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.

 Hordini wrote:

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?

 Ketara wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:

 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.

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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:



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.

 Hordini wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:



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.

 CptJake wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:



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

Eh.. start having more gunz in Britian.

Why would the US care about PMC when the private ownerships out-armed these groups by default.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:



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.

Ohhhh man.

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.....

@ CptJake

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.

I think that a great deal of the misconceptions come from everyone thinking that PMCs behave like this;

[youtube]https://scontent-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hvideo-xpa1/v/t42.1790-2/11185070_835936389775062_1467897946_n.mp4?efg=eyJxZSI6ImVuY29kZV9vbGRfdG9wX3ZpZGVvX3YyLGVfZnJvbWhkNDI2XzA0MTMifQ%3D%3D&oh=6139b5e60401c672f3815634fd126121&oe=553D2B02[/youtube]


When as pointed out above by those who have spent time in the field that most PMCs are support/maintenance.

There is no evidence to back it up.

Evidence? I gave you hard facts left, right, and centre! I gave you a historical comparison, and you're asking for evidence!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

There is no evidence to back it up.

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.

Amen.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Spoiler:

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.

 Jihadin wrote:

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.

As I mentioned in the OP, combat PMC only represent 10 to 15% of PMCs.