military contractors

[Sisyphus]

I'm surprised nobody made a thread about this yet, considering all the hubbub about Blackwater recently, American-hired mercenaries who peaked a long history of needless aggression with a shootout that was supposedly totally unnecessary and left many civilians dead. The Iraqi government is demanding they be kicked out of the country. I guess I'll give it a go:

 

Private contractors hired by the U.S. government outnumber military personnel in Iraq. They fill roles ranging from selling burgers on military bases to guarding convoys. In most cases, they cost more money than the military would use to perform the same job. In many cases, no laws apply to them whatsoever.

 

So, what's the deal? Is it standard military-industrial complex fare, where these companies have enough influence in Washington to perpetuate their own existence regardless of what's best for the country? Can we just not recruit enough troops to do everything we need to do? Is there a political motive in giving as few jobs to actual military personnel as possible, in order to artificially keep down the stated number of occupying troops?

[Pangloss]

They seem to be going back and forth on the issue of kicking them out of the country. I thought the latest was that the Iraqi president said they could stay, but that was a few days ago so there may have been another change since then. Also I don't think it's been objectively determined that Blackwater has "a long history of needless aggression" or that they were wrong in this case. As with US military any time a gun is fired the cameras are there, ready to find us a straw man I mean innocent victim.

 

But getting to the subject at hand, movie director Brian DePalma said in a recent interview that his purpose in making his soon-to-be-released movie about US troops who killed a bunch of Iraqis (I forget the specific incident being depicted in the film) was -- now get this -- to show how the war in Iraq was wrong and needs to be stopped immediately. That goal is absolutely exclusive from the subject matter of his own film! The two *cannot* be logically connected in any meaningful way other than absurdly over-emphasizing the humanitarian issue over any other possible goal. In other words, peace at any and all cost. Life is more important than ANYTHING. Well it ISN'T, and Iraqis are showing us every day how life is NOT more important than freedom from repression and tyranny, whether it's a brutal dictator or a fascist religious zealotry. Freedom isn't free.

 

To that end, civilian security contractors are an unfortunate necessity. I agree that there are concerns here that should be analyzed and addressed. If private contractors are skirting the rules then they should face the same kind of prosecution that US soldiers potentially face. Corporate contracts should see more scrutiny than they currently do. But in the end the approach is a reasonable one, especially given our inherent unwillingness as a society to put forth the necessary military effort.

[Sisyphus]

Also I don't think it's been objectively determined that Blackwater has "a long history of needless aggression" or that they were wrong in this case. As with US military any time a gun is fired the cameras are there, ready to find us a straw man I mean innocent victim.

 

Alright, I should have said an alleged long history of needless aggression. You have to admit it doesn't look good, though, right? And they at least have a reputation for excessive bravado, and their incident statistics are a lot higher than other contractors doing the same job. Of course I withhold final judgment until we learn more, but how much we learn is probably going to be limited precisely because of the dangerous lack of accountability we're dealing with.

 

bla bla, antiwar people are dumb

 

I'm not relating this to whether we belong in Iraq, I'm just highlighting what I see as a serious problem.

 

To that end, civilian security contractors are an unfortunate necessity. I agree that there are concerns here that should be analyzed and addressed. If private contractors are skirting the rules then they should face the same kind of prosecution that US soldiers potentially face. Corporate contracts should see more scrutiny than they currently do. But in the end the approach is a reasonable one, especially given our inherent unwillingness as a society to put forth the necessary military effort.

 

So you're saying it's the second two reasons I suggested (recruitment problems and political pressures) more than the first (military-industrial shenanigans) that prevent the military from doing these jobs themselves? Are Americans oblivious enough that spending more money on less accountable and poorly controlled personnel is politically preferable?

[CDarwin]

So you're saying it's the second two reasons I suggested (recruitment problems and political pressures) more than the first (military-industrial shenanigans) that prevent the military from doing these jobs themselves? Are Americans oblivious enough that spending more money on less accountable and poorly controlled personnel is politically preferable?

 

Pretty much. No one ever gets outraged about "bringing the contractors home." Obviously your first proposal could be important, but by the very nature of back room deals of that sort, it would be hard for any of us to evaluate how important the military-industrial factor is. Some of these are foreign firms too, aren't they?

[Pangloss]

Alright, I should have said an alleged long history of needless aggression. You have to admit it doesn't look good, though, right?

 

No no, quite right. I also haven't heard it said that all civilian security contractors are having these problems. Whether that's because Blackwater gets the toughest assignments or because of an institutional culture problem I don't know.

 

 

I'm not relating this to whether we belong in Iraq, I'm just highlighting what I see as a serious problem.

 

I know you're not, but I think we have to hit the larger subject here because must of what's driving this story is far-left propaganda. Not just the peaceniks but the whole ABB alliance, which you know as well as I do bends over backwards to make hay out of anything and everything going on over there.

 

 

So you're saying it's the second two reasons I suggested (recruitment problems and political pressures) more than the first (military-industrial shenanigans) that prevent the military from doing these jobs themselves? Are Americans oblivious enough that spending more money on less accountable and poorly controlled personnel is politically preferable?

 

What I'm suggesting is that the job was too big for the amount of force we were willing and able to commit to the task. I think we all agree on this.

 

I don't accept the premise of the last question. We don't know that they're more expensive, less acountable, or poorly controlled. All we have at this point are nightly news straw men -- specific incidents whose relationship to the whole performance picture is unknown. Show me a peer-reviewed academic study of a comprehensive data selection and I'll answer that question.

 

(Why is it that we're so adamant about peer review and academic integrity when it comes to scientific subjects like the environment or medicine, but when it comes to political decisions as vast and awesome and incredibly important as WAR and DEATH we could care less about objective analysis, and happily go along with whatever the mass media says?)

[iNow]

It doesn't serve your purpose to rant about strawmen then present such blatent ones yourself.

 

Also, why the venom towards those who desire peace? Is that really necessary?

[Pangloss]

It doesn't serve your purpose to rant about strawmen then present such blatent ones yourself.

 

Also, why the venom towards those who desire peace? Is that really necessary?

 

If you think I've used a straw man, point it out and we'll discuss it. Don't just slander me and call it a day. And for Pete's sake grant me the courtesy of allowing me to express my opinion without asking me if that opinion is "necessary". That's just rude.

[iNow]

Never mind. I really don't have the patience.

[iNow]

As compared to the fixed-benefits management industry? Defense spending is a paltry quarter of what turns around through Medicare and Social Security annually. If you're going to complain about how interest groups conduct business in Washington, I'd start with people and companies who don't place their lives on the line on a daily basis.

Not to take away from the thrust of your post, the above is not entirely accurate.

 

 

The below figures were drawn from the detailed tables available here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/index.html

 

 

SOURCE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020500208.html

The pie chart below is the government view of the budget. This is a distortion of how our income tax dollars are spent because it includes Trust Funds (e.g., Social Security), and the expenses of past military spending are not distinguished from nonmilitary spending.

 

 

 

 

For a more accurate representation of how your Federal income tax dollar is really spent, see the large chart (below). Source: Washington Post , Feb. 6, 2007, from Office of Management and Budget

 

Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,387 billion

MILITARY: 51% and $1,228 billion

NON-MILITARY: 49% and $1,159 billion

 

 

[Sisyphus]

I don't accept the premise of the last question. We don't know that they're more expensive, less acountable, or poorly controlled. All we have at this point are nightly news straw men -- specific incidents whose relationship to the whole performance picture is unknown. Show me a peer-reviewed academic study of a comprehensive data selection and I'll answer that question.

 

(Why is it that we're so adamant about peer review and academic integrity when it comes to scientific subjects like the environment or medicine, but when it comes to political decisions as vast and awesome and incredibly important as WAR and DEATH we could care less about objective analysis, and happily go along with whatever the mass media says?)

 

But that's just it. We don't have that data precisely because they're not accountable. Believe me, I've been looking for the kind of objective analysis you're talking about, and it doesn't exist. Or at least, if it does, then it's a secret, and that amounts to the same thing, as far as I'm concerned. Isn't that in itself a major problem? Doesn't that in itself demonstrate lack of accountability?

 

Also, what objective facts we do have, that, for example, we have literally lawless mercenaries (pcollins, I'll get to that word in a moment) running around, is not terribly encouraging, no? I don't really care about anecdotal stuff except inasmuch as it draws attention to non-anecdotal problems.

 

Blackwater undertakes no combat duty in furtherance of any military mission in Iraq, so I fail to see how those so employed meet the definition of "mercenary."

 

I think you're playing with semantics, here. They're non-military, non-government armed guards hired by the government.

 

This is true, but only if we count some nearly 120,000 Iraqis.

 

Well first of all, that's not true. Many are Iraqis, but not that many. Secondly, what's your point? Is it preferable to make our military dependent on foreign workers instead of Americans?

 

There is no evidence for this charge whatsoever. For one, most individuals contracting from the MNF are Iraqis receiving on the scale of $3000 a month. Additionally, the advantage of using contractors is avoiding carry on costs for an inhouse hire where retirement and healthcare benefits inflate the cost well beyond base pay.

 

Do they multiply base pay by ten? Because that's how much more a private "security worker" makes than an enlisted soldier. I'll happily grant that often less money is spent if you'll grant that often a whole lot more is.

 

As compared to the fixed-benefits management industry? Defense spending is a paltry quarter of what turns around through Medicare and Social Security annually. If you're going to complain about how interest groups conduct business in Washington, I'd start with people and companies who don't place their lives on the line on a daily basis.

 

False (as iNow showed above), and also completely irrelevant.

 

No, but we can more easily afford to hire contractors to do a job where the need for coordination through a system of military command and justice is unnecessary (i.e., in support roles and rear line security).

 

If recent events have taught us anything, I'd say it's that military command and justice is sorely missed in "rear line security." This is the main issue.

 

There's a military motive to spend more money on "tip of the spear" troops. A soldier, Marine, airman or sailor who spends his time doing accountancy, administrative tasks or serving in a mess ashore is one less fully compensated (with benefits) employee that you could be using to man a tracking console, carry a rifle, work with ordnance or fly combat. This is a natural evolution of the Total Force, especially in the era of diminishing budgets in the 1990s, yet entirely driven by evil necessity. For one, drawing large numbers of contractors arguably goes to supporting all principles counterinsurgency, from isolating rebels from popular support by outbidding them economically to promoting unity effort between the military and host political spheres. Two, force protection of any sort is a negative military objective and draws resources away from more proactive missions--this goes doubly for militaries that assume responsibility for the safety of civilian members of the effort. We're not just talking individual soldiers, we're talking about taking up the time, equipment, and focus of their units and chains of command as well.

 

...so in other words, we simply don't have the troops. Presumably from inability to recruit enough. Ok, I accept that. Maybe they're a necessary evil. My main issue is not that we're hiring contractors for certain jobs, but the way in which we're hiring them, and some of the jobs they're doing.

[iNow]

The second [graph, which is shown again below,] doesn't make much sense at all, and I have no idea how they gamed it to show in excess of a trillion in outlays for defense.

That's a good question, and I hadn't considered it very closely. All I can offer is what they state on the site:

 

 

 

HOW THESE FIGURES WERE DETERMINED

"Current military” includes Dept. of Defense ($585 billion), the military portion from other departments ($122 billion), and an unbudgetted estimate of supplemental appropriations ($20 billion). “Past military” represents veterans’ benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt.*

 

These figures are from an analysis of detailed tables in the “Analytical Perspectives” book of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008. The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay (or don’t pay) by April 17, 2007, goes to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of combining trust and federal funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller.

 

 

[Sisyphus]

You're speaking about a minority of contractors in Iraq--those in the employ of the PMCS. If you're talking about the 180,000, the vast majority aren't armed as part of their duties. And as for those who are armed, why are they mercenaries as opposed to say private armed bodyguards hired throughout the world by all sorts of public and private interests?

 

I'm aware that they are a minority. Roughly 10,000 are private security personnel. They regularly engage the same enemies the military is fighting. To me, that's a mercenary. You can call it what you want. That they're only in defensive roles doesn't seem relevant to me, but I'm sure the Romans made similar rationalizations about the Visigoths and so forth.

 

118,000 of 182,000 are Iraqis. That's a fact.

 

I misunderstood. I thought you meant that you would need to allow for that many Iraqis in order to outnumber the U.S. military (implying that only 10,000 are non-Iraqi).

 

In a counterinsurgency operation, is it essential to get the host nation's population behind the effort--even at the risk of attracting unreliable and potentially subversive element.

 

I agree completely, I'm just not sure it's having the desired effect. Recruiting "collaborators" seems like it would be neutral at best, public relations-wise. On the other hand, pumping money into the Iraqi economy is probably a good idea, just because those with more to lose seek more stability. It just seems that hiring by the U.S. just sets us up as looking like the real, long-term rulers of Iraq, when we're trying to help the Iraqi government appear legitimate. Let them do the hiring, let them offer an alternative, let the Iraqis become invested in their own success, as opposed to our continued occupation. Give them the funds for it if we have to. Perhaps what Iraq needs is a New Deal of its own, as opposed to jobs working for the colonials.

 

One, that figure comes from extrapolating monthly pay from the high end of a daily rate for a shooter contract--on the assumption that the contractor works 7 days a week for a full month. This a dubious method at best. On the flip side, you can't divide the pension, health, and housing costs the government assumes for the enlisted by anything to get the zero the government shells out for contractors.

 

The government doesn't pay their health insurance because the government is not their employer. The government pays their employers, and their employers pay their health insurance. I don't know how their benefits structure works compared with military, or how much of the companies' contracts goes towards administrative costs, or anything. I'm guessing you don't either. But whatever those facts may be, I think you'd have to be extremely biased to assume that all of that more than compensates for what is, after all, the tremendous difference in pay that we do see. As for how much an individual works, surely somebody is working 7 days a week, making that much money, doing a job that would otherwise be done by a soldier or marine, and so a direct day-by-day comparison is appropriate when considering how much money is spent, if not how much an individual makes.

 

Also, I may as well admit that one of the reasons I think they make more money is because that's what I've been told by people who would know. I've heard soldiers speaking resentfully about these contractors who have less dangerous jobs, and make more money. (Maybe they're wrong?) Even more relevantly, a brother of a friend actually is one of these security contractors, and he left the marines specifically because he could make a lot more money at his present job. Now, those are anecdotal, obviously, but such anecdotes are very easy to find, no?

 

Are you proposing we switch positions?

 

I'm sorry, are we in a debate? If you stay here at SFN for a while, you'll probably notice that one of the great things about it is that we like to have discussions about things. I'm not trying to prove you wrong or to appear right. I'm trying to be right, which very often means changing one's mind about things.

 

The argument is over whether contractors provide a cost-effective alternative to uniformed personnel. In the long term, obviously they do.

 

I don't think that's obvious at all. It would be obvious if we actually had some real numbers from a credible source to refer to, but those don't appear to exist. Interesting.

 

Not false at all, and entirely relevant. We are talking about budgeting.

 

Ok, then, so anything relating to budgets is a relevant point here? Well then, I paid off my student loan debts well ahead of schedule, so point for me. This is fun.

 

Why is it sorely missed? Should MNF and USCENTCOM divide their attention further and assume responsibility for contracting agencies? The reason we have unified commanders along with joint and combined task forces is to minimize the administrative tasks they have to deal with. As for justice, contractors are not exempt from US law in any event and can be prosecuted accordingly. Additionally, any actions taken not in furtherance of a contract are subject to Iraqi prosecution.

 

Except that some of them are exempt from both U.S. and Iraqi law, and they are the ones I'm concerned about, since there doesn't appear to be much accountability at all. This is especially worrying considering that they are in fighting roles much of the time.

 

Why would we want troops in those positions? Troops are damn expensive over the course of their career. It'd be like hiring Pedro Martinez on the terms of his current contract as a general manager.

 

You wouldn't want them in all those positions, but you would definitely want them in some. Like anything that involves fighting. And, of course, you want reliability and oversight in any service that the military is depending on to do its job. As for the matters of expense, you know where I stand.

 

Has nothing to do with recruitment. The issue is authorized end strength. The law caps the size of the force. And given that this war--like any other--will come to a close one way or another sooner than later, I fail to see how the size of the contracting force would be a factor in deciding to increase end strength.

 

Fair enough, it's not about recruitment, it's about getting around the law.

 

In my experience, its a necessary evil only in the eyes of those predisposed to dismiss the service of private citizens who lay their lives down on the line. It's also my experience that such people have little idea what constitutes contracting in the first place, let alone the service this rare group of especially capable men and women perform.

 

Oh, please. A variation of "he doesn't support the troops" ad hominem. Yawn.

 

And I'm seriously confused as to the reasoning behind your outrage. I've got a few ideas, but rather than speculate I'd offer you the opportunity to explain yourself.

 

I would call it "serious concern" more than "outrage," but anyway, what would you like me to explain that I have not?

[Pangloss]

iNow did you just try to pass off a pie chart with Social Security subtracted from the budget but then label it as if it reflected the entire budget? After accusing ME of using straw men?

 

Maybe I'm just tired and misreading, but I think you have some 'splainin' to do, Lucy.

[D H]

Not only that, he passed it off as being from the Washington Post. The real source is warresisters.org.

 

Not only that, to get those numbers, warresisters.org appears to double-count spending on Homeland Security and attributes the following to military spending

• 80% of the payments on the national debt
  This alone inflates the military budget by 376 million.
   
  
• Half of NASA's budget
  None of NASA's paltry goes to the military.
   
  
• A quarter of the Agency for International Development's budget
  Subcategory 152 of the federal budget. Some of this funds foreign militaries fights against drugs.
  

Maybe liberals are more intelligent than conservatives. This goes well beyond Creative Accounting 101.

[iNow]

It's possible too that I was tired. I saw, on the bottom of the graph, the source as the Washington Post, and that's what I cited.

[D H]

Where did you see this chart? If you saw it at warresisters.org that is who you should have cited as a source. If you read the Washington Post you linked you (do you read your own sources?), you would have seen that the big pie chart with the incredibly fudged numbers was nowhere in sight.

 

The Washington Post article you cited is indeed the source of the first pie chart. That chart is honest. The second chart is nothing short of a lie, and a stupid lie. They blatantly deleted all Social Security spending because none of it goes to the military. They blatantly attributed 80% of debt payments to the military because they weren't happy with the first inflated set of numbers. Even that wasn't good enough, so they double-counted Homeland Security. For good measure, they threw in half NASA's budget and a quarter of USAID's budget.

 

For a short period of time I actually thought about returning to my more liberal ways. Warresisters and Move-on have shown me why I left their camp in the first place.

[iNow]

Where did you see this chart? If you saw it at warresisters.org that is who you should have cited as a source. If you read the Washington Post you linked you (do you read your own sources?), you would have seen that the big pie chart with the incredibly fudged numbers was nowhere in sight.

 

The Washington Post article you cited is indeed the source of the first pie chart. That chart is honest. The second chart is nothing short of a lie, and a stupid lie. They blatantly deleted all Social Security spending because none of it goes to the military. They blatantly attributed 80% of debt payments to the military because they weren't happy with the first inflated set of numbers. Even that wasn't good enough, so they double-counted Homeland Security. For good measure, they threw in half NASA's budget and a quarter of USAID's budget.

 

For a short period of time I actually thought about returning to my more liberal ways. Warresisters and Move-on have shown me why I left their camp in the first place.

 

Tell you what. Throw stones at me. Hang me from a cross with nails through my wrists. Tie each limb to a different horse and have them walk in opposite directions. My bad. Shall I edit the post and delete them? I'm generally very very very good about citing well credentialed and respected sources. Shall I turn in my SFN membership and say my farewell? Good grief. Where's that thread about mock outrage?

[D H]

The problem with blatant lies is that the spread and are percieved as true. This is particularly so nice little compact lies such as a compelling photograph, a simple graph, or a one-liner statistic. The photocropping or numerical fudging aren't included with the picture or graph or statistic. Now that you see the flim-flam for yourself, do you still believe this junk?

 

BTW, I know that conservatives are also quite adept at lieing. Slightly different techniques, same end goal. I bring a clothes pin with me to the voting booth to hold my nose shut because all choices stink.

[iNow]

It would appear I, in fact, am unable to edit the post. I did know it came from another site, but I saw that it was sourced to the WP. I sought that WP source and posted it... mistakenly.

 

Here is the link from which the graph came.

 

http://www.warresisters.org

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

 

 

How many hail mary's, DH? Shall I write "I will work harder not to credit the wrong source while posting on SFN" 1,000 times on the blackboard?

 

 

Lay off. Mea culpa. That is all.

[Pangloss]

Tell you what. Throw stones at me. Hang me from a cross with nails through my wrists. Tie each limb to a different horse and have them walk in opposite directions. My bad. Shall I edit the post and delete them? I'm generally very very very good about citing well credentialed and respected sources. Shall I turn in my SFN membership and say my farewell? Good grief. Where's that thread about mock outrage?

 

Hahaha! I love it! Funniest post I've read all week.

 

I'm sorry iNow, if I wasn't having such a week-from-hell I would have popped back in here sooner and nipped the iNow-crucifiction in the bud. But at least I got to see that amusing reply!

 

Spiff happens, thirty lashings with a wet noodle, let's move on folks.

[Sisyphus]

News relating to the actual topic at hand:

 

The House passed a bill today that would subject military contractors in Iraq to U.S. civilian law. It passed 389 to 30, so I guess I'm not alone in my concern. It hasn't gone to the Senate yet, but I don't think there's any doubt it will survive.

 

pcollins: Is any of that stuff you actually believe and/or actually think are relevant points, or is it all just flame bait? Just wanted to say that I know what you're doing, I'm not going to take the bait, and you should probably find somebody else to antagonize. Maybe iNow - he's already being drawn and quartered, so you can probably poke him with a stick without fear of retribution.

[iNow]

you should probably find somebody else to antagonize. Maybe iNow - he's already being drawn and quartered, so you can probably poke him with a stick without fear of retribution.

 

Bring it. I used to roll 50 pound iron bars across my shins, smash wood posts with my fists and forearms, and jab my fingers into buckets of rocks. What's a measley stick going to do except break?

 

I'm glad to see the attention and increase in regulation with the contractors. It's unfortunate that it's only occuring to appease the public outcry. It'd be much nicer if we were intelligent to put such procedures and protocols in place before moving forward.

 

Better late than never, though.

[ParanoiA]

Bring it. I used to roll 50 pound iron bars across my shins, smash wood posts with my fists and forearms, and jab my fingers into buckets of rocks. What's a measley stick going to do except break?

 

This sounds serious...sticks and stones can't break his bones.

[Pangloss]

I saw a piece yesterday about Blackwater guards saving the life of the Polish ambassador following an attack. I would imagine that the responsible and professional security contractors would welcome a little enforcement in their industry as well. They're certainly getting the short end of the publicity stick these days.

[Blade]

The military contractors deserve to commit Seppuku fore what they do.