changed, because there is such a massive array of equipment that goes with our Military now. It would be impossible to expect the limited number of soldiers to be experts on it all. This is one of the main reasons we have seen a rise in Contractors.
Generally, however, U.S. military servicemembers' pay doesn't stop unless they're convicted at courts-martial and then it's only under specific conditions.
I don't think its fair to have this binary distinction between soldiers and contractors and declare the former as angels and the latter as demons.
The thing is they are generally the same people, most contractors are ex military so have already served 'king and country' and are almost certainly patriots. If they want to put their skills to use on the private sector once their millitary careers have finishef I don't see what's inherently objectionable about that. A choice between taking a normal civilian job and earning a small fortune doing a job they already know how to do must be damn tempting.
I also don't think the term 'mercenary' is applicable to these guys. A mercenary by definition will serve anyone on the provision they pay them more. There is no way these guys would turn on the west if its enemies offered to pay them more. They are firmly on our side.
MrDwhitey wrote: Frankly, from what I hear a great deal of the soldiers do it for their wallets too.
It's a strange one.
Of course money is a factor.
It certainly isn't the only one though. You think I'm living it up over in here in Afghanistan, just for the money right now? Feth that...
I will be honest, my last reenslistment is coming up at the end of this year, and about 75% of the reason I am going to do it, is for the retirement. I've done my service to the nation, there is no question to that. Now I'm in this for me. I still have the zeal for the job, I still enjoy it, but if I had the choice to retire now, I would. I've gotta stick it out to 20 though to get that check.
The life is gakky, money is one of the things that helps to balance it out.
I might as well chime in here, as I am, for all intents and purposes a PMC.
I'm an ex RAF Airframe Fitter, now contracting in Saudi Arabia.
It's not the first time I've been here, I was here when I was serving, during the last gulf war.
Most of the PMC I've run into over the years, if not all have been ex military.
I'm lucky, I have a trade, and I can go all over the world on the strength of it, the infantry types are not so lucky.
Let's be honest, there are few civilian jobs that need thast particular skill set.
When I did my resettlement training courses when I was leaving the RAF, I was there with another RAF tech, a Navy Artificer, and about 20 infantrymen.
The plan for future employment was depressingly similar.
Myself and the other RAF tech were planning to go offshore into the oil industry, the Navy guy was going into IT support, all the infantrymen wanted to do private security in Iraq.
The work is available, they have the skills and I say why not?
If you have a marketable skill and there is demand, why shouldn't you make some return from the years you invested in training?
I make far more out here contracting than I ever did in service.
I would have stayed in to complete 22 years if I could have, but forces drawdowns meant I couldn't, so here I am.
I have my family out here, and we can afford for my wife not to work, so she can stay at home with my 15 month old daughter.
Totally worth it.
For those that are interested in contract work for the US Government. I can point you in some direction. If you do not think you qualify then you might be surprise on who they want.
A few out there
AC First. General vehicle maintenance and supervisors
Lockheed Martin. Related to the Stryker program in Afghanistan
DynaCorp
Supreme
It does not have to be in theater. Can be all over. Trick is getting your foot in the door and a security clearance
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: dead soldiers have more of an emotional impact than dead private contractors
Fascinating point. If it is true, I wonder why.
Well, for one, military personnel don't really have a choice in being deployed. They can choose whether or not to join, but people tend to have a problem with Joe College Money getting wasted in a foreign country just because he needed cash for school and enlisted during peace time. I'd argue that Joe College Money shouldn't have tried to game the system, but that opinion is less popular I'm sure.
The other issue is that private contractors tend to be (muuuch) better paid, so the risks as seen as more justifiable given the rewards.
Mercenaries (and thats what these are) kill for money.
That's kind of an ignorant interpretation of the situation. What about guys who have served 10 years in a combat unit, and then get offered six figures for 8 months of work to do basically the exact same thing for a private military company?
Are they really "killing for money," or are they just being better compensated for serving their country?
I'd like to add that technically I was a mercenary in the IDF, but at just under 1,000 shekels a month it'd be hard to argue with a straight face that I was doing it for the money.
Agreed. The danger with mercenaries is that they could go over to the other side. Look at renaissance Italy.
While this is historically accurate, I don't know of a single American Contractor who switched sides. I do however know of one high profile American soldier whose allegiance is under suspicion...
Easy E wrote: If you are a Private Military Contractor- what are the benefits like if you are injured in the field? How about retirement? Does anyone here know?
Depends on the company and the contract with them you negotiate, AND on the contract you are working on (some will have agreements with Host Nation or other supported forces for MEDEVAC/trauma care).
As for the role of PMCs, I submit in relatively modern times there have been some that have done some good. Executive Outcomes and their successors have actually brought security and stability to some gak holes where host nation was unwilling/not capable of doing so.
Maybe i'm weird here but i don't fully have a problem with mercenaries as long as they have codes of conduct.
The U.S. has used mercenaries to fight terrorism because they are under a different set of boundaries than a country's military is. I'm not sure on all the issues but maybe mercenaries can fight terrorists in countries that the U.S. military is not allowed in. I might be wrong but a nation's military entering a country not allowed is a declaration of war but mercenaries doing the same is probably not.
Sadly mercenaries could probably be bought by other rich countries (like russia maybe) unless there are guidelines that can't be violated.
Perhaps some mercenaries are just better paid ex-military as was suggested since it doesn't always translate well to other types of jobs. Then there's the case that maybe they became disillusioned by the politics of their country or maybe they didn't get enough money and that's the only job they're good at. The whole selfish vs selfless thing isn't always true. People may have various stories and you should ask some to find out.
So yeah i'm no expert by a long shot and will probably be shot down by those who are but that's what i think. Also ideals are nice but when you don't get food and a home for your troubles you might stray.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Maybe i'm weird here but i don't fully have a problem with mercenaries as long as they have codes of conduct.
The U.S. has used mercenaries to fight terrorism because they are under a different set of boundaries than a country's military is. I'm not sure on all the issues but maybe mercenaries can fight terrorists in countries that the U.S. military is not allowed in. I might be wrong but a nation's military entering a country not allowed is a declaration of war but mercenaries doing the same is probably not.
Sadly mercenaries could probably be bought by other rich countries (like russia maybe) unless there are guidelines that can't be violated..
I don't think you know very much about the subject. Any PMCs I know of hired by the US have an ROE that makes the one the troops work under look lax. A company can be debarred from getting contracts if they break rules and none of them want to lose Uncle Sam's $$$$. They also have pretty strict rules on vetting their employees for any type of security/personal security type work.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Maybe i'm weird here but i don't fully have a problem with mercenaries as long as they have codes of conduct.
The U.S. has used mercenaries to fight terrorism because they are under a different set of boundaries than a country's military is. I'm not sure on all the issues but maybe mercenaries can fight terrorists in countries that the U.S. military is not allowed in. I might be wrong but a nation's military entering a country not allowed is a declaration of war but mercenaries doing the same is probably not.
Sadly mercenaries could probably be bought by other rich countries (like russia maybe) unless there are guidelines that can't be violated..
I don't think you know very much about the subject. Any PMCs I know of hired by the US have an ROE that makes the one the troops work under look lax. A company can be debarred from getting contracts if they break rules and none of them want to lose Uncle Sam's $$$$. They also have pretty strict rules on vetting their employees for any type of security/personal security type work.
I'm not saying i do. Perhaps i worded that incorrectly and i apologize. I only heard them having been sent to iraq and such. I just didn't know if the U.S. would use them to fight a fight the U.S. itself normally wouldn't be allowed to fight with traditional forces.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Maybe i'm weird here but i don't fully have a problem with mercenaries as long as they have codes of conduct.
The U.S. has used mercenaries to fight terrorism because they are under a different set of boundaries than a country's military is. I'm not sure on all the issues but maybe mercenaries can fight terrorists in countries that the U.S. military is not allowed in. I might be wrong but a nation's military entering a country not allowed is a declaration of war but mercenaries doing the same is probably not.
Sadly mercenaries could probably be bought by other rich countries (like russia maybe) unless there are guidelines that can't be violated..
I don't think you know very much about the subject. Any PMCs I know of hired by the US have an ROE that makes the one the troops work under look lax. A company can be debarred from getting contracts if they break rules and none of them want to lose Uncle Sam's $$$$. They also have pretty strict rules on vetting their employees for any type of security/personal security type work.
I'm not saying i do. Perhaps i worded that incorrectly and i apologize. I only heard them having been sent to iraq and such. I just didn't know if the U.S. would use them to fight a fight the U.S. itself normally wouldn't be allowed to fight with traditional forces.
That's rather interesting though.
You know, we kill fethers in countries we are not supposed to be in with Gov't drones. We send DEVGRU and Delta into countries we are not supposed to be in to kill terrorists (Pakistan and Somalia for example). Why would anyone think we need to use PMCs to play outside of the rules?
I'm a 13 year veteran of both the ground side of combat and the aviation field in the US Army. Private military contractors (PMCs henceforth) are actually nothing new in the US military. They've existed in every war since and including the War for Independence but it is true that they are more abundant than ever. While some PMCs are the armed guard or personal security detail ala Blackwater or Triple Canopy, most PMCs are logistics support or technical support (think heavy helicopter maintenance or running a stock yard for everything from toilet paper to MREs). Fully half the contractors I ran into were program managers for various IT fields like FBCB2 or Blue Force Tracker. Contractors are ubiquitous in the military - both in and out of theater. For example, every helicopter that comes out of theater goes through a complete overhaul called "reset" that involves upwards of 9000 man-hours of skilled and intensive maintenance - all done by private contractors.
PMCs are actually "cheaper" than deploying a US Army soldier. It over a million dollars to send a green private out of basic to Iraq. That accounts for pay and allowance, training, insurance, clothing him, arming him, feeding him and all the ancillary costs like gas to transport him around the battlefield. Meanwhile, we pay the average PMC somewhere in the low 6 figures based on their skill-set. That does not include long term health care, retirement, or arming and clothing him. It's kind of a bargain - at least in theory. Let's not even get into the political costs of an American soldier's life versus a filthy mercenary scum life. Let's also not take into account the fact that most PMCs are staffed almost exclusively with mid to high ranking former military types who are looking to make money after they've gotten out. The green private comes with almost no skills outside of his very narrow MOS and costs a million dollars while the former E7/8 comes with a career's worth of military skills along with whatever private certification he has and clock in around the 3-400,000 mark for year. Of course, this is all in theory.
Private corporation are in it to make money and the military, for all its formidable prowess, really sucks at balancing its books. Corruption is rampant and there simply not enough CID agents around to chase down the billions of dollars being thrown down the drain. There's also no political or moral drive to correct it since companies like Dynacopr, L3, Lockheed Martin, and Xe (Blackwater) bring in billions to congressional districts. I would actually posit that the United States has reached a point where the military-industrial complex will drive itself. That is, the defense industry will create new weapons and new demand for war and it will inevitably follow that the USA will involve itself in a new war until the entire system comes crashing down.
Let's me recount a few examples. First off (this is the most recent one) a C-12 (Kingair) twin engined prop plane was sent to Alabama for modifications. C-12 are basically military versions of the Kingair twin engine turbo prop plane. It seats about 6 passengers and is primarily used but the Army for light passenger transport both in and out of theater and ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) work. The thing usually flies at about 23,000 feet give or take. Our C-12 was sent to Alabama to have the CMWS system (common missile warning system) installed at 280,000 dollars a pop and probably another 200,000 in man hours and another 20,000 dollars in flight time. That's 500,000 for one light passenger transport plane that has never been to theater and is not scheduled to deploy to theater any time soon - yet the contract was still written to send all C-12s to get the upgrade. Of course, only about 1/10 of the Army's C-12 are every in theater, but that didn't stop the army from spending millions on what it didn't need.
Let's talk next about Nissan Pathfinders in Iraq. The mid-sized SUVs were ubiquitous on base throughout the Iraq war and were used by military, PMCs, and third-party subcontractors to get around base. Theoretically a bargain compared to the cost to ride a HMMWV around base. Of course, all the Pathfinders were maintained by PMCs. Their contracts were VERY generous. I remember turning in about 20,000 miles (calling it about 35,000 KM) Pathfinder because it needed servicing. They gave me a new one - no question asked. That was standard and all paid for by contract. I flew over and drove past massive parking lots of brand new SUVs that ended up being given to the Iraqis after we basically used them for a couple of oil changes.
We won't even talk about the actual "I carry guns" PMCs because those guys operated outside of my pay grade and above my security clearance. Suffice to say that I heard and say plenty of PMC shootouts in 2004 that would have gotten a US Military man sent to prison. MK 19s opening up on full auto in the middle of downtown Mosul. We used to joke (darkly) that every grenade or rocket a PMC sent down range meant another IED for us. Basically, the entire system is corrupt and I'm saddened but not surprised that more people didn't go to jail over the whole thing. Backpacks full of money being carried around with zero accountability but I lose a pair of gloves and I see it out of my next pay check. There was zero accountability….
Those examples are small fries compared to the billions flushed down the drain by Congress by ordering and mandating too many MRAPs and M1A2s or the billions spent inappropriately on reconstruction projects that cost about a 1/4 of what the taxpayer spent on them.
The entire thing makes me sick and the fact that anyone who was involved in planning or setting policy during the Iraq war still has their freedom makes me furious.
Those C12s fly in other theaters too, and PD ASE was basically told any and all air frames that may deploy into a theater with a threat MUST have CMWS installed. As I'm sure you know, there are times a unit gets tasked to provide an airframe to deploy when the theater assets are coming into phase or go down for other issues, so the Army tends to ensure as much of the fleet is upgraded as possible, and CMWS was/is a big deal. Getting it installed on every deployable airframe wasn't a choice as far as Big Army was concerned.
As for the pathfinders (and similar vehicles), you can't put that on the companies with the maintenance contracts. You can put that on DoD and congress. DoD for allowing 'want' to turn into 'required' and congress for throwing money like drunken sailors. And the DoD leadership learned how that works quickly. I know Army (and joint) contracting officers that tried to limit contracts/encourage only funding of actual requirements but the WarFighter always got their way unless some fraud or other violation of the FARS could be shown. And that happens CONUS too.
CptJake wrote: Those C12s fly in other theaters too, and PD ASE was basically told any and all air frames that may deploy into a theater with a threat MUST have CMWS installed. As I'm sure you know, there are times a unit gets tasked to provide an airframe to deploy when the theater assets are coming into phase or go down for other issues, so the Army tends to ensure as much of the fleet is upgraded as possible, and CMWS was/is a big deal. Getting it installed on every deployable airframe wasn't a choice as far as Big Army was concerned.
As for the pathfinders (and similar vehicles), you can't put that on the companies with the maintenance contracts. You can put that on DoD and congress. DoD for allowing 'want' to turn into 'required' and congress for throwing money like drunken sailors. And the DoD leadership learned how that works quickly. I know Army (and joint) contracting officers that tried to limit contracts/encourage only funding of actual requirements but the WarFighter always got their way unless some fraud or other violation of the FARS could be shown. And that happens CONUS too.
Oh, I don't blame the PMCs at all. I think they are totally acting within the letter of the law as far as they can. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I blame Congress and DOD totally. I will say that I believe there is zero reason to upgrade the entire fleet of C-12 to have CMWS. It's a waste of money. The entire fleet is never going to be deployed and pretending that we could ever make an entire fleet of anything deployable is ludicrous. The day of pretending that we can sustain 2 major regional conflicts or 2 low intensity conflicts for any sustained period of time are long past so let's stop equipping our forces to pretend we can.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Because the prevailing notion is that a soldier chooses to serve for God and country, while the mercenary choose to serve for his wallet.
So basically selfless > selfish.
That probably is the explanation. I'm just not sure why people believe that distinction ...
I think part of it may be less selfless/selfish, but maybe it's that we feel like soldiers have less of a choice.
Yes our military is voluntary, and people make the choice to enlist. But even after enlisting it may feel like that dead soldier didn't really have much of any choice when it came to fighting this particular fight in that particular area during this particular conflict. Yes he is a volunteer soldier, but he didn't choose to end up in this unit in that country.
The mercenary knew that he was going to X to fight against Y armed with Z and he decided to go ahead and put himself in harms way.
Both get paid, both volunteered, but the soldier ended up where he was told to go while the mercenary decided to go where he went.
Don't know if that might be how some people feel about it, but could be a possibility.
d-usa wrote: I think part of it may be less selfless/selfish, but maybe it's that we feel like soldiers have less of a choice. Yes our military is voluntary, and people make the choice to enlist. But even after enlisting it may feel like that dead soldier didn't really have much of any choice when it came to fighting this particular fight in that particular area during this particular conflict. Yes he is a volunteer soldier, but he didn't choose to end up in this unit in that country.
Not to mention such a thing as Stop-Loss. A soldier with "critical" expertise can be forced to continue beyond his term of service if it's deemed necessary, say too many of a certain speciality mustering out at the same time. So suddenly the volunteer is involuntarily deployed or has his deployment lengthened.
Yes, he did sign a paper where he could be required to continue fighting up to six months after the war is over. How many wars has the US actually declared lately?
Actually, most enlistments are for a total of 8 years, even if it is a 2 year Active Duty enlistment, you owe another 6 years, generally done in the individual ready reserve. I have no idea where you get the '6 months after the war is over' if you are referencing the US military. Maybe your country does it differently.
And when you re-enlist, most are now 'indef' or for an indefinite amount of time (as in until you get booted for not getting promoted or you decide to leave the service/retire).
So, I'm not sure your understanding of 'Stop Loss' as it applies to the US military is all that accurate.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Because the prevailing notion is that a soldier chooses to serve for God and country, while the mercenary choose to serve for his wallet.
So basically selfless > selfish.
That probably is the explanation. I'm just not sure why people believe that distinction ...
Because it's what their culture raised them with? At least the first part of it anyway.
CptJake wrote: I have no idea where you get the '6 months after the war is over' if you are referencing the US military.
Stop Loss is founded on these two:
Title 10, United States Code, Section 12305(a) which states in part: "... the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States"
Paragraph 10(c) of DD Form 4/1 (The Armed Forces Enlistment Contract) which states: "In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless the enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States."
Not that I tried to examine it in full either - a civilian hearing about stop loss will only know that the poor enlisted guy is now forced to continue on deployment because the authorities said so. He's no longer a volunteer at all.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Because the prevailing notion is that a soldier chooses to serve for God and country, while the mercenary choose to serve for his wallet.
So basically selfless > selfish.
That probably is the explanation. I'm just not sure why people believe that distinction ...
I think part of it may be less selfless/selfish, but maybe it's that we feel like soldiers have less of a choice.
Yes our military is voluntary, and people make the choice to enlist. But even after enlisting it may feel like that dead soldier didn't really have much of any choice when it came to fighting this particular fight in that particular area during this particular conflict. Yes he is a volunteer soldier, but he didn't choose to end up in this unit in that country.
The mercenary knew that he was going to X to fight against Y armed with Z and he decided to go ahead and put himself in harms way.
Both get paid, both volunteered, but the soldier ended up where he was told to go while the mercenary decided to go where he went.
Don't know if that might be how some people feel about it, but could be a possibility.
That explains the point I was making.
Yes, the soldier volunteered for duty to serve his country, knowing the risks that it might entail, while wanting to be part of something larger than themselves. On the other hand, the contractor volunteered for duty to serve their private employer, knowing the risks that it might entail, while wanting to line their pockets.
Now, I'm not saying that is how it really is, only what I think the public's idea of the difference between the two.
CptJake wrote: I have no idea where you get the '6 months after the war is over' if you are referencing the US military.
Stop Loss is founded on these two:
Title 10, United States Code, Section 12305(a) which states in part: "... the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States"
Paragraph 10(c) of DD Form 4/1 (The Armed Forces Enlistment Contract) which states: "In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless the enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States."
Not that I tried to examine it in full either - a civilian hearing about stop loss will only know that the poor enlisted guy is now forced to continue on deployment because the authorities said so. He's no longer a volunteer at all.
Not really, second one only applies in the event of a declared war, Iraq and Afghanistan were not Congressionally declared wars, first one while true is a little vague but either way Captain Jake has the right of it. In the US you contract you sign is for an active duty period and an inactive reserve period during which you can be called back as needed (rare though). 99%+ of the time when someone has been "stop lossed" it is some one being kept on active duty during that reserve time.
CptJake wrote: You can put that on DoD and congress. DoD for allowing 'want' to turn into 'required' and congress for throwing money like drunken sailors. And the DoD leadership learned how that works quickly. I know Army (and joint) contracting officers that tried to limit contracts/encourage only funding of actual requirements but the WarFighter always got their way unless some fraud or other violation of the FARS could be shown. And that happens CONUS too.
I think the issue is that it happens in all big businesses. When asking for something to be funded wants are never given money, you need to show you need. If you want more staff to keep your staffs work level manageable then you won't get it, but if you can show you need more staff or you won't get the work done then people will bend over backwards. The issue comes then when a want becomes a need later on and you either take forever to get it, or are asked why you didn't do something earlier. Therefor you start putting everything across as a need. Soon everything becomes a need to make sure you get as many of the wants as you can for when they become needs. I know I have done it, and I have seen other people fall down because they thought they were being good by not shouting as much as others, but it ended up with them being ignored and not getting what they need to do the job.
It's not just defense, or even government, but endemic in any large organization.
CptJake wrote: I have no idea where you get the '6 months after the war is over' if you are referencing the US military.
Stop Loss is founded on these two:
Title 10, United States Code, Section 12305(a) which states in part: "... the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States"
Paragraph 10(c) of DD Form 4/1 (The Armed Forces Enlistment Contract) which states: "In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless the enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States."
Not that I tried to examine it in full either - a civilian hearing about stop loss will only know that the poor enlisted guy is now forced to continue on deployment because the authorities said so. He's no longer a volunteer at all.
Not really, second one only applies in the event of a declared war, Iraq and Afghanistan were not Congressionally declared wars, first one while true is a little vague but either way Captain Jake has the right of it. In the US you contract you sign is for an active duty period and an inactive reserve period during which you can be called back as needed (rare though). 99%+ of the time when someone has been "stop lossed" it is some one being kept on active duty during that reserve time.
And the other part is folks kept from PCSing due to deployment timelines, effectively being 'stop lossed' at the deploying/deployed unit. Basically everyone in the unit gets locked into that unit for the duration, regardless of being up for reassignment. In these cases it does not extend active duty time, though it may also delay needed professional development schools.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: dead soldiers have more of an emotional impact than dead private contractors
Fascinating point. If it is true, I wonder why.
Well, for one, military personnel don't really have a choice in being deployed. They can choose whether or not to join, but people tend to have a problem with Joe College Money getting wasted in a foreign country just because he needed cash for school and enlisted during peace time. I'd argue that Joe College Money shouldn't have tried to game the system, but that opinion is less popular I'm sure.
The other issue is that private contractors tend to be (muuuch) better paid, so the risks as seen as more justifiable given the rewards.
Mercenaries (and thats what these are) kill for money.
That's kind of an ignorant interpretation of the situation. What about guys who have served 10 years in a combat unit, and then get offered six figures for 8 months of work to do basically the exact same thing for a private military company?
Are they really "killing for money," or are they just being better compensated for serving their country?
I'd like to add that technically I was a mercenary in the IDF, but at just under 1,000 shekels a month it'd be hard to argue with a straight face that I was doing it for the money.
Agreed. The danger with mercenaries is that they could go over to the other side. Look at renaissance Italy.
While this is historically accurate, I don't know of a single American Contractor who switched sides. I do however know of one high profile American soldier whose allegiance is under suspicion...
Correct me If I'm wrong, but in previous posts, have you not mentioned you served in the Israeli army?
If the answer is yes, then I don't need to remind that during the 1960s and 1970s, and even the 1940s, when Israel for fighting for survival, it wouldn't have relied on mercenaries to fight for it.
It didn't have too, because people believed in the cause, and because they were fighting for their survival.
Which brings me back to my original point that nobody has been able to answer: does America's reliance on contractors weaken its ability to project power and highlight a risk aversion which is at odds with its position as global superpower? I think it does.
Again, I use the example of Britain using other people to fight its wars, with the difference that these people believed in the imperial project, which is totally the opposite of paying contractors.
Which brings me back to my original point that nobody has been able to answer: does America's reliance on contractors weaken its ability to project power and highlight a risk aversion which is at odds with its position as global superpower? I think it does.
No, it does not 'weaken its ability to project power' at all. No PMC can project power the way the US DoD can. None. Zero. Not even close.
No other military can project power the way the US DoD can. None. Zero.
If anything, the last 15 years have postured us for better power projection. We've streamlined HQ and echelons to decrease deployment timelines without decreasing capability once deployed, have forward deployed equipment sets in several locations to make mass deployments quicker. We've developed long stare ISR assets that can move over and cover target sets like never before.
And the bottom line, as has been pointed out, is that the use of contractors tends to be for base support activities (cooking, doing laundry, operating warehouses, some security), and not for fighting.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: dead soldiers have more of an emotional impact than dead private contractors
Fascinating point. If it is true, I wonder why.
Well, for one, military personnel don't really have a choice in being deployed. They can choose whether or not to join, but people tend to have a problem with Joe College Money getting wasted in a foreign country just because he needed cash for school and enlisted during peace time. I'd argue that Joe College Money shouldn't have tried to game the system, but that opinion is less popular I'm sure.
The other issue is that private contractors tend to be (muuuch) better paid, so the risks as seen as more justifiable given the rewards.
Mercenaries (and thats what these are) kill for money.
That's kind of an ignorant interpretation of the situation. What about guys who have served 10 years in a combat unit, and then get offered six figures for 8 months of work to do basically the exact same thing for a private military company?
Are they really "killing for money," or are they just being better compensated for serving their country?
I'd like to add that technically I was a mercenary in the IDF, but at just under 1,000 shekels a month it'd be hard to argue with a straight face that I was doing it for the money.
Agreed. The danger with mercenaries is that they could go over to the other side. Look at renaissance Italy.
While this is historically accurate, I don't know of a single American Contractor who switched sides. I do however know of one high profile American soldier whose allegiance is under suspicion...
Correct me If I'm wrong, but in previous posts, have you not mentioned you served in the Israeli army?
If the answer is yes, then I don't need to remind that during the 1960s and 1970s, and even the 1940s, when Israel for fighting for survival, it wouldn't have relied on mercenaries to fight for it.
It didn't have too, because people believed in the cause, and because they were fighting for their survival.
Which brings me back to my original point that nobody has been able to answer: does America's reliance on contractors weaken its ability to project power and highlight a risk aversion which is at odds with its position as global superpower? I think it does.
Again, I use the example of Britain using other people to fight its wars, with the difference that these people believed in the imperial project, which is totally the opposite of paying contractors.
Absolutely - the answer is yes.
Bear in mind that during Israel's War of Independence, they made extensive use of what could be considered "mercenaries" today. That said, I'd argue that those people, like modern Private Military Contractors, are motivated by a lot more than just money.
Note that the Machal program (now called Mahal) is still in existence. It's the route that many foreigners take to serve in the IDF. We were assigned to Israeli units and fought alongside other Israelis, the only difference being that a disproportionately great proportion of Mahal volunteers serve in combat units. Two foreign volunteers were killed during the action in Gaza last summer, just to give you an indicate of how widespread this practice is nowadays. While they're technically mercenaries, they're exceptionally poorly paid by mercenary standards so there's something more going on there.
Regarding contractors employed by the US, as I understand it, a good share of the logistics contractors came from countries that don't give a damn about America or Iraq. However, a lot of the Private Military Contractors were American and from US-allied countries. I don't think it's accurate to say that these guys were doing it for money alone, and I know that these guys would never switch sides to fight for the enemy. They're loyal, they just want to be better paid for doing their jobs.
So I'm not sure that using contractors weakens America's ability to project power. If anything, contractors are a great stopgap measure to avoid having to maintain a larger standing military in peace time, and the use of contractors loyal to US interests probably benefits America more so than it harms its ability to project power.
I do agree with you that a reliance on contractors could hurt US capabilities under certain conditions, if the US became reliant on contractors for combat roles (which is currently not the case, as I understand it). If Iraq or Afghanistan was a real meat grinder, then it would probably be a lot harder to get guys over there voluntarily. I can't see too many guys volunteering to fight at the Somme, for example.
Which brings me back to my original point that nobody has been able to answer: does America's reliance on contractors weaken its ability to project power and highlight a risk aversion which is at odds with its position as global superpower? I think it does.
No, it does not 'weaken its ability to project power' at all. No PMC can project power the way the US DoD can. None. Zero. Not even close.
No other military can project power the way the US DoD can. None. Zero.
If anything, the last 15 years have postured us for better power projection. We've streamlined HQ and echelons to decrease deployment timelines without decreasing capability once deployed, have forward deployed equipment sets in several locations to make mass deployments quicker. We've developed long stare ISR assets that can move over and cover target sets like never before.
And the bottom line, as has been pointed out, is that the use of contractors tends to be for base support activities (cooking, doing laundry, operating warehouses, some security), and not for fighting.
In the year 1900, there was only one country on earth who could move 100,000 men from A to anywhere in the world in record time. Britain.
In the year 2015, there is only one country on earth who could move 100,000 men from A to anywhere in the world in record time. USA.
I don't deny you guys can do this in 2015.
BUT
The difference between the USA of 2015 and Britain of 1900 is that Britain was prepared to project global power when its interests were threatened during the Boer war.
America has the power, but, rightly or wrongly, it is reluctant to use it to defend its interests.
I'm not bashing America or being biased in favour of my own country, but the USA doesn't have the zeal that previous super-powers have had in defending what's theirs.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: dead soldiers have more of an emotional impact than dead private contractors
Fascinating point. If it is true, I wonder why.
Well, for one, military personnel don't really have a choice in being deployed. They can choose whether or not to join, but people tend to have a problem with Joe College Money getting wasted in a foreign country just because he needed cash for school and enlisted during peace time. I'd argue that Joe College Money shouldn't have tried to game the system, but that opinion is less popular I'm sure.
The other issue is that private contractors tend to be (muuuch) better paid, so the risks as seen as more justifiable given the rewards.
Mercenaries (and thats what these are) kill for money.
That's kind of an ignorant interpretation of the situation. What about guys who have served 10 years in a combat unit, and then get offered six figures for 8 months of work to do basically the exact same thing for a private military company?
Are they really "killing for money," or are they just being better compensated for serving their country?
I'd like to add that technically I was a mercenary in the IDF, but at just under 1,000 shekels a month it'd be hard to argue with a straight face that I was doing it for the money.
Agreed. The danger with mercenaries is that they could go over to the other side. Look at renaissance Italy.
While this is historically accurate, I don't know of a single American Contractor who switched sides. I do however know of one high profile American soldier whose allegiance is under suspicion...
Correct me If I'm wrong, but in previous posts, have you not mentioned you served in the Israeli army?
If the answer is yes, then I don't need to remind that during the 1960s and 1970s, and even the 1940s, when Israel for fighting for survival, it wouldn't have relied on mercenaries to fight for it.
It didn't have too, because people believed in the cause, and because they were fighting for their survival.
Which brings me back to my original point that nobody has been able to answer: does America's reliance on contractors weaken its ability to project power and highlight a risk aversion which is at odds with its position as global superpower? I think it does.
Again, I use the example of Britain using other people to fight its wars, with the difference that these people believed in the imperial project, which is totally the opposite of paying contractors.
Absolutely - the answer is yes.
Bear in mind that during Israel's War of Independence, they made extensive use of what could be considered "mercenaries" today. That said, I'd argue that those people, like modern Private Military Contractors, are motivated by a lot more than just money.
Note that the Machal program (now called Mahal) is still in existence. It's the route that many foreigners take to serve in the IDF. We were assigned to Israeli units and fought alongside other Israelis, the only difference being that a disproportionately great proportion of Mahal volunteers serve in combat units. Two foreign volunteers were killed during the action in Gaza last summer, just to give you an indicate of how widespread this practice is nowadays. While they're technically mercenaries, they're exceptionally poorly paid by mercenary standards so there's something more going on there.
Regarding contractors employed by the US, as I understand it, a good share of the logistics contractors came from countries that don't give a damn about America or Iraq. However, a lot of the Private Military Contractors were American and from US-allied countries. I don't think it's accurate to say that these guys were doing it for money alone, and I know that these guys would never switch sides to fight for the enemy. They're loyal, they just want to be better paid for doing their jobs.
So I'm not sure that using contractors weakens America's ability to project power. If anything, contractors are a great stopgap measure to avoid having to maintain a larger standing military in peace time, and the use of contractors loyal to US interests probably benefits America more so than it harms its ability to project power.
I do agree with you that a reliance on contractors could hurt US capabilities under certain conditions, if the US became reliant on contractors for combat roles (which is currently not the case, as I understand it). If Iraq or Afghanistan was a real meat grinder, then it would probably be a lot harder to get guys over there voluntarily. I can't see too many guys volunteering to fight at the Somme, for example.
Good post. In response to your point, I believe that paying people to fight for you leads to two conclusions.
A) you're rich enough to pay other people to fight for you
or
B) You're reluctant to fight yourself...
America is very rich, but it's also very powerful...
America has better power projection capabilities than any other country on the planet by and extremely wide margin, and I think that has much more to do with naval and air power than with the use of contractors.
Hordini wrote: America has better power projection capabilities than any other country on the planet by and extremely wide margin, and I think that has much more to do with naval and air power than with the use of contractors.
Nobody is denying that. The question is: do they have the will to use that power to protect their interests. I'm not so sure...
Hordini wrote: America has better power projection capabilities than any other country on the planet by and extremely wide margin, and I think that has much more to do with naval and air power than with the use of contractors.
There aren't many others who have any power projection regardless. The UK can move an army around the world, and China can do it locally. Russia's been trying to upgrade to have this capability, but hasn't really quite put the resources in. Japan conversely, is in the middle of upgrading to have some decent enough capabilities. France, Italy, Spain, and Australia have a smattering of ships between them, enough to launch a small force each if not a full fledged invasion.
The US meanwhile, has more capability in this field than all the above put together. Overkill much, eh wot?
Hordini wrote: America has better power projection capabilities than any other country on the planet by and extremely wide margin, and I think that has much more to do with naval and air power than with the use of contractors.
Nobody is denying that. The question is: do they have the will to use that power to protect their interests. I'm not so sure...
Considering that the US has forces that are constantly forward deployed, even when we are not on a war footing, I think the answer to your question is pretty obvious.
Well, since the US does more in that field than all of the above put together, I don't think it's really overkill.
Hypothetical:- If the US didn't spend so much on that field, would it feel the need to utilise it so much?
That's a fair question, but I think it's also a matter of protecting investments that we have already made, both in terms of foreign policy and alliances, as well as resources and equipment that we already have in place, and forward deployed. In addition, some of the capability set is based on training and in that sense, if you don't use it, you lose it.
It's also a kind of chicken and egg question. If the US didn't spend so much on that field, would it utilize it so much? If the US didn't utilize it so much, would it spend so much on that field? It's possible that it could be a bit of both. But I think experience has shown that it is a capability that is still useful to have and needs to be available, not just for the US but for our allies as well.
Jihadin wrote: We talking expansionalism here I_DO_NOT_LIKE_THAT?
1900 and 2015 are way way wwwaayyyyyy different era's.
British Empire of 1900 vs Projection of Power from a Naval Carrier Task Force and/or Force Entry into another country by ground troops.
Granted the US has territories (2015)compare to British Colonies (1900)
I disagree, Jihadin. I think it's a relevant comparison.
True, America doesn't have colonies, but it has strategic interests - Israel, Taiwan, and South Korea, and to a lesser extent, Japan.
I'm not arguing what's right and what's wrong, but as I've said, America is the only country that can shift large numbers of troops and ships to anywhere on earth in record time, but if Israel was attacked, if Taiwan was invaded, would America move troops to defend its interests the same way Britain sent 100,000 men to South Africa in 1900 to fight the Boers?
That's the question and I think the answer is no.
You guys (and Britain) got your fingers burned in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I understand America's reluctance to get involved again and I think the reliance on contractors is symptomatic of that desire not to get dragged into another Middle Eastern war.
Hordini wrote: America has better power projection capabilities than any other country on the planet by and extremely wide margin, and I think that has much more to do with naval and air power than with the use of contractors.
Nobody is denying that. The question is: do they have the will to use that power to protect their interests. I'm not so sure...
Considering that the US has forces that are constantly forward deployed, even when we are not on a war footing, I think the answer to your question is pretty obvious.
The US meanwhile, has more capability in this field than all the above put together. Overkill much, eh wot?
Well, since the US does more in that field than all of the above put together, I don't think it's really overkill.
It's my understanding that US troop levels overseas are getting wound back - Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan. For Iraq and Afghanistan, you could argue that US troops are needed more than ever, considering the ISIL situation.
It's my understanding that US troop levels overseas are getting wound back - Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan. For Iraq and Afghanistan, you could argue that US troops are needed more than ever, considering the ISIL situation.
It's not just about troop levels though, and even if they are getting wound back some, they are still there. It wouldn't be that hard to boost troop levels back up either.
And regarding using contractors because we don't want to get involved in another middle eastern war, that's just wrong. We are not using contractors to project power. What are you envisioning when you talk about using contractors to project power? Mercenaries being used as special operations forces in lieu of things like Army Special Forces and Navy SEALS? That's not happening.
It's my understanding that US troop levels overseas are getting wound back - Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan. For Iraq and Afghanistan, you could argue that US troops are needed more than ever, considering the ISIL situation.
It's not just about troop levels though, and even if they are getting wound back some, they are still there. It wouldn't be that hard to boost troop levels back up either.
And regarding using contractors because we don't want to get involved in another middle eastern war, that's just wrong. We are not using contractors to project power. What are you envisioning when you talk about using contractors to project power? Mercenaries being used as special operations forces in lieu of things like Army Special Forces and Navy SEALS? That's not happening.
I already pointed that out. The Bin Laden raid is a great example. No PMC on the planet has the resources to pull that off the way they did. Just the infiltration alone is something that at this point, only our military could have done.
Even in Africa, when it comes to chasing the LRA, we sent in ODAs to work with host nation forces and train them up, and use our air lift and ISR capabilities to support them.
I'm really at a loss as to this 'reliance on a mercenary army' vibe being put out here. There is just zero evidence of it.
It's my understanding that US troop levels overseas are getting wound back - Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan. For Iraq and Afghanistan, you could argue that US troops are needed more than ever, considering the ISIL situation.
It's not just about troop levels though, and even if they are getting wound back some, they are still there. It wouldn't be that hard to boost troop levels back up either.
And regarding using contractors because we don't want to get involved in another middle eastern war, that's just wrong. We are not using contractors to project power. What are you envisioning when you talk about using contractors to project power? Mercenaries being used as special operations forces in lieu of things like Army Special Forces and Navy SEALS? That's not happening.
I already pointed that out. The Bin Laden raid is a great example. No PMC on the planet has the resources to pull that off the way they did. Just the infiltration alone is something that at this point, only our military could have done.
Even in Africa, when it comes to chasing the LRA, we sent in ODAs to work with host nation forces and train them up, and use our air lift and ISR capabilities to support them.
I'm really at a loss as to this 'reliance on a mercenary army' vibe being put out here. There is just zero evidence of it.
We live in democracies, BUT at the end of the day we know that the only thing that stands between civil society and anarchy is armed men and woman. In other words, the police, the army, or in the USA's case, armed militias of citizens.
Therefore, violence as a way of controlling society and keeping law and order is the state's most powerful tool. The highest form of authority of any nation is its capacity to use violence to achieve its goals.
Obviously, some nations are more powerful than others. Compare the USA with Switzerland for example.
America is the most powerful nation on earth. It can project it's authority through violence i.e war on nearly any other nation.
Obviously, this is an awesome power. And yet, America is abdicating that power, it's getting other people to fight its battles. The Kurds against ISIL, contractors during the Iraq invasion.
At its height, 200,000 contractors were operating in Iraq in 2008. 200,000!!!
America's man in Iraq, Paul Bremer, was protected by contractors.
During the British Raj in India, the idea that the Viceroy would have been protected by mercenaries would have horrified the British. British soldiers protected the viceroy, nobody else was trusted.
Obama backed Britain and France against Gaddaffi, and yet the USA took no part, even though it agreed with their objectives.
There is a crisis of authority in Washington. A confident nation does not outsource authority.
This crisis did not exist when Truman ordered troops to South Korea or when LBJ sent Westmoreland to Vietnam with 100,000 marines. America was confident of its authority back then, it had moral purpose and knew what its values were.. Reagan had no hesitation in invading Grenada or Bush in Gulf war 1.
I keep bringing up the British empire, but the contrast between the superpower of yesterday compared to the superpower of today, is remarkable.
One superpower knew who it was and what it stood for. The other is unsure of itself, reluctant to use its power to protect its interests.
It's my understanding that US troop levels overseas are getting wound back - Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan. For Iraq and Afghanistan, you could argue that US troops are needed more than ever, considering the ISIL situation.
It's not just about troop levels though, and even if they are getting wound back some, they are still there. It wouldn't be that hard to boost troop levels back up either.
And regarding using contractors because we don't want to get involved in another middle eastern war, that's just wrong. We are not using contractors to project power. What are you envisioning when you talk about using contractors to project power? Mercenaries being used as special operations forces in lieu of things like Army Special Forces and Navy SEALS? That's not happening.
I already pointed that out. The Bin Laden raid is a great example. No PMC on the planet has the resources to pull that off the way they did. Just the infiltration alone is something that at this point, only our military could have done.
Even in Africa, when it comes to chasing the LRA, we sent in ODAs to work with host nation forces and train them up, and use our air lift and ISR capabilities to support them.
I'm really at a loss as to this 'reliance on a mercenary army' vibe being put out here. There is just zero evidence of it.
We live in democracies, BUT at the end of the day we know that the only thing that stands between civil society and anarchy is armed men and woman. In other words, the police, the army, or in the USA's case, armed militias of citizens.
Therefore, violence as a way of controlling society and keeping law and order is the state's most powerful tool. The highest form of authority of any nation is its capacity to use violence to achieve its goals.
Obviously, some nations are more powerful than others. Compare the USA with Switzerland for example.
America is the most powerful nation on earth. It can project it's authority through violence i.e war on nearly any other nation.
Obviously, this is an awesome power. And yet, America is abdicating that power, it's getting other people to fight its battles. The Kurds against ISIL, contractors during the Iraq invasion.
At its height, 200,000 contractors were operating in Iraq in 2008. 200,000!!!
America's man in Iraq, Paul Bremer, was protected by contractors.
During the British Raj in India, the idea that the Viceroy would have been protected by mercenaries would have horrified the British. British soldiers protected the viceroy, nobody else was trusted.
Obama backed Britain and France against Gaddaffi, and yet the USA took no part, even though it agreed with their objectives.
There is a crisis of authority in Washington. A confident nation does not outsource authority.
This crisis did not exist when Truman ordered troops to South Korea or when LBJ sent Westmoreland to Vietnam with 100,000 marines. America was confident of its authority back then, it had moral purpose and knew what its values were.. Reagan had no hesitation in invading Grenada or Bush in Gulf war 1.
I keep bringing up the British empire, but the contrast between the superpower of yesterday compared to the superpower of today, is remarkable.
One superpower knew who it was and what it stood for. The other is unsure of itself, reluctant to use its power to protect its interests.
Sorry for the long reply
You do understand that out of those 200K contractors, probably close to 195k were for logistics/base support, right? And the rest were DoS, not DoD and hired for security (as in protecting Bremer)? Right?
So again, where the hell are you getting this 'mercenary army' thing? Your long diatribe really didn't come close to answering that.
Seriously though most contractors I met changed oil lol. Like Mantech which did nothing but repair MRAP and there were thousands of them. Or all the guys that worked at the Green Beans or the various porta john cleaners/ air conditioning repairmen/ laundry washers/ defac cooks...etc.
Civilians hear defense contractor and think of some bamf merc. Military hears defense contractor and typically hears fat lazy mouth breather.
Majority of labor force for contractors are hired from Bosnia, Kosovo, Pakistan, and India. Lower pay wage to what Americans are use to but outstanding in their country.
Figure average work week for a normal job is 40 hrs but in the "Box" its 12 hrs a day seven days a week. Time off given to attend spiritual services
I remember they had a bunch of Ugandan dudes (if I remember the country right) doing a lot of the mine clearance on Bagram with EOD oversight.
Only defense contractors I ever saw with weapons were the ones that carried personal weapons for defense....and they were mechanics lol.
There are so many things defense contractors do...fighting wasn't really one of them.
When I got out this year defense contracting was on a down turn. The Army from what I saw was making a pretty huge push to limit the use of civilians in any role.
Actually they were UN De-mining teams. With access onto FoBs and what not. They were clearing the minefields around and in Kandahar and in and around Bagram. The over sight came when they needed to detonate the mines they collected. They have a tendency to pile a crap load of unexploded ordinance and setting them off.
I never spent too much time on bagram. I knew they were trained and from somewhere. But being employed out of the U.N. makes sense lol.
I remember them wearing just enough PPE to be able to identify the body though.
Lmao have you ever seen how 12B clear UXOs? I wish I knew those guys were after mine own heart, would of bought them a near beer or too lol.
BrotherGecko wrote: I never spent too much time on bagram. I knew they were trained and from somewhere. But being employed out of the U.N. makes sense lol.
I remember them wearing just enough PPE to be able to identify the body though.
Lmao have you ever seen how 12B clear UXOs? I wish I knew those guys were after mine own heart, would of bought them a near beer or too lol.
South end of Kandahar they blew up a pile that pretty much stopped airfield operations being it threw rocks up Alpha Ramp and runway. Scarey part was there was two F/!18's taking off for CAS cycle.
On Bagram...not the side with Disney Lane but the otherside of the airfield where the 401st is located at. Those idiot's were in competition with the farmers on clearing land. Apparently they're paid by how much land they clear. Verified by the EoD dog teams
They clear the land with detectors and equipment from a BII kit
Hadji Bob goes out there and either runs a herd of goats over the land (for that soft putty one that blows when its been compress enough) and on discovery of either a AT/AP mine he go back and get his trusted rifle. Wave at the guard tower with weapon over his head and proceed to give you enough time to call it in and then he shoots to detonate
Lmao classic stuff. Afghanistan really is a silly place.Wish I had a gopro in my turret to record the antics I witnessed. But hey keeps the stress down when your laughing on every mission.
We had a AnA guy just walk up to our RCP with a DFC without initiator and tell us he found a bomb. Probably made it himself as I heard AnA got paid to find IEDs.
Well......since there's water on every corner and everyone takes a few packages of bottle water back to the B-Hut, K-Frame, Circus tent, ESCO hut....whatever is used to stay in. One does drink a lot of water and in the wee dark thirty hour one does not have to take the time to get on boots and hike to take a piss. Empty water bottles all around. Just take the refilled bottles out to the trash can as one heads to work. Of course at times one use a flavor pack like tea......some gives a yellowish tint to the water...something like a well hydrated service member provided for a empty water bottle....which to a local Afghani who comes on the FoB on a hot day.....notice a tea water bottle....on the picnic table near the trashcan.....was thirsty.....
If you or anybody else, wants a good book on this subject, try this: Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatised Military by P.W.Singer
Anyway, to address your points.
For years, it was US military doctrine never to expose or use civilians in armed situations. Mission critical roles were for military personnel only. You and Jihadin will know more about this than me.
But, we have the situation where civilian contractors are fully tooled up and ready to fight. There are numerous examples of this in Iraq.
Including using CIVILIAN contractors to protect Bremer, which I mentioned earlier.
As I said, Bremer was your main man In Iraq, and it doesn't matter if these guards were from the Defence department, Security, or the Department for National Parks in America!!!
Your main guy was not protected by US soldiers or US Marines.
Never in a million years would the British have done this in India with the Viceroy. Never. It sends out the wrong signal. You're a great power but you can't even protect your main guy with your own troops.
You may argue that most of these contractors are cooks, cleaners etc etc, but America never had to employ civilians like this in the past.
I maintain there is a crisis of authority in Washington.
You can maintain that all you want. There is no evidence to back it up.
DoD has never provided general security to DoS, except Marines as Embassy guards. And that started in 1948, prior to that even embassy guards were contracted out. This ain't new. Imagine that, ALL embassy security was contracted.
DoS did not have enough DIPSEC (quantity wise) to handle the massive expansion of DoS personnel into Iraq, which was still a war zone, so rather than grow their gov't security (which they cannot do as they have man power caps like any other federal agency) they contracted it out. As they always have. They could not have hired and trained the people they needed fast enough due to budget constraints/time/and man power caps.
Which is also why the DoD contracted out cooks/laundry and other services. They are not services we needed in those quantities permanently, and with the manpower caps, allocating troops to do them would have been asinine.
Anytime the gov't has a temporary requirement for a capability or service which does not necessitate actually making permanent growth to the agency, the capability or service is contracted for. It has been that way for decades.
The same way you may rent an auger for a weekend rather than shell out several hundred bucks to buy a tool you need to dig a couple of holes one time.
I think the PMC issue was blown out of proportion because of the actions of a few unsupervised clowns from ex-Blackwater who thought they were the modern equivalent of the Wild Geese. These few bad eggs, once their backgrounds were studied, likely should have never been given the positions they were in. But in times of want, sometimes you take what you can get; as SecDef Rumsfeld said, and I go from memory on this, "you go to war with what you have, not what you wish you had."
In 9.5 years in the service I never met a contractor who carried a firearm other than for personal safety. I never met a PMC who did a combatant's job. Every single one was a logistics contractor of some sort.
Having lived within nuclear bomb throw of the Blackwater facility during the last ten years they garnered a lot of news in our area. The lack of professionalism of a very few that were engaged in security work tarnished the image of all the rest, and the massive news coverage could easily be interpreted by those who do not know to imply that a massive PMC army existed, when it clearly never did.
BrotherGecko wrote: Only defense contractors I ever saw with weapons were the ones that carried personal weapons for defense.... There are so many things defense contractors do...fighting wasn't really one of them.
They might not be hired for fighting but with the way wars work these days they could still have to use those weapons. Infiltration, ambushes, fast raids instead of stand-up assaults and defenses. There's no such thing as "rear echelon" anymore - everywhere could be a front line. Supply trains with PMC drivers and guards are just as much of a proper military target as supply trains with army drivers and guards, for example.
But it's true that they don't count as straight-up mercenaries if they weren't hired primarily to fight. So no executing them on the spot if caught. And if a contractor gets killed in action it's not as serious for public opinion as if a "real" soldier comes home in a coffin. Many Americans like seeing "our boys" kick some ass abroad, but seeing them die isn't as funny. Could have something to do with not being bombed or invaded for a while ofc - we're still digging up bombs over here despite being far from the most bombed country in Europe during the last big showdown.
Well to be fair I was refering mostly to middle aged over weight guys with pistols. They were not likely to be conducting any missions outside of wrenching or training in country.
I did see an eastern european guy with a sweet mullet, aviator glasses and a wolf howling at the moon t-shirt failing really hard to look like dog the bounty hunter. No idea what he did other then look ridiculous with his tiny handgun lol.
As I've said at least for me Afghanistan was a silly place lol.
Evidence? I gave you hard facts left, right, and centre! I gave you a historical comparison, and you're asking for evidence!
We've mentioned PMCs being used for some logistics and maintenance functions, and some limited security. Which facts involving the use of PMCs in a power projection role have you given?
I think the general consensus (at least to the guys I talk to) is that PMCs are a necessary part of the the low-intensity conflicts America has found itself in over the last 14 years. There's nothing inherently wrongs with PMCs, but the DOD and DOS really, really (I mean REALLY) suck at auditing them and making sure their contracts are being fulfilled. Also, the DOD sucks at writing contracts.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: I think the general consensus (at least to the guys I talk to) is that PMCs are a necessary part of the the low-intensity conflicts America has found itself in over the last 14 years. There's nothing inherently wrongs with PMCs, but the DOD and DOS really, really (I mean REALLY) suck at auditing them and making sure their contracts are being fulfilled. Also, the DOD sucks at writing contracts.
Which brings me back to my original point that nobody has been able to answer: does America's reliance on contractors weaken its ability to project power and highlight a risk aversion which is at odds with its position as global superpower? I think it does.
No, it does not 'weaken its ability to project power' at all. No PMC can project power the way the US DoD can. None. Zero. Not even close.
No other military can project power the way the US DoD can. None. Zero.
If anything, the last 15 years have postured us for better power projection. We've streamlined HQ and echelons to decrease deployment timelines without decreasing capability once deployed, have forward deployed equipment sets in several locations to make mass deployments quicker. We've developed long stare ISR assets that can move over and cover target sets like never before.
And the bottom line, as has been pointed out, is that the use of contractors tends to be for base support activities (cooking, doing laundry, operating warehouses, some security), and not for fighting.
Spoiler:
In the year 1900, there was only one country on earth who could move 100,000 men from A to anywhere in the world in record time. Britain.
In the year 2015, there is only one country on earth who could move 100,000 men from A to anywhere in the world in record time. USA.
I don't deny you guys can do this in 2015.
BUT
The difference between the USA of 2015 and Britain of 1900 is that Britain was prepared to project global power when its interests were threatened during the Boer war.
America has the power, but, rightly or wrongly, it is reluctant to use it to defend its interests.
I'm not bashing America or being biased in favour of my own country, but the USA doesn't have the zeal that previous super-powers have had in defending what's theirs.
That's is an understatement, under which president was the US of A not in conflict with someone?
Saw an interesting documentary on the influence of weapon industry on politics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Fight_%282005_film%29
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: I think the general consensus (at least to the guys I talk to) is that PMCs are a necessary part of the the low-intensity conflicts America has found itself in over the last 14 years. There's nothing inherently wrongs with PMCs, but the DOD and DOS really, really (I mean REALLY) suck at auditing them and making sure their contracts are being fulfilled. Also, the DOD sucks at writing contracts.
Amen.
Try looking at the FAR and DFAR sometimes and you might begin to understand why.
For the life of me. I never handle a a Combat unit composed of PMC for the US Military. As mention before those "Combat Forces" of PMC were hired by DoS, CIA, and a few O.G.A. and only to provide Security
Jihadin wrote: For the life of me. I never handle a a Combat unit composed of PMC for the US Military. As mention before those "Combat Forces" of PMC were hired by DoS, CIA, and a few O.G.A. and only to provide Security
Keep feeding the lie. You know damn well we resurrected Mad Mike Hoare, Cat Shannon, and Xenophon to lead hordes of mercenaries to slaughter in our name.
Jihadin wrote: For the life of me. I never handle a a Combat unit composed of PMC for the US Military. As mention before those "Combat Forces" of PMC were hired by DoS, CIA, and a few O.G.A. and only to provide Security
Keep feeding the lie. You know damn well we resurrected Mad Mike Hoare, Cat Shannon, and Xenophon to lead hordes of mercenaries to slaughter in our name.
I don't care if it was the boy scouts of America who were hiring these contractors!!
All this talk of justice departments, defence departments, security departments and national parks departments, misses the fundamental point:
Violence and authority is a nation's most powerful tool, and for obvious reasons, nations try to hang onto that.
By outsourcing that tool to contractors, America is exhibiting the signs of a nation with a crisis in its own authority, and it's own moral purpose. The collapse of the Soviet Union has left America wondering what it hell it should do. Luckily for America, the rise of China will give it back that purpose.
In the meantime though, Jihadin and CptJake keep saying that these contractors are only cooks, or hairdressers, or whatever.
But, that overlooks two things:
1) The USA like a lot of countries can't convince people to join its armed forces, as people remain unconvinced about the political case for American force projection/defending American interests overseas
and
2) Washington has to pay mercenaries money to do its work for it. Again, signs that it lacks a moral or political purpose.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I don't care if it was the boy scouts of America who were hiring these contractors!!
All this talk of justice departments, defence departments, security departments and national parks departments, misses the fundamental point:
Violence and authority is a nation's most powerful tool, and for obvious reasons, nations try to hang onto that.
By outsourcing that tool to contractors, America is exhibiting the signs of a nation with a crisis in its own authority, and it's own moral purpose. The collapse of the Soviet Union has left America wondering what it hell it should do. Luckily for America, the rise of China will give it back that purpose.
In the meantime though, Jihadin and CptJake keep saying that these contractors are only cooks, or hairdressers, or whatever.
But, that overlooks two things:
1) The USA like a lot of countries can't convince people to join its armed forces, as people remain unconvinced about the political case for American force projection/defending American interests overseas
and
2) Washington has to pay mercenaries money to do its work for it. Again, signs that it lacks a moral or political purpose.
I was Contract Oversight on my last rodeo. Who were the Mercenaries the US Military hired?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I don't care if it was the boy scouts of America who were hiring these contractors!!
All this talk of justice departments, defence departments, security departments and national parks departments, misses the fundamental point:
Violence and authority is a nation's most powerful tool, and for obvious reasons, nations try to hang onto that.
By outsourcing that tool to contractors, America is exhibiting the signs of a nation with a crisis in its own authority, and it's own moral purpose. The collapse of the Soviet Union has left America wondering what it hell it should do. Luckily for America, the rise of China will give it back that purpose.
In the meantime though, Jihadin and CptJake keep saying that these contractors are only cooks, or hairdressers, or whatever.
But, that overlooks two things:
1) The USA like a lot of countries can't convince people to join its armed forces, as people remain unconvinced about the political case for American force projection/defending American interests overseas
and
2) Washington has to pay mercenaries money to do its work for it. Again, signs that it lacks a moral or political purpose.
I was Contract Oversight on my last rodeo. Who were the Mercenaries the US Military hired?
Mercenaries, contractors, is there a difference? It's all small print to me. I'm not going to use the Bremer/Viceroy example again,
but I'm going to continue with my theme of a crisis in authority and moral purpose.
For example, everybody in America agrees ISIL is bad. Obama's said it, Biden, Republicans, hell even Jimmy Carter said it.
Everybody in America agrees that ISIL is a threat to American interests in the Middle East.
Everybody agrees that America is the most powerful nation on earth.
Logically, if the most powerful nation on earth is seeing its interests threatened, then the most powerful nation on earth would fight back.
And then the most powerful nation on earth gets somebody else to fight for it. In this instance, the Kurds...
Would Rome, would the British Empire do this?
To hell they would. They'd send in their own troops.
1) The USA like a lot of countries can't convince people to join its armed forces, as people remain unconvinced about the political case for American force projection/defending American interests overseas
and
2) Washington has to pay mercenaries money to do its work for it. Again, signs that it lacks a moral or political purpose.
Don't be an idiot. We're cutting back our military, and turning people away from the recruiter, we've quit granting various waivers for enlistment, and have not had a problem making mission for years, and when we DID have the problem it was due to a very quick build up, not due to folks being "unconvinced about the political case for American force projection/defending American interests overseas". We temporarily (and in my opinion wrongly, and I would bet Jihadin would agree) lowered the standards to allow the quick increase in force size.
The Army nationwide is on pace to hit its fiscal year 2014 goal of signing up 57,000 recruits for active duty.
That's down from about 80,000 new recruits each year from fiscal 2005 through 2008. Only once, in 2005, did Army recruiters fail to hit their mark.
In those years, much of their recruiting success was owed to commanders granting waivers for conduct and health issues that in peacetime would keep candidates out of the military. Only 86 percent of new recruits at the height of the Iraq War had completed high school. Many with felony convictions were allowed in.
Today, 99 percent of recruits have graduated from high school. The military branches expect higher scores in the ASVAB test, which quizzes candidates on tools and electrical circuitry as well as on language and math. Even a past misdemeanor may disqualify a potential recruit.
"It's not that we have a zero defect mentality, because we don't," said Nathan Christensen, a Navy officer in public affairs for the Defense Department. "But it is true that the quality of military recruits right now is the highest it's been in 40 years."
Many potential recruits don't know that. They're out of luck when they show up at Hoard's office with drug charges in their background, without a high school diploma or GED, or with more girth than the Army allows.
The Department of Defense announced today recruiting and retention statistics for the active and reserve components for fiscal 2014, through December 2013.
• Active Component.
• Recruiting. All four active services met or exceeded their numerical accession goals for fiscal 2014, through December.
• Army – 10,924 accessions, with a goal of 10,670; 102 percent
• Navy – 6,835 accessions, with a goal of 6,835; 100 percent
• Marine Corps – 5,413 accessions, with a goal of 5,410; 100 percent
• Air Force – 6,549 accessions, with a goal of 6,536; 100 percent
• Retention. The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps exhibited strong retention numbers for the third month of fiscal 2014.
• Reserve Component.
• Recruiting. Five of the six reserve components met or exceeded their fiscal-year-to-date 2014 numerical accession goals.
• Army National Guard – 12,569 accessions, with a goal of 12,060; 104 percent
• Army Reserve – 6,543 accessions, with a goal of 7,081; 92 percent
• Navy Reserve – 936 accessions, with a goal of 936; 100 percent
• Marine Corps Reserve – 2,063 accessions, with a goal of 2,011; 103 percent
• Air National Guard – 2,337 accessions, with a goal of 2,337; 100 percent
• Air Force Reserve – 1,410 accessions, with a goal of 1,369; 103 percent
"(It's a) fallacy that we recruit from the poorest of Americans," Campbell said. "Those numbers bear it out. If you look at the numbers, we essentially recruit from the middle class to the upper middle class to the richest."
You're second point has been addressed multiple times. At this point you have yet to show anything but emotion to back up your claims, and it is getting old real fast.
Now US Army is turning away those who are "Heavy set" while before you spend a couple week in a "Ready Platoon" before assigned to a Basic Training Company Way back in the day.... .....damn I am old
I respect the fact that you guys are military men who served your country, so understandably, your loyal to the flag.
But if you're privatising your military, outsourcing authority to contractors and abdicating responsibility as a matter of national policy, you can afford to turn potential recruits away.
After all, you're getting somebody else to do the fighting for you.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I respect the fact that you guys are military men who served your country, so understandably, your loyal to the flag.
But if you're privatising your military, outsourcing authority to contractors and abdicating responsibility as a matter of national policy, you can afford to turn potential recruits away.
After all, you're getting somebody else to do the fighting for you.
Cite me one source/organization/contract where the US Military has a legal binding for a "Organization" that is conducting Combat Operations on the US of A behalf.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I respect the fact that you guys are military men who served your country, so understandably, your loyal to the flag.
But if you're privatising your military, outsourcing authority to contractors and abdicating responsibility as a matter of national policy, you can afford to turn potential recruits away.
After all, you're getting somebody else to do the fighting for you.
Cite me one source/organization/contract where the US Military has a legal binding for a "Organization" that is conducting Combat Operations on the US of A behalf.
Yeah, seriously, show actual examples of 'outsourcing authority to contractors' and 'abdicating responsibility as a matter of national policy' (assumedly to these mercenaries). Show me where we are 'privatizing our military'.
Don't just repeat the same gak, actually give some damned references.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I respect the fact that you guys are military men who served your country, so understandably, your loyal to the flag.
But if you're privatising your military, outsourcing authority to contractors and abdicating responsibility as a matter of national policy, you can afford to turn potential recruits away.
After all, you're getting somebody else to do the fighting for you.
Cite me one source/organization/contract where the US Military has a legal binding for a "Organization" that is conducting Combat Operations on the US of A behalf.
Yeah, seriously, show actual examples of 'outsourcing authority to contractors' and 'abdicating responsibility as a matter of national policy' (assumedly to these mercenaries). Show me where we are 'privatizing our military'.
Don't just repeat the same gak, actually give some damned references.
Well, the abdicating authority bit is simple - you're getting the Kurds to fight a group who are considered to be a clear and present danger to American interests in the Middle East
You're getting the Japanese to crank up their military spending, when years ago, there would have been no need, as America seen itself as the sole guarantor of Japan's security...
You let Britain and France take the lead when they bombed Libya and overthrew Gaddafi.
Your president talked about red lines in Syria and did nothing when the other side danced all over them.
And you let Germany and France do the heavy lifting of talking to Putin about a ceasefire in the Ukraine, and you left the job of reassuring NATO allies in Eastern Europe that all was well, to Britain and France.
Need I go on?
As for the rest, I may need some time to get some graphs together.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I respect the fact that you guys are military men who served your country, so understandably, your loyal to the flag.
But if you're privatising your military, outsourcing authority to contractors and abdicating responsibility as a matter of national policy, you can afford to turn potential recruits away.
After all, you're getting somebody else to do the fighting for you.
Cite me one source/organization/contract where the US Military has a legal binding for a "Organization" that is conducting Combat Operations on the US of A behalf.
Yeah, seriously, show actual examples of 'outsourcing authority to contractors' and 'abdicating responsibility as a matter of national policy' (assumedly to these mercenaries). Show me where we are 'privatizing our military'.
Don't just repeat the same gak, actually give some damned references.
Well, the abdicating authority bit is simple - you're getting the Kurds to fight a group who are considered to be a clear and present danger to American interests in the Middle East
You're getting the Japanese to crank up their military spending, when years ago, there would have been no need, as America seen itself as the sole guarantor of Japan's security...
You let Britain and France take the lead when they bombed Libya and overthrew Gaddafi.
Your president talked about red lines in Syria and did nothing when the other side danced all over them.
And you let Germany and France do the heavy lifting of talking to Putin about a ceasefire in the Ukraine, and you left the job of reassuring NATO allies in Eastern Europe that all was well, to Britain and France.
Need I go on?
As for the rest, I may need some time to get some graphs together.
Where are the hordes of mercenaries in any of those examples, and how do they effect any of them?
I could address them all one at a time, but suffice it to say, they don;t back up any of your claims the way you think they do.
I'll use the Japan one as an example. Do you REALLY think it is the US responsibility to be the 'sole guarantor of Japan's security', or even in our national interest to do so? It is not our responsibility nor in our national interest to do so is the correct answer. Having a partner with their own capability they can bring to the table and having them take on a leadership role and work to build coalitions in the region is a lot smarter. And we're moving that direction for good reasons.
We could talk about the ABCT and the Airborne IBCT and the SBCT all conducting training and show of force ops in Eastern Europe, and the A-10 squadron that deployed as well (and ask where Britain and France's equivalent forces are, oh that's right, they can't field equivalent forces for a variety of reasons).
The rest of your wondrous examples are as valid (that is to say, not valid at all) for similar reasons.
Most of the time, the contractors the US employees that are armed are used to "train-up" local troops. For example, the LIberian(?) civil war was mentioned in the intial article.
We hired and paid for the contractors that disbanded the old military and retrained/rebuilt the new government forces.
The idea is for the US to be involved, without being "involved" if you know what I mean.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:By outsourcing that tool to contractors, America is exhibiting the signs of a nation with a crisis in its own authority, and it's own moral purpose.
Wrong. Not just kinda wrong, but fundamentally and hilariously wrong.
It was a country determining it was more cost effective to leave the defense of static positions to temporary assets, thus freeing up its combat assets for offensive action.
Every contracted security guard manning a post is one more active duty Marine or soldier available for a military purpose.
National armies are a relatively new development in warfare, only really arising in the 18th and 19th centuries and reaching a peak in the 20th centuries.
Even then, it was not uncommon for nations to recruit contractors and idealists to support their goals from outside of the national military.
While support roles are the most common (for example a lot of ships running supplies past U-Boats in the Atlantic were civilian owned) combatants were also common (like the Flying Tigers and Eagle Squadron).
Technically the Free French forces in World War 2 were soldiers of fortune on the allies' side as their national army had been ordered to stand down. More than a few times after the French surrender the British and Americans found themselves fighting against the actual French military.
There isn't a major power in history that hasn't used mercenaries or proxies to fight on its behalf. The Romans recruited large numbers of barbarians into their legions, the Persians hired Greek hoplites, the Byzantines had the Vargnarian guard, the British sent privateers agains t the Spanish treasure fleets, the French recruited Native Americans for raids against the 13 colonies then sent 'military advisors' to support the American Revolution, the Americans recruited Native Americans to fight other Native Americans during the westward expansion, the Confederates hired privateers to raid Union commerce, the USA would recruit forces for fighting in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos in the 1960s and 1970s and would do so again in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The Arab states and Iran would fund competing groups fighting in Lebanon and Palestine...
It goes on and on. Hiring people to fight your wars for you is the norm of human history. National armies are the anomoly.
Yeah, private militaries are actually the norm. Rather than the exception, as far as history is concerned.
In fact, even during the 18th century when national armies were becoming the main thing, many regiments were actually the property of the commanding officer. He was responsible for equipping and training everyone in the regiment, and he got paid to keep the regiment's services. This is why it was fairly common for there to always be a few ghost soldiers in a regiment, so the commander could pocket the wages for the non-existent soldier.
And when a regiment's services were no longer needed, the unit would often sell their services to another nation. Heck, entire kingdoms often rented their armies out to the highest bidder. You made money and got your soldiers practical battlefield experience without needing to actually engage in a war. The Hessians that got sacked at Trenton are an example.
A lot of the mercenaries were technical experts. From Leonardo DaVinci providing military engineering services to Venice to the Flying Tigers providing air and ground crew to the republican Chinese, having an uncommon skill put you in demand.
I don't think that is accurate at all. Top end war fighting gear is the stuff only states can afford to develop and field. And the stuff even the Blackwaters and Executive Outcome types can bring to battle cannot hold up against what even most 3rd world armies can field.
And none of them have anything close to the force projection/forced entry capability the big militaries have.
I wouldn't say we are even reverting back. If you look at the Cold War, both sides funded fighting forces to wage war against the other side's interests. Ignoring national proxy actors like South Vietnam you see the CIA funding various tribal groups in South East Asia to fight the ccommunists. Revolutionaries and Counterrevolutionaries across Africa and South America were bankrolled by Moscow or Washington. Hezbollah and Hamas were both also proxy armies paid for by other countries.
One of the blind spots is the idea of separating paid warfighters from idealists who support a cause. Many of the soldiers of fortune around the world are actually tied strongly to a faction before a paycheck becomes involved. Its hard to be willing to risk your life for something just because of the money. likewise a lot of these forces dont recognize themselves as proxies fighting on behalf of another power but instead as independant actors in their own struggle.
Also, these things are fluid as well. At the start of the debacle in Iraq, the Kurdish militias could be considered paid forces supporting the western powers actions against Saddam and later keeping order during the occupation. Now, with IS having essentially broken the power of the central government over the northern portion of Iraq, the Kurdish forces are essentially a national army in their own right.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: dead soldiers have more of an emotional impact than dead private contractors
Fascinating point. If it is true, I wonder why.
They talked a bit about this point in the interviews. It basically boiled down to stereotypes.
Troops= Our loyal boys and girls who are selflessly putting the national interest above themselves. Their death is a tragedy!
PMC= Dirty, filthy, greedy Mercenary scum. Good riddance.
Edit: Also good point about backign away from our committment and ability to project power. As a nation loses this ability, it is natural to turn to Mercenaries. Therefore, the use of Mercenaries could be a sign of national weakness. Interesting.
When I was in Iraq, I didn't interact with too many American mercenary companies, there were a few I would deal with while I was a ECP NCOIC, but primarily they were brits, at least the ones that fit the stereotypical mercenary ideal. We did hire a lot of civi companies to help with logistical matters, I.E. Cooking, maintenance, etc etc.
I don't think that it is because we are shrinking in our ability to project power though.
For every Civi that we have working over seas, that's one more soldier that is freed up to do their job. For example I was a CH-47D-F mechanic, we typically worked 14 hours a day on the aircraft, and while we usually were able to keep up with the workload, there were times where we were really short-handed.
If we didn't have those civis helping us, we would have had to task soldiers to various jobs that aren't MOS related, such as; KP, Tower Guard, ECP, QRF..etc etc.
Also, many of the "armed" Mercenary groups had jobs such as escorting VIP's and transporting equipment. During the height of the war, we had a hard time staffing enough soldiers to complete these jobs without violating "Dwell" time back home.
I mean sure, we could deploy more soldiers to a warzone, but politically, if a president can deploy a smaller amount, they will to save themselves from being called a "warmonger" anymore then they already are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I don't care if it was the boy scouts of America who were hiring these contractors!!
All this talk of justice departments, defence departments, security departments and national parks departments, misses the fundamental point:
Violence and authority is a nation's most powerful tool, and for obvious reasons, nations try to hang onto that.
By outsourcing that tool to contractors, America is exhibiting the signs of a nation with a crisis in its own authority, and it's own moral purpose. The collapse of the Soviet Union has left America wondering what it hell it should do. Luckily for America, the rise of China will give it back that purpose.
In the meantime though, Jihadin and CptJake keep saying that these contractors are only cooks, or hairdressers, or whatever.
But, that overlooks two things:
1) The USA like a lot of countries can't convince people to join its armed forces, as people remain unconvinced about the political case for American force projection/defending American interests overseas
and
2) Washington has to pay mercenaries money to do its work for it. Again, signs that it lacks a moral or political purpose.
To be honest, while there are times it is difficult to recruit, we haven't hit a point where we couldn't get the numbers we needed, if that was the case we would have seen the draft. If you look at the benefits the U.S. military offers its service members to join, it isn't a bad gig. I'm out now, going to school, but including my GI-Bill, and VA pension, I make over 3k a month...just to go to school, which is completely paid for by the Gov't.
As far as the morale goes. Maybe, All I ever worried about was my fellow soldiers, that was all the morale I needed.
Contractors in the military needs to be seen in the context of modern organisations, where outsourcing is routine, and increasingly common. The first reason for this is that companies see little value in managing operations outside of their core competency. If you're a legal office, odds are your managers, knowledge and organisational culture aren't the best fit for managing cleaning staff, so you hire an outside contractor to do that. And it isn't just peripheral stuff, essential functions like payroll are probably outsourced by about 50% of organisations these days, government and private.
The second reason is that companies are increasing keen on flexible structures. This is seen as both cheaper and more effective. Cheaper because you only employ these groups when you need them - no point having a full marketing department when you only roll a product out once every three years, better to engage an outside marketing firm each time. And more effective because each time you employ a marketing firm, you can engage the one best suited to this particular product, instead of just accepting whatever abilities your own marketing dept has.
The military obviously isn't exactly like other organisations, it isn't even that similar to other government organisations. But it still exists in the modern world, and follows the same logic and same management trends as everyone else. And so it privatises, the same as everyone else.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 1) casualties. In my view, America likes starting wars, but doesn't like it when the body bags start coming home. Who does, but I think this effect is more pronounced in the USA. Vietnam was arguably the first example of this instance. The employment of mercenaries negates this. Yes, mercenaries get killed just as well as Marines, but dead soldiers have more of an emotional impact than dead private contractors.
I think this is one of the great myths of history, to be honest. Every country hates soldier deaths, and that's never really changed. The relevant factor is whether people belief the cause is worth the losses, and whether the cause is being won. The issue with Vietnam (which was not as unpopular as popular culture likes to portray) was that the cause was vague and had little relevance to the people back home, and the war dragged on.
It's true though. If you have to pay people to fight for you...
.....damn I am old
