Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

 Manchu wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Here's the big difference.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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.

Venter's 'War Dog' is a pretty good read on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/WAR-DOG-Fighting-Peoples-Mercenary/dp/1932033092

Recently a company I can't recall the name of did some good work securing villages from a Boko Haram type group in Africa.

I worked for a subcontractor to MPRI on a training contract when I got off active duty. I was not paid to kill anyone.

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.

 CptJake wrote:

 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.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 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.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

I know Kennedy kept Dad in an extra year. Thanks Obama!

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

 d-usa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 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.


EDIT: grammars are hard

Spetulhu wrote:

 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.

Jerram wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 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.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Here's the big difference.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


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:

Spoiler:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Here's the big difference.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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.

Here's an article on it: http://www.mahal-idf-volunteers.org/about/Machal.pdf

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.

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


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.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Spoiler:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Here's the big difference.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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.

Here's an article on it: http://www.mahal-idf-volunteers.org/about/Machal.pdf

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?

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)

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:


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.