View Full Version : Why Private Contractors?
First off let me say that I support everyone in harms way, I don't care if you are Active military or PMC you have my respect and support in all you do.
But I am curious on this. A debate with a friend tonight turned towards the topic of Military contractors and why they are needed. She is a Marine (discharged a lot of years ago but I know there are no ex marines) and seemed insulted that the country used PMCs at all.
I was unable to come up with a good reason as to why we use Contracted firms like Black water instead of a larger military presence. I am sure there are good reasons and I was hoping some of you all could fill me in.
And once again thanks to you all for your service!
IMO they have different duties and missions. You can't hire the US military while their fighting a war to protect your company assets hence the need for private security.
ThirdWatcher
12-07-09, 03:47
Private contractor losses don't make the news like military losses do and this is a huge political concern... no disrespect towards our contractors (or military) intended, just a reflection of my cynicism about politicians.
First, they are Marines, not marines, just FYI. It's considered a matter of respect.
PMCs do jobs that the military do not. I think it might help your understanding if you research what those jobs are.
In general, PMCs are working security details. Security for other civilians doing construction or making deliveries, security for visiting dignitaries, etc. Jobs that the military, generally speaking, isn't equipped or trained to do, nor do they have the manpower.
From what I understand, for a lot of roles it's just plain cheaper to use private contractors especially in such a changeable environment.
Sure, you pay them a decent chunk of change but that's normally for a limited period of time. Training and then retaining members of the armed forces to do the same job will cost you less in the short term but a great deal more in the long term.
Looking at some of the retention bonuses for NCO SF guys, I'm guessing that we're also having a hard time keeping these guys from going to the private sector, which probably further exacerbates the need for private companies to pitch in.
iveschrhis
12-07-09, 06:00
PMCs [I]now [I] do jobs that folks in uniform used to do, though contractors on the battlefield go back at least as far as the US Civil War. These contractors stretch historically from sutler's stores and railroad operations to PAE building the infrastructure making possible large-scale support in Vietnam.
Since the end of the Cold War the military forces - active and reserve - have substantially shrunk. The first President Bush put in place multi-year plans to build down the military by about 50% - from 18 or so US Army divisions, for example, to 10. The army can't man or secure many long-haul supply convoys at that level of manpower, especially over the long term. Among other things, money "saved" by DoD from these measures allowed President Clinton to balance the budget (virtually the only gov't expenditures cut during his eight years).
Jobs in combat service support traditionally done by soldiers - like in the mess hall or in logistics - don't exist anymore. Contractors even scrape mess trays (or bag used paper plates) and do KP. Say "hello" to KBR or Dyncorp. The GWOT/Long War is now longer than either WWI or WWII; longer than the period of US direct involvement in combat operations in the Vietnam War.
The Departments of Defense and State can just throw money and contractors to make problems go away. Contractors don't get money escrowed for their retirement or disability, don't get gov't benefits or such, that's between the company/corporation and the employees. There is also a temporary bubble of recently retired/ETS servicemembers world-wide to fill these sorts of jobs since virtually all militaries have decreased in size since the mid-1990s. This bubble will eventually deflate as these folks age and smaller, all-volunteer militaries throw off fewer retirees and former service members.
The PSDs that contractors due for the State Department reflect different dynamics. That said, the DSS is not big enough to secure the diplomats/FSOs that need to move here and there in non-permissive environments.
The DOD has privatized, contracted, or civilianized all kinds of functions that were once performed by mil personnel, overseas and CONUS, peacetime and warfighting.
The extent to which they do so various by service and installation. Off the top of my head, you might see outsourced entry controllers, housing offices, various personnel functions, library, MWR, police, fire, EMS, training, analyst, maintenance, and a whole bunch of others.
We don't have the military we once did, nor the surge capacity it once offered. No one should be surprised at the need that's developed for the basic and specialized services PMCs and support contractors provide downrange.
When I lived in Germany in 1986/1987 (as a civilian doing work for my church), way before Bush 43 and before Bush 41 was President, at the height of the Evil Empire rhetoric, the US bases I visited had contracted security manning the front gates. Not GIs. Usually African migrants or asylum speakers, at least at the Stuttgart base I remember visiting so we could go to Burger King[1]. Probably because they could "speak" English better than the average German.
(Of course, when I went back to work in 1991--1993 and I had to drive to a base in Augsburg to take the GRE test, there was NO front gate security anymore -- The Bundeswehr base I visited during this same time as one of the guys I worked with in Boy Scouts there was a Bundeswehr officer, major or colonel or something, had German soldiers with G3s manning the gates and patrolling the base in Munich and they made some phone calls and looked my ID over a bunch before they let me on)
As has been mentioned, private contractors are not new at all.
Chad
[1] Actually the base in Heilbronn, where the Pershing missiles were, had GIs manning the gate and you had to be sponsored to get on at all, so I guess it was not universal but most of the posts had contracted security manning the front gates when I was there in 86-87
Thanks for the info guys.
It seems pretty much like I assumed, more flexibility, savings on cost, and a few political motivations sprinkled in there.
She was very Anti Contractor since she has bought into the media feeding frenzy. IE: Driving through town shooting it up. I correcter her on a number of things but wasn't sure on others.
Also I corrected "Marine" in my OP. That was unintentional Rob and hopefully you all know I meant no disrespect.
The fact of the matter is that contractors have been so embedded into the system that one cannot just cut them loose. In the long run the .GOV is the winner because although the pay may seem high, there are no benefits, retirement, etc... So when the .GOV no longer needs you or the company then you are kicked loose and that's that.
Another benefit of course is that the .GOV can tap into resources that are already trained and ready to go rather than having to recruit personnel, train them and wait for a payback on their investment.
theblackknight
12-07-09, 16:28
Bc private contractors dont have Field Day or Uniform Inspections,or Suicide Avoidance seminars,or Idiots that pop on a piss test,go to rehab,show back up to duty high as a kite,repeat X11,and it takes 6+ plus months to do a AdminSep because"thats how the systems works", meanwhile ,this tard still gets paid and eats at the chow hall, on your tax money.:eek:
William B.
12-07-09, 16:35
Bc private contractors dont have Field Day or Uniform Inspections,or Suicide Avoidance seminars,or Idiots that pop on a piss test,go to rehab,show back up to duty high as a kite,repeat X11,and it takes 6+ plus months to do a AdminSep because"thats how the systems works", meanwhile ,this tard still gets paid and eats at the chow hall, on your tax money.:eek:
A-men to that!
ThirdWatcher
12-07-09, 17:29
Bc private contractors dont have Field Day or Uniform Inspections,or Suicide Avoidance seminars,or Idiots that pop on a piss test,go to rehab,show back up to duty high as a kite,repeat X11,and it takes 6+ plus months to do a AdminSep because"thats how the systems works", meanwhile ,this tard still gets paid and eats at the chow hall, on your tax money.:eek:
This kinda crap took up a lot of resources when I was in the Army (1973-76). It was a real mess.
Bc private contractors dont have Field Day or Uniform Inspections,or Suicide Avoidance seminars,or Idiots that pop on a piss test,go to rehab,show back up to duty high as a kite,repeat X11,and it takes 6+ plus months to do a AdminSep because"thats how the systems works", meanwhile ,this tard still gets paid and eats at the chow hall, on your tax money.:eek:
HAHAHA Reminds me of the good ol days...enjoy your Christmas Libo Safety Briefs!
From what I understand, for a lot of roles it's just plain cheaper to use private contractors especially in such a changeable environment.
Sure, you pay them a decent chunk of change but that's normally for a limited period of time. Training and then retaining members of the armed forces to do the same job will cost you less in the short term but a great deal more in the long term.
Looking at some of the retention bonuses for NCO SF guys, I'm guessing that we're also having a hard time keeping these guys from going to the private sector, which probably further exacerbates the need for private companies to pitch in.
This is it, plus the fact that there are manpower limits on our Military set by Congress.
I was a .Mil contractor from 98-06. I did not carry a gun, but worked C4I/C2 for the USN and USAF.
The Military does not have the man power to do a lot of things and they also have the issue of turnover. When you have complicated tasks and the .Mil person is only going to be at this particular position for 2-3 years you need to have continuity in that position so none of the knowledge base is lost. This is where contractors come into play.
C4
We also have unique skill sets that aren't native to any of the military occupational specialities. For example, I am a network modeling and simulation engineer. While a network engineer could do some of what I do, the remaining portion is a very specific set of skills in combination with experience.
There are many jobs like this where the miliitary does not have time to go deep to train an individual and only have them work that particular position for 1 year. The experience and continuity required is a huge challenge, even with contractors. Staying deployed for long periods of time is also a tough decision to make.
I am starting my 4th year in Baghdad.
The other portion of this issue is that the military was down-sized too much in my opinion. There are many positions that probably should be military but aren't because we simply don't have the number of troops required.
As other people have also pointed out--if contractors are killed or injured, this information does not make the news.
He gate guards in Bahrain were Gurkhas from Nepal that had a Navy MA with them. The guards in Iraq on TQ and Camp HAB were Marines at the gate and Uganda security inside like at the PX and Chow hall.
EODT and the Ugandans have pretty much the whole thing at this point at Camp Victory. I haven't been to the IZ in a while but Triple Canopy had most of security there the last time I passed through.
Tell your friend she is behind the times, contractors have been around a very long time and will be around in the future. This isnt a Bush lied, people died deal.
Indeed. America's history and private contractors have been tied together for more than 400 years. AMong the more well known:
1607 - John Smith, who landed in Virginia to help found the Jamestown settlement.
1621 - Miles Standish, hired as a security adviser for the Pilgrims who sailed the Mayflower to Plymouth, MA.
1860s - During the American Civil War, the Pinkerton Detective Agency (a private company) provided presidential security details for Lincoln and conducted intelligence gathering missions.
1941-42 - the American Volunteer Group, more famously known as the Flying Tigers, was a group of American civilian pilots and maintenance personnel contracted by the Nationalist Chinese Government to fly against the Japanese.
1944 - Charles Lindbergh, while serving as a civilian consultant in the Pacific Theater, flew numerous missions and saw combat with USMC and USAAF units.
1943-45 - My own grandfather was a contractor in WWII, hired by the USCG as a meteorologist. He saw service with convoys in the north Atlantic and told me stories of torpedoes and mines (his ship was never hit, but there were some close calls).
The Department of Energy has long used contractors to guard nuclear facilities, and many contractors, working directly for the U.S. Government, have served in Vietnam and Laos in the 1960s and 1970s, Central America in the 1980s, Africa and the ME in the 1990s...
I'm not ranting at anyone in this thread, just reiterating what's been said in more detail. I am a contractor myself (Afghanistan) and it irritates me to no end when libtards declare this a new "problem" that has only existed this decade...
CarlosDJackal
12-08-09, 15:27
I'll caveat this by stating that I have not had the chance to verify this myself. For all we know it could just be one of those myths.
From what I understand they put a limit on the number of US Troops that can be deployed at any given time. I believe this occurred during the carter Administration.
PMCs and other contractors do not count towards that number. This allows our military to field more Warfighters because we no longer count the cooks and certain truck drivers in those numbers.
The other reason is the PMCs are contracted under the DoS. Again this frees up US Troops to be able to do their primary tasks as trigger pullers and frees them from having to play babysitter to every politician that decides they want to "visit the troops" in order to make it look like they care. JM2CW.
I'll caveat this by stating that I have not had the chance to verify this myself. For all we know it could just be one of those myths.
From what I understand they put a limit on the number of US Troops that can be deployed at any given time. I believe this occurred during the carter Administration.
PMCs and other contractors do not count towards that number. This allows our military to field more Warfighters because we no longer count the cooks and certain truck drivers in those numbers.
The other reason is the PMCs are contracted under the DoS. Again this frees up US Troops to be able to do their primary tasks as trigger pullers and frees them from having to play babysitter to every politician that decides they want to "visit the troops" in order to make it look like they care. JM2CW.
It's not so much a limit on how many troops can be deployed, but how many can be on active duty at all. When I was in the USMC in the 90s, our end strength was set by Congress at 174,000. Period.
Security contractors do work for DOS, as well as a great number of other agencies and companies. I'd estimate that the BW guys who worked the DOS WPPS contract in Iraq probably only made up about 1% of the entire number of contractors working for the coalition in Iraq. They just got the vast majority of the publicity.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.