Contractors increasingly taking over operations for military in Iraq **THOSE NOT CAPABLE OF CIVIL CONVERSATION NEED NOT POST**

IF YOU'RE FEELING INCLINED TO FLAME, HATE, OR ABUSE FORUM RULES IN ANY WAY...GO NO FURTHER.

There was an interesting special the other day on BBC that I stumbled into...only saw the last few minutes of it so...
I'm not really informed enough on the topic to develop a firm opinion, so wanted to hear other people's thoughts.

What are your thoughts on the increasing presence of contractors in post-surge Iraq?
Do you believe contractors should be allowed to take part in offensive combat operations sanctioned by the DoD following the reduction and withdrawal of US troops in Iraq?
Do you see a future in State sponsored wars fought solely or largely by private companies?

well i think its good because the US military needs all the help they can get and most contractors come from the military and may alredy been on a iraq tour or afghanistan so they no the terrain and whats going on

I think it's a good thing. Our boys have been fighting that war long enough, it's good someone else is taking initiative.

Ive had this debate before and ill go ahead and quote some of the arguments I tend to agree with. (This is easier then typing it)

Quote :

PMC are cheaper in the long-run but more expensive in the short-term in general.

This is because you only pay a PMC while they are being used. To have the assets a PMC brings in the regular military, you have to pay for them in both peace-time and during war. Also for a rotational based military, you have to maintain 3 military personnel to every one PMC in peacetime (1 deployed, 1 preparing for deployment, 1 returning/training). You have to pay for the military personnel for a career plus retirement. A PMC costs a lot for a contract, but you only pay for that contract vs paying an entire career duing peace or war.

So taking an example of a carpenter who joined in 1974, serves until 1994 (20 year career) with maybe 1 real chance at deployment (Desert Storm) in that time. Now you are also paying his retirement as well. You also have to pay for 2 more carpenters just in case you need them. With a PMC, you only pay for one carpenter for Desert Storm in that time at a higher 1 or 2 year cost, but only pay that cost 1 time.

There becomes a point of deminishing returns though since we are in a "Long War." At what point does paying contracts become more expensive then having it in the military already?

By and large, morality is not an issue because the vast majority of PMC are service providers (construction, cooks, drivers, etc). The question comes in with only the security companies who are actually hired mostly by the State Department, not defense.

I mention the DoS because they face the same problem, pay to have security for USAID always, or only on contract and factor in that DoS has a fairly small budget and in the 1990s was ordered down to a certain size.

What has to be done with security PMC is that it has to be spelled out in their contract what their job is, Rules of Engagement, and how justice will be administered. PMCs are easy to control if you do the contract right and don\'t rush it through.

A good potential use for security PMCs in the future could be for UN Multi-National Police Task Forces. The UN can never fill these training units for local police, but the UN could hire a PMC, put stringent rules on them like the task force would have anyway and would not have to rely on countries to volunteer police officers.

The USA does have the manpower, its the budget that comes into issue, who is going to pay for a full time support ability.

Overall, the accountability, legally and financially can easily be spelled out in the contract, if they are not rushed through.

Now, while I tend to agree with that there are some issues with the security contractors..groups like Xe..formaly known as Blackwater. They are not accountable to anyone and such they don\'t face any consequences.

One of the better examples of this was when the Xe "soldiers" massacred the gorup of civilians, and none of them faced any consequences. By deaming them "combatants" the Iraqi goverment couldnt get thier hands on them, and nothing happened in the US.

The crap they did caused possibly hundreds if not thousands of new insurgents to pop up...

But yeah thats my take

Personally I believe contractors should be allowed into any and all combat areas. If you go back a bit to when contractors were used to take out a drug lord in africa, they did their job with 100 men and a 10million dollar budget. Now the UN had sent several thousand soldiers and spent close to 2 billion on keeping these soldiers fed and clothed and under shelter and all that. It just proves that a small group of well trained well organized men and women can do something that other militaries can't because of all the restrictions they have. Just my personal opinion though.

killyouno5 wrote:

Personally I believe contractors should be allowed into any and all combat areas. If you go back a bit to when contractors were used to take out a drug lord in africa, they did their job with 100 men and a 10million dollar budget. Now the UN had sent several thousand soldiers and spent close to 2 billion on keeping these soldiers fed and clothed and under shelter and all that. It just proves that a small group of well trained well organized men and women can do something that other militaries can't because of all the restrictions they have. Just my personal opinion though.

Anyone can kill a drug lord in Africa, that doesnt solve the long term problems faced by the nation, namly corruption. The UN is trying long trm peacekeeping missions so that a stabile govt can form...we all see how that is going.

I don\'t know..I think contractors serve thier purpose, but they also lead to corruption with politi getting kick backs to give them bid free contracts and such.

@ zane, I know anyone can kill a drug lord however with the restrictions placed upon each government on who they can and can\'t fire on, I believe that a group like this is needed just for the fact they don't follow orders from a single country and is not limited to certain engagement laws. The drug lord thing was a example of how effective contractors can be compared to a force controlled by to many laws.

Risky, but effective. I think they should be there, but there should be some "unit cap" limitation.

To answer your last question: "Do you see a future in State sponsored wars fought solely or largely by private companies?"

I can't ever see private contractors outnumbering state-sponsored soldiers or even coming close in ratio. The reason they're so effective is because of their prior military experience. Expecting more PMCs than soldiers is like having 5 children and expecting 6 of them to live to age 90. By definition, it's impossible.

If you wanted more PMCs than soldiers, the contracting companies would have to train their own people. I don't think they could make money if they did that. Besides, then they would have green troops with no experience, and that would bring them down to a lower level of effectiveness than state-sponsored militaries. Lower, and not equal, because they don't have the resources of the state.

PMCs have a role to play, but I don't think that role will ever be a large one.

contractors are also more flexible by nature. As long as the job gets done idc. Im not paid to have an opinion nor do i really have one

Quote :

As long as the job gets done idc

What if the job gets done but it requires hundreds of innocents to die or be displaced....

Quote :

Do you see a future in State sponsored wars fought solely or largely by private companies?

Reminds me of that movie War Inc,....great movie although its a spoof on the "War" in Iraq so.....

Merc you must understand that death and displacement are a fact of life. It doesn't matter if its caused by storm or war it will happen. I would rather have it happen so someone else can sleep safer than have it happen during a storm....

About the contractors, they are not mercenaries. They basically do the jobs that the Army used to do before. The army's fighting branch has gotten so large that we lack the manpower to feed and equip most of it by ourselves. 90% of contractors that we hire fill this gap. The other 10% guard the people and supplies that are needed to fill the gap.

I went to a summer leadership school hosted by the Air Force about 3 weeks ago. I noticed that the gate guarding the entrance to the enlisted area(where we ate) was guarded by a private security firm. I asked one of the SNCO's why they did this. He responded by saying it was much cheaper for the Air Force to do. Not only this but he also explained that this free'd up allot of Security Forces. These "reassigned" Security Forces are now becoming crack infantry units for the Air Force in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is the first time the Air Force has had a REAL front line infantry unit in its history. How is this possible? The use of contractors... So contracting does bring about good things. IMO its healthy in general for the US.

sticks

Quote :

Merc you must understand that death and displacement are a fact of life. It doesn't matter if its caused by storm or war it will happen. I would rather have it happen so someone else can sleep safer than have it happen during a storm....

I understand how its a fact of life but its unnecesary......As long as PMCs(or whatever you want to call them) have a well planned contract and have restrictions to control them then it definatly helps take some of the weight off of the military. Thats what I think

I hate to go of topic here, but sticks can you tell me some more about the Air Force infantry...sounds interesing, if you have a link or some such it would be great.

But back on topic. Like sticks said I think they serve a good purpose, as long as they stay in thier service roles instead of becoming "private" armies. In that role they free up alot of manpower and money that can go to a more critical role.

Maybe PM him....

Naw, now I'm interested too
Post post post!

Yahoo answers is partially correct. The Air Force also incorporates EOD units(not really infantry but they do ground pound with the best of them), and Security Forces units. Security Forces(SF) units are basically USAF's version of an MP or master at arms. They do 6 months on tour in a combat zone, then come back and do 6 months in a police cruiser on their home base. In the combat zone they often are set patrolling around their AO, so they do infantry tasks as well as police tasks. The SF have allot of different branches within its corps. The most renown being the K-9 units. These units travel with Army infantry as unit support. Of coarse the SF also has SWAt equivalents. I read an article in Airmen Magazine(we get it in JROTC), about the 388th or 883rd or 833rd SF squadron that was being trained as full time deploy-able ground units. They no longer had policing duties, so basically they are training these men to be full time infantrymen. When I go back to school I will see if I can possibly scan the article for you guys.

sticks