Where's the outrage from the Libs???

[OCinBuffalo]

Maybe it's time to ressurect the tolerance thread you started sometime back.

yeah, that one didn't get the juices flowing like I expected it would. Maybe, now that some are done talking about how much they love their dog, and the rest are done proving how moral they are by going after Vick , it's time to ask the only questions that have any real bearing on our lives.

[WisconsinBillzFan]

(* Ever notice how we haven't heard "tolerance" much since it was clearly determined that dog fighting is part of Vick's culture? Guess we DON'T have to be tolerant of every culture? Or do we? We don't know, hence the whip goes away)

 

Just ask Deion Sanders.

[finknottle]

i, for one, am outraged. mercenaries should have no role in our defense system. their presence is fraught with problems not the least of which is pay differential between the mercs and the regular armed forces and the resentment that must garner. ...

 

 

You can't hire a soldier for a specific mission - you take him on, he may do duty where you need him, but he will spend a lot of time doing other things like being rotated around, attending classes, and doing 'career development.' So if you need X extra people, you need to increase your serving force levels by some multiple of X. And if you need them suddenly and with experience, you may have a problem.

 

You are not just paying a soldiers salary, you are also paying for many benefits that don't show up in his paycheck like training, health/dental/life insurance, PX subsidies, housing and shipping allowances. You can't release him when the mission is finished, you have him for at least his enlistment period. And when he finally separates from service, you are not done paying. There is the small matter of his college education, his pension, and his veterans benefits, for him and his survivors. With a contractor, you are paying a specified rate for specified service. When you are done with him, you are done paying.

 

The move to contracting within the USG was driven by the realization that much of the budget is increasingly tied up in promised benefits. Increasing the size of the military by a few divisions (as was promised by Obama) will squeeze future military budgets without neccessarily providing us the deployment flexibility we need.

 

While there is resentment, the perceived money issue is a red-herring. Non-military agencies are also out-sourcing, especially in things like IT, for the same reasons. Contract employees are cheaper in the long run, but regular employees see a fatter check up front and are outraged.

[birdog1960]

You can't hire a soldier for a specific mission - you take him on, he may do duty where you need him, but he will spend a lot of time doing other things like being rotated around, attending classes, and doing 'career development.' So if you need X extra people, you need to increase your serving force levels by some multiple of X. And if you need them suddenly and with experience, you may have a problem.

 

You are not just paying a soldiers salary, you are also paying for many benefits that don't show up in his paycheck like training, health/dental/life insurance, PX subsidies, housing and shipping allowances. You can't release him when the mission is finished, you have him for at least his enlistment period. And when he finally separates from service, you are not done paying. There is the small matter of his college education, his pension, and his veterans benefits, for him and his survivors. With a contractor, you are paying a specified rate for specified service. When you are done with him, you are done paying.

 

The move to contracting within the USG was driven by the realization that much of the budget is increasingly tied up in promised benefits. Increasing the size of the military by a few divisions (as was promised by Obama) will squeeze future military budgets without neccessarily providing us the deployment flexibility we need.

 

While there is resentment, the perceived money issue is a red-herring. Non-military agencies are also out-sourcing, especially in things like IT, for the same reasons. Contract employees are cheaper in the long run, but regular employees see a fatter check up front and are outraged.

thanks for a well presented explanation. i can't help thinking however that if there were a mandatory service requirement (as in switzerland or israel) or even a draft, it would be less expensive (in dollars) not to mention more equitable and allow for greater flexibilty . (it would be a political disaster, however) pensions ,benefits and perks could be lessened since there wouldn't need to be enticements for service. a sizable minority of those who wouldn't otherwise volunteer would get out as soon as possible. the argument can then be made that paying the contractors pays for the safe keeping of the economically advantaged. i would further argue that outsourcing IT for private companies profit and outsourcing warriors meant to ensure the military interests of a nation are two very different things.

[Alaska Darin]

thanks for a well presented explanation. i can't help thinking however that if there were a mandatory service requirement (as in switzerland or israel) or even a draft, it would be less expensive (in dollars) not to mention more equitable and allow for greater flexibilty . (it would be a political disaster, however) pensions ,benefits and perks could be lessened since there wouldn't need to be enticements for service. a sizable minority of those who wouldn't otherwise volunteer would get out as soon as possible. the argument can then be made that paying the contractors pays for the safe keeping of the economically advantaged. i would further argue that outsourcing IT for private companies profit and outsourcing warriors meant to ensure the military interests of a nation are two very different things.

It wouldn't be less expensive. It's far more expensive because it takes so long to train a competent soldier. It's even harder to train someone who doesn't want to be there. To say nothing of the additional infrastructure required to deal with all of those people.

 

As far as outsourcing things like IT: The military is a mess when it comes to personnel. Technology moves very quickly and the military's training doesn't. That leads to people being moved into jobs that they're not qualified for and that happens every 2-4 years for each troop. The military finally recognized that it's a lot easier and cheaper to contract to companies that do that for a living because contractors are far more stable. They don't get packed up at a moment's notice to go to war. They don't get a new assignment every 3 years and then need a replacement trained, which is a cyclical problem dealt with at every base/post/camp/station.

 

I do agree that outsourcing warfighters is far different than things like communications or other infrastructure type jobs.

[finknottle]

It wouldn't be less expensive. It's far more expensive because it takes so long to train a competent soldier. It's even harder to train someone who doesn't want to be there. To say nothing of the additional infrastructure required to deal with all of those people.

 

As far as outsourcing things like IT: The military is a mess when it comes to personnel. Technology moves very quickly and the military's training doesn't. That leads to people being moved into jobs that they're not qualified for and that happens every 2-4 years for each troop. The military finally recognized that it's a lot easier and cheaper to contract to companies that do that for a living because contractors are far more stable. They don't get packed up at a moment's notice to go to war. They don't get a new assignment every 3 years and then need a replacement trained, which is a cyclical problem dealt with at every base/post/camp/station.

 

I do agree that outsourcing warfighters is far different than things like communications or other infrastructure type jobs.

 

Yes. Whether contractors should be potentially involved in fighting is a different and entirely fair argument. But we also have to recognize that the line is becoming increasingly blurred. Is facilities protection (ie rent-a-cop) appropriate? Few people realize that - going back decades - most of our embassies have hired local companies to guard the outer areas. The only difference is the nationality of the employee, local versus American. And bodyguards? We want to say no because of Iraq. But if ordinary diplomatic personnel need protective escorts in places like (say) Egypt or Indonesia, does that mean we want them driving around town with a detatchment of uniformed soldiers? That would be a diplomatic fiasco.

 

But back to your point about expertise. There was a interesting passage in the Rolling Stone article underscoring this:

 

He systematically mapped out terrorist networks, targeting specific insurgents and hunting them down – often with the help of cyberfreaks traditionally shunned by the military. "The Boss would find the 24-year-old kid with a nose ring, with some !@#$ing brilliant degree from MIT, sitting in the corner with 16 computer monitors humming," says a Special Forces commando who worked with McChrystal in Iraq and now serves on his staff in Kabul. "He'd say, 'Hey – you !@#$ing muscleheads couldn't find lunch without help. You got to work together with these guys.' "

 

Like it or not, the only way you can get that kind of technical expertise to relocate in country is with a services contract through a much-maligned defense contractor.