King George 3rd felt Hessians were model soldiers
According to government estimates, contractors account for a startling 40% of the total war effort on the American side. But now the military is finding that contracting is becoming addictive. In fact, it’s become so dependent on contractors it can’t even fight the war or engage in rebuilding efforts without them. And as allegations of profiteering and abuse by contractors run high, the military seems to be a victim of its own effort to become more efficient.
According to U.S. Central Command…approximately 100,000 contractors and subcontractors–including Iraqis, Americans and other foreigners–are currently assisting U.S. forces in Iraq. By contrast, there are about 138,000 American troops in Iraq, plus an additional 15,000 coalition forces.
No one really knows which companies have won the largest government contracts, how much the deals are worth or whether they are being obtained through a truly competitive bidding process. The Pentagon does not release this information, and congressional leaders have been stonewalled in their efforts to acquire it.
According to Pete Singer, from the Brookings Institute, “It’s never been about monetary savings. It’s been about political savings,” he says about the use of contractors. “If they are killed or captured, the political consequences don’t weigh as much in the media, and they certainly don’t weigh as much on policymakers.”
From the Hessians to Wild Geese, lifers in any modern army have nothing but contempt for mercenaries. The unasked question is — what do you think of the politicians who hire these guys in the first place?
Do you have any clue what a mercenary is? We are not talking about German conscripts fighting for Great Britain in the American Revolution. These are mostly Americans being paid to perform duties that the congressionally capped end-strength of our professional military cannot perform on its own while still meeting its other obligations. Most of these jobs are for logistics support and reconstruction (which isn’t the military’s job) anyway.
If you want to criticize the contracting process, then fine; but complaining that we are using them at all and referring to them as mercenaries is just silly.
“It’s never been about monetary savings. It’s been about political savings,” he says about the use of contractors. “If they are killed or captured, the political consequences don’t weigh as much…”
Nice job of agreeing, Mike.
There’s a wry chuckle in that the last international conference on mercenaries was held before 9/11. Yes, there actually was political discussion on military topics before George W’s nose got in the way.
Worth reading the UN Report especially within the context that — at the time — it was felt that globalization was in the process of diminishing the use of mercenaries.
#2, I wasn’t agreeing. Although the example of Hessians as a mercenary force is a poor one, as they were mostly a conscripted force, the term still does not apply to contractors in Iraq. For one thing, they aren’t foreigners being paid to fight a war for us, which is traditionally what a mercenary force is.
Also, that quote is conjecture on the part of Mr. Singer. A dead American is a dead American, whether he wears a uniform of the United States, or is a contract employee. If you, or he, want to complain to anybody, complain to the news media who choose to not focus on anything but the body count of dead GIs. The military is forced to rely on contractors because of end-strength limitations that Congress imposes because it’s cheaper to pay a contractor to perform a job, than to train, feed, clothe, house and provide benefits for a uniformed service member. It’s the same logic that has lead to the growth of civil service positions on military installations to replace those previously held by uniformed personnel.
This using of corporations to do what armies normally do, goes to the fact that this administration knew that there were not enough military to properly address their illegal attack on Iraq. They needed corporate shills to do the things that military does, like KP, transport, and such. They hired Halliburton, a division of Bushco, Inc., to do this. They were assigned a cost plus, no bid contract to do this. These contractors, then subcontracted the work out, and those people end up costing taxpayers like you and me more and more money.
This is a way to use a smaller than normally necessary force in Iraq, so that they didn’t have to re invoke the draft. The contractors are making many times what the military are over there, and it’s a real sin, and a major crime. A crime of war profiteering, which this administration will take no action on. This is because the administration is making money, hand over fist with this war.
We wouldn’t be there for so long, if they weren’t . It’s like a Bushco, Inc. cash cow.
Mercenaries are another story. Mercenaries do not have to abide by the code of ethics, or chain of command that the military does. They are on their own. They can do whatever they like there, like torture, and do not have to abide by the rules of engagement either. They can snipe at will, and kill whoever they want.
It’s a bad thing all over.
The war profiteering thing is also a crime, so why haven’t we impeached these bastards already?
Roc Rizzo: wow you’re misinformed.
“The contractors are making many times what the military are over there, and it’s a real sin, and a major crime.” – First off buddy, a lot of the security contractors are ex-spec ops who wanted to get more money for doing a similar job. How is that wrong and a crime? These people are professional, well-trained, and committed to the effort. Second point, this decrease in the labour supply for spec-ops is driving up the wage paid forth to soldiers that enlist now, or more importantly are thinking about re-enlisting. So there are benefits as well.
“Mercenaries are another story. Mercenaries do not have to abide by the code of ethics, or chain of command that the military does.” Actually, if you would have taken the time to keep up with current developments you would have come across news stories about new constraints placed upon security contractors. In the 2007 military spending bill a law was included that states: all auxiliary security personal operate under the Uniform Military Code of Justice. So this theory you put forth is incredibly misleading and erroneous.
Anyone who is interest further: goto PBS Frontline and they have a documentary about the role of private security contractors; it’s rather well done to boot.
you know, this gives the military a whole new ad campaign. can’t you just the commercial now: “Join the US Army. We will teach you valuable skills that will allow you to get the big bucks from private military contractors. The US Army, your gateway to big bucks. ”
we wouldn’t be understrength for long. granted there will be a reenlist lull every 4 years or so, but hey we could deal with that.
I am 7 year US Army veteran experienced. 48 years old and still in top physical shape. Send me an application form. Am ready to enlist in private Armed Security Force for top pay.
Let me guess, none of you folks were howling for the “peace dividend” and the massive cuts to the defense budget after the cold war was won were you?
You go from a big military to a small military and you no longer have the people always in place to run mess halls and drive trucks. You go to flexible staffing.
Contractor support is part of your dividend.
#1, your just full of it.
I am sure for you, contractors are such a cost savings and just so dam great, losing the war is just irrelevant.
Not that having contractors is loosing the war for us.
What’s loosing the war for us is the illusion your proporting; we can win this war on the cheap, substituting contractors for solders.
We are loosing because we didn’t send enough people over there from day one; because, Bushco thought it would be a cake walk.
By the way, the major expenses to the war (in the trillions of dollars) is not the cost of creating, maintaining, training, housing, feeding … solders, it’s the cost of contracts with contractors and military hardware.