Full Version: Army-R-US?
It's been a while since I've made trouble in this particular forum. I've been planning to start a topic on this for months but never got around to it.
Link
Link
What national security tasks, if any, are "inherently governmental" and rightfully off limits to private business?
Is the growth in scope and scale of private military contractors beneficial, harmful, or neutral to US interests?
Are the oversight bodies currently being employed effectively policing private military firms?
Should we be outsourcing interrogations?
QUOTE(WP)
AllWorld Language Consultants Inc., a Rockville firm, is seeking experienced military interrogators to work in Iraq for $153,500 a year plus bonuses, with proficiency in Arabic "preferred but not required," according to Yahoo's Hot Jobs listings.
The U.S. Army element of the Multi-National Force-Iraq is looking for a private contractor to provide airborne surveillance over that country that will "provide situational awareness of the entire area of operations," according to another Web announcement.
Lockheed Martin Corp. is seeking a counterintelligence analyst to work for the Pentagon's newest intelligence agency, the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), in its Colorado Springs facility to "create and deliver briefings, write reports, and represent Counterintelligence Field Activity," according to a Web classified ad.
These positions and thousands like them are part of a growing trend at the Pentagon to contract out intelligence jobs that were formerly done primarily by service personnel and civil service employees.
But, by using contract employees, government agencies lose control over those doing this sensitive work and an element of profit is inserted into what is being done. Also, as investigations have revealed, politics and corruption may be introduced into the process.[...]"Once cleared, they can get a higher salary outside and they are gone," the official said. "We're leasing back our former employees."
The U.S. Army element of the Multi-National Force-Iraq is looking for a private contractor to provide airborne surveillance over that country that will "provide situational awareness of the entire area of operations," according to another Web announcement.
Lockheed Martin Corp. is seeking a counterintelligence analyst to work for the Pentagon's newest intelligence agency, the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), in its Colorado Springs facility to "create and deliver briefings, write reports, and represent Counterintelligence Field Activity," according to a Web classified ad.
These positions and thousands like them are part of a growing trend at the Pentagon to contract out intelligence jobs that were formerly done primarily by service personnel and civil service employees.
But, by using contract employees, government agencies lose control over those doing this sensitive work and an element of profit is inserted into what is being done. Also, as investigations have revealed, politics and corruption may be introduced into the process.[...]"Once cleared, they can get a higher salary outside and they are gone," the official said. "We're leasing back our former employees."
Link
QUOTE(WP)
The intelligence was compiled not by the U.S. military, as might be expected, but by a British security firm, Aegis Defence Services Ltd. The Reconstruction Operations Center is the hub of Aegis's sprawling presence in Iraq and the most visible example of how intelligence collection is now among the responsibilities handled by a network of private security companies that work in the shadows of the U.S. military.
Aegis won its three-year, $293 million U.S. Army contract in 2004. The company is led by Tim Spicer, a retired British lieutenant colonel who, before he founded Aegis, was hired in the 1990s to help put down a rebellion in Papua New Guinea and reinstall an elected government in Sierra Leone. Several British and American firms have bid on the contract's renewal, which is worth up to $475 million and would create a force of about 1,000 men to protect the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on reconstruction projects. Protests have held up the award, which is expected soon.[...]
The deepening and largely hidden involvement of security companies in the war has drawn the attention of Congress, which is seeking to regulate the industry. The House intelligence committee stated in a recent report that it is "concerned that the Intelligence Community does not have a clear definition of what functions are 'inherently governmental' and, as a result, whether there are contractors performing inherently governmental functions."
"There is simply not the management and oversight in place to handle this properly, not only to get the best of the market but to ensure that everything is being done," said Peter W. Singer, a Brookings Institution senior fellow who wrote a book on private security and has been critical of the lack of government oversight. "It leaves a lot of legal questions that are open or dodged."
The government has outsourced a wide range of security functions to 20,000 to 30,000 contractors in Iraq; the exact number has not been disclosed. Contractors protect U.S. generals and key military installations and have served as prison guards and interrogators in facilities holding suspected insurgents, among other responsibilities.
Aegis won its three-year, $293 million U.S. Army contract in 2004. The company is led by Tim Spicer, a retired British lieutenant colonel who, before he founded Aegis, was hired in the 1990s to help put down a rebellion in Papua New Guinea and reinstall an elected government in Sierra Leone. Several British and American firms have bid on the contract's renewal, which is worth up to $475 million and would create a force of about 1,000 men to protect the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on reconstruction projects. Protests have held up the award, which is expected soon.[...]
The deepening and largely hidden involvement of security companies in the war has drawn the attention of Congress, which is seeking to regulate the industry. The House intelligence committee stated in a recent report that it is "concerned that the Intelligence Community does not have a clear definition of what functions are 'inherently governmental' and, as a result, whether there are contractors performing inherently governmental functions."
"There is simply not the management and oversight in place to handle this properly, not only to get the best of the market but to ensure that everything is being done," said Peter W. Singer, a Brookings Institution senior fellow who wrote a book on private security and has been critical of the lack of government oversight. "It leaves a lot of legal questions that are open or dodged."
The government has outsourced a wide range of security functions to 20,000 to 30,000 contractors in Iraq; the exact number has not been disclosed. Contractors protect U.S. generals and key military installations and have served as prison guards and interrogators in facilities holding suspected insurgents, among other responsibilities.
Link
What national security tasks, if any, are "inherently governmental" and rightfully off limits to private business?
Is the growth in scope and scale of private military contractors beneficial, harmful, or neutral to US interests?
Are the oversight bodies currently being employed effectively policing private military firms?
Should we be outsourcing interrogations?
1) What national security tasks, if any, are "inherently governmental" and rightfully off limits to private business?
2) Is the growth in scope and scale of private military contractors beneficial, harmful, or neutral to US interests?
3) Are the oversight bodies currently being employed effectively policing private military firms?
4) Should we be outsourcing interrogations?
1. The only national security tasks fit for private business are paper work, trash collection, etc. Private business should help the military run not run things for the military. Private contractors have no business doing jobs that the military or government should do. Contractors shouldn't be securing areas, protecting diplomats, or building so much as a port-a-jon. If the US government can't do it or doesn't have the man power to do it then maybe it should find new ways to get it done. If the military couldn't secure, house, or feed prisoners then maybe we shouldn't have invaded. If we couldn't do things from start to finish then it shouldn't have been done. It makes no sense that contractors are getting payed up to 5 times more then the soldiers doing the same job.
2) The growth of contractors is harmful. When Iraqiis are *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** at the things contractors do they don't make a difference between a contractor and a US soldier. There are more contractors (albeit not all are combat) then US personnel in Iraq. You have Blackwater and other security firms with people going around half cocked. Some of these firms have fired upon civilians and killed only to be sent back to America with no punishment. These incidents only make it harder for our troops to do their job.
3) Simple answer no. We have companies sending our troops deficient gear. We have money sent to and for Iraq that has jut gone missing. No one is holding anyone responsible.
4) No. No one motivated by profit should be anywhere near interrogations. If there are no answers to be found then I don't want and America doesn't need someone "finding" answers to justify there contract.
2) Is the growth in scope and scale of private military contractors beneficial, harmful, or neutral to US interests?
3) Are the oversight bodies currently being employed effectively policing private military firms?
4) Should we be outsourcing interrogations?
1. The only national security tasks fit for private business are paper work, trash collection, etc. Private business should help the military run not run things for the military. Private contractors have no business doing jobs that the military or government should do. Contractors shouldn't be securing areas, protecting diplomats, or building so much as a port-a-jon. If the US government can't do it or doesn't have the man power to do it then maybe it should find new ways to get it done. If the military couldn't secure, house, or feed prisoners then maybe we shouldn't have invaded. If we couldn't do things from start to finish then it shouldn't have been done. It makes no sense that contractors are getting payed up to 5 times more then the soldiers doing the same job.
2) The growth of contractors is harmful. When Iraqiis are *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** at the things contractors do they don't make a difference between a contractor and a US soldier. There are more contractors (albeit not all are combat) then US personnel in Iraq. You have Blackwater and other security firms with people going around half cocked. Some of these firms have fired upon civilians and killed only to be sent back to America with no punishment. These incidents only make it harder for our troops to do their job.
3) Simple answer no. We have companies sending our troops deficient gear. We have money sent to and for Iraq that has jut gone missing. No one is holding anyone responsible.
4) No. No one motivated by profit should be anywhere near interrogations. If there are no answers to be found then I don't want and America doesn't need someone "finding" answers to justify there contract.
Good questions Turnea! Also good to have you back around more. 
1) What national security tasks, if any, are "inherently governmental" and rightfully off limits to private business?
That's a pretty broad question, and one that with changing and asymmetric threats, cannot be set in concrete. Certainly any offensive tactical acts, on land, air or sea should continue to be the domain of the armed services, and to a lesser extent, action directorates of the intelligence agencies. Generally speaking, convoy and diplomatic protection in a combat theater should be part of the mission of the armed services as opposed to Private Military Contractors (PMC's). But in Iraq and Afghanistan, that role is simply too large for the ground formations to absorb. That error should be corrected, I'm just not sure how to do it.
2) Is the growth in scope and scale of private military contractors beneficial, harmful, or neutral to US interests?
I think it's a given that in Iraq, they have been extremely harmful. When Iraqi's see Blackwater, they see the US. As has been said, the average indigenous citizen does not distinguish between armed civilian contractor and the Armed Forces of the United States. Everybody knows the names of Blackwater, Custer Battles, Dyncorp, Aegis and Olive Group; the perception of those companies, justified or not, does not enhance the US image abroad.
Now, there are contracted companies that are doing great work in Iraq. They don't get much notoriety, because they aren't getting into trouble. Several firms conduct intelligence, operations and integration under the umbrella of the Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) in Iraq and A-Stan. Some of whom are armed for personal protection. They conduct weapons intelligence exploitation, network centric warfare and other signals/aerial surveillance. Without their assistance, we would be farther behind the learning curve than we currently are, trying to keep up with insurgent ingenuity.
Other civilians on the battlefield are the cultural anthropologist's, formed into Human Terrain Teams. One of those members, a female, was killed in a blast in Sadr City just a few days ago. Additionally, Enhanced Provincial Reconstruction Teams are contracted civilians who do a lion's share of work behind the scenes, almost never getting any publicity.
3) Are the oversight bodies currently being employed effectively policing private military firms?
No. It's getting better, but that's primarily due to media exposure.
4) Should we be outsourcing interrogations?
I don't believe so. Interrogations should fall under the sphere of the Armed Forces and the appropriate intelligence agencies, not L3 Communications subsidiary Titan.
1) What national security tasks, if any, are "inherently governmental" and rightfully off limits to private business?
That's a pretty broad question, and one that with changing and asymmetric threats, cannot be set in concrete. Certainly any offensive tactical acts, on land, air or sea should continue to be the domain of the armed services, and to a lesser extent, action directorates of the intelligence agencies. Generally speaking, convoy and diplomatic protection in a combat theater should be part of the mission of the armed services as opposed to Private Military Contractors (PMC's). But in Iraq and Afghanistan, that role is simply too large for the ground formations to absorb. That error should be corrected, I'm just not sure how to do it.
2) Is the growth in scope and scale of private military contractors beneficial, harmful, or neutral to US interests?
I think it's a given that in Iraq, they have been extremely harmful. When Iraqi's see Blackwater, they see the US. As has been said, the average indigenous citizen does not distinguish between armed civilian contractor and the Armed Forces of the United States. Everybody knows the names of Blackwater, Custer Battles, Dyncorp, Aegis and Olive Group; the perception of those companies, justified or not, does not enhance the US image abroad.
Now, there are contracted companies that are doing great work in Iraq. They don't get much notoriety, because they aren't getting into trouble. Several firms conduct intelligence, operations and integration under the umbrella of the Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) in Iraq and A-Stan. Some of whom are armed for personal protection. They conduct weapons intelligence exploitation, network centric warfare and other signals/aerial surveillance. Without their assistance, we would be farther behind the learning curve than we currently are, trying to keep up with insurgent ingenuity.
Other civilians on the battlefield are the cultural anthropologist's, formed into Human Terrain Teams. One of those members, a female, was killed in a blast in Sadr City just a few days ago. Additionally, Enhanced Provincial Reconstruction Teams are contracted civilians who do a lion's share of work behind the scenes, almost never getting any publicity.
3) Are the oversight bodies currently being employed effectively policing private military firms?
No. It's getting better, but that's primarily due to media exposure.
4) Should we be outsourcing interrogations?
I don't believe so. Interrogations should fall under the sphere of the Armed Forces and the appropriate intelligence agencies, not L3 Communications subsidiary Titan.
What national security tasks, if any, are "inherently governmental" and rightfully off limits to private business?
Personally, I'd say all of them are. I have a problem with private contracting in all areas of government activity, in that if something (an infrastructure project or a service) is being paid for out of public money, it should be democratically accountable all the way down the line.
Now, when a piece of work is "owned by" (in the sense of "accountability rests with") government, the work breakdown may ultimately go down to a level where a particular task - building a particular stretch of road, maintaining a particular aircraft, etc. - can safely be contracted out without any problems.
But if the provision of an entire project or service is contracted out - for the most part, what you're talking about here, or the PFI contracts so popular this side of the pond - where's the democratic accountability? If a mid-ranking civil servant - in or out of uniform - screws up a project, then the elected politician with ultimate responsibility can follow chain of command (civilian or military) to get that person trained properly, removed from the project, etc. If a contractor is doing the high level stuff, commercial confidentiality means its next to impossible to find out how much anything specific costs, let alone who might have been responsible for what.
And the politicians can also just say "I can't do anything about it, because it's been contracted out. I've asked the contractor to review their procedures and they've said they will, but no private company is going to let me steam in and sort things out."
Is the growth in scope and scale of private military contractors beneficial, harmful, or neutral to US interests?
Far from being more efficient, private contracting work has historically proven to cost the same or more than public sector equivalents. Contracts are dished out because of an ideological belief that private sector is more efficient than public, based on flawed figures that overstate public sector costs (to protect against risk) and understated private sector costs (to win the contract).
Are the oversight bodies currently being employed effectively policing private military firms?
No. Commercial confidentiality currently trumps taxpayer value-for-money oversight. This is all down the the drafting of the contracts - there is nothing in principle to prevent the government inserting clauses that give them exactly the same down-the-line power, responsibility and reporting structures that they'd have in the public sector. However, in practice, no private business would enter into such a contract. Rather than see this as a good reason not to contract out the business in the first place, the neo-liberal consensus infecting all anglo-saxon economies sees this as a reason to enter into contracts with private businesses on the terms acceptable to private businesses, because that, ideologically, is the only goal. Improved effectiveness and efficiency is an accidental by-product, if it occurs at all.
Should we be outsourcing interrogations?
Definitely not. If you're paying someone to find things out for you on a commercial basis, you tend to get told what you want to hear, because they want your continued business and they want you to think they are doing what you want better than you could.
That's aside from the potential to bypass all kinds of international treaties if politicians can conveniently say "It does look as though we've broken every treaty we've ever signed up to on the treatment of prisoners, use of torture, etc. But you can blame us politicians because the terms of the contract meant we couldn't know what specific things the contractor was doing. All we asked them to do was interrogate. If they poked hot irons into places they shouldn't have been poked, it was without our knowledge or consent".
I go back to my original point - if something is paid for out of taxation, it should be totally accountable to and controllable by democratically elected politicians all the way down the line. Making sure an airport runway is properly laid or a fighter plane engine is correctly serviced is easily monitored and easily fixable, so they'd be suitable areas for contracting out - more than one business knows how to do it, and there are few or no barriers to entry, so if you take the contract away from company A on Monday, Company B can take over on Tuesday with no great problems. All that is lost is time and money - a shame, but ultimately forgiveable.
Handing over the entire military prisons system in Iraq, or the entire mission-critical computer network there is not easily to check or fix, and the barriers to entry are significant. If XYZ Security are there on the ground with the resources, and they screw up, you can't just take away their contract on Monday because it'll take six months for their replacements to get up and running.
ABC Computing won't just be able to pack up their kit and leave when you first try to control Iraqi airspace with their new system and get the blue screen of death. Well, they might, but it'll be months or even years before anyone else can come in. Plus, the contract value will be so large, any politician who decides to fire them will be cutting their own throats because the headline will be "Fred Blah pulls plug on $10bn contract; $9bn already spent now wasted." So political self-interest and commercial greed will conspire, and the taxpayer will just end up throwing good money after bad, the system will be installed 5 years late and $20bn over budget, and because it's late the requirements will have changed so much it will have to be reengineered to be remotely useful - witness the Typhoon Eurofighter project.
I'm a project manager, I know how this stuff works. And I know someone who works as a consultant in (civilian) PFI projects, and what she's chimes in with this as well.
There's a reason that the use of mercenaries (what the euphemism "security consultants" really means in this context) goes in and out of fashion. It goes out of fashion when the powers that be realise that the interests of mercenaries only coincide with theirs when the fees are right, and that a loyal army motivated by the same goals as you is far better than a mercenary army motivated by whoever pays them the most. It comes back into fashion when the downsides of mercenaries fade from memory, or - as now - when they are deliberately downplayed because the people in government arguing for their inclusion have a commercial interest in their use. (Just watch to see how many members of the outgoing US administration take directorships or consultancies in companies running defence contracts, or private civilian contracts, for the US government in 2009. If it's less than two per person, I'll be very surprised.)
Personally, I'd say all of them are. I have a problem with private contracting in all areas of government activity, in that if something (an infrastructure project or a service) is being paid for out of public money, it should be democratically accountable all the way down the line.
Now, when a piece of work is "owned by" (in the sense of "accountability rests with") government, the work breakdown may ultimately go down to a level where a particular task - building a particular stretch of road, maintaining a particular aircraft, etc. - can safely be contracted out without any problems.
But if the provision of an entire project or service is contracted out - for the most part, what you're talking about here, or the PFI contracts so popular this side of the pond - where's the democratic accountability? If a mid-ranking civil servant - in or out of uniform - screws up a project, then the elected politician with ultimate responsibility can follow chain of command (civilian or military) to get that person trained properly, removed from the project, etc. If a contractor is doing the high level stuff, commercial confidentiality means its next to impossible to find out how much anything specific costs, let alone who might have been responsible for what.
And the politicians can also just say "I can't do anything about it, because it's been contracted out. I've asked the contractor to review their procedures and they've said they will, but no private company is going to let me steam in and sort things out."
Is the growth in scope and scale of private military contractors beneficial, harmful, or neutral to US interests?
Far from being more efficient, private contracting work has historically proven to cost the same or more than public sector equivalents. Contracts are dished out because of an ideological belief that private sector is more efficient than public, based on flawed figures that overstate public sector costs (to protect against risk) and understated private sector costs (to win the contract).
Are the oversight bodies currently being employed effectively policing private military firms?
No. Commercial confidentiality currently trumps taxpayer value-for-money oversight. This is all down the the drafting of the contracts - there is nothing in principle to prevent the government inserting clauses that give them exactly the same down-the-line power, responsibility and reporting structures that they'd have in the public sector. However, in practice, no private business would enter into such a contract. Rather than see this as a good reason not to contract out the business in the first place, the neo-liberal consensus infecting all anglo-saxon economies sees this as a reason to enter into contracts with private businesses on the terms acceptable to private businesses, because that, ideologically, is the only goal. Improved effectiveness and efficiency is an accidental by-product, if it occurs at all.
Should we be outsourcing interrogations?
Definitely not. If you're paying someone to find things out for you on a commercial basis, you tend to get told what you want to hear, because they want your continued business and they want you to think they are doing what you want better than you could.
That's aside from the potential to bypass all kinds of international treaties if politicians can conveniently say "It does look as though we've broken every treaty we've ever signed up to on the treatment of prisoners, use of torture, etc. But you can blame us politicians because the terms of the contract meant we couldn't know what specific things the contractor was doing. All we asked them to do was interrogate. If they poked hot irons into places they shouldn't have been poked, it was without our knowledge or consent".
I go back to my original point - if something is paid for out of taxation, it should be totally accountable to and controllable by democratically elected politicians all the way down the line. Making sure an airport runway is properly laid or a fighter plane engine is correctly serviced is easily monitored and easily fixable, so they'd be suitable areas for contracting out - more than one business knows how to do it, and there are few or no barriers to entry, so if you take the contract away from company A on Monday, Company B can take over on Tuesday with no great problems. All that is lost is time and money - a shame, but ultimately forgiveable.
Handing over the entire military prisons system in Iraq, or the entire mission-critical computer network there is not easily to check or fix, and the barriers to entry are significant. If XYZ Security are there on the ground with the resources, and they screw up, you can't just take away their contract on Monday because it'll take six months for their replacements to get up and running.
ABC Computing won't just be able to pack up their kit and leave when you first try to control Iraqi airspace with their new system and get the blue screen of death. Well, they might, but it'll be months or even years before anyone else can come in. Plus, the contract value will be so large, any politician who decides to fire them will be cutting their own throats because the headline will be "Fred Blah pulls plug on $10bn contract; $9bn already spent now wasted." So political self-interest and commercial greed will conspire, and the taxpayer will just end up throwing good money after bad, the system will be installed 5 years late and $20bn over budget, and because it's late the requirements will have changed so much it will have to be reengineered to be remotely useful - witness the Typhoon Eurofighter project.
I'm a project manager, I know how this stuff works. And I know someone who works as a consultant in (civilian) PFI projects, and what she's chimes in with this as well.
There's a reason that the use of mercenaries (what the euphemism "security consultants" really means in this context) goes in and out of fashion. It goes out of fashion when the powers that be realise that the interests of mercenaries only coincide with theirs when the fees are right, and that a loyal army motivated by the same goals as you is far better than a mercenary army motivated by whoever pays them the most. It comes back into fashion when the downsides of mercenaries fade from memory, or - as now - when they are deliberately downplayed because the people in government arguing for their inclusion have a commercial interest in their use. (Just watch to see how many members of the outgoing US administration take directorships or consultancies in companies running defence contracts, or private civilian contracts, for the US government in 2009. If it's less than two per person, I'll be very surprised.)
QUOTE
What national security tasks, if any, are "inherently governmental" and rightfully off limits to private business
Obviously offensive military operations – and operations that would require the contractors to use offensive actions.
QUOTE
Is the growth in scope and scale of private military contractors beneficial, harmful, or neutral to US interests?
Mostly beneficial. They cost a fraction of what a “soldier” cost us and they often put themselves in harms way and pay the ultimate price. If we had not butchered the Army in the 90s and then refused to re expand it for “war” we would need fewer of them.
And as DTOM points out many of the groups like “Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) in Iraq and A-Stan” do great work and save lives. As military C4ISR equipment and capabilities increase more experts will be needed. Brand new, still under final test, equipment is often followed by people from the Defense contractor to work through the initial bugs. This benefits everyone and gets vital new systems to the theatre months or years sooner.Often the fastest way to get them to the theatre is to contract for them.
QUOTE
Are the oversight bodies currently being employed effectively policing private military firms?
This can always improve.
QUOTE
Should we be outsourcing interrogations?
I would say no. this is a military function (or CIA).
QUOTE(Ted @ Jul 15 2008, 10:45 AM) 
They cost a fraction of what a “soldier” cost us and they often put themselves in harms way and pay the ultimate price.
Not sure that I agree with this statement. None of us probably have all of the numbers required to crunch them definitively, but comparing the salaries of the average soldier versus the salary of an armed contractor [ie, Blackwater] for a given deployment length........it is most certainly more expensive to outsource some of these duties. It may even out more when we include the menial jobs contracted out to usually third country nationals (KP, Guards, Laundry, etc) But we're still footing the bill for the contract required to run all of these functions, whereas if they were being filled largely by service members, the cost would be far cheaper.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jul 15 2008, 04:08 PM)
QUOTE(Ted @ Jul 15 2008, 10:45 AM)
They cost a fraction of what a “soldier” cost us and they often put themselves in harms way and pay the ultimate price.
Not sure that I agree with this statement. None of us probably have all of the numbers required to crunch them definitively, but comparing the salaries of the average soldier versus the salary of an armed contractor [ie, Blackwater] for a given deployment length........it is most certainly more expensive to outsource some of these duties. It may even out more when we include the menial jobs contracted out to usually third country nationals (KP, Guards, Laundry, etc) But we're still footing the bill for the contract required to run all of these functions, whereas if they were being filled largely by service members, the cost would be far cheaper.
Well most of the contract labor is not “security” forces – which are higher pay – but even there it is cheaper to contract.
Needless to say I think we need a bigger Army/MC but that’s just me.
“In terms of salary to salary, if you take a look at, say, a corporal in Iraq, [he]'s probably getting $18,000 a year, which isn't much. But for the U.S., it's costing about $25,000 a month to keep that corporal in Iraq just because of all of the military services and support and so on that goes for that individual. A close protection person or a personal security person -- and you're talking about a former Special Forces person with 30 years' experience in the military, and then experience doing personal security -- they may get upwards of $750 a day to do that job.
But as soon as the job's over, you stop paying them, whereas the corporal you're still paying. To keep the corporal, you're paying for any benefits they get in terms of GI Bill, in terms of VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] -- all sorts of other things. So you're hiring a surge capacity. You need a lot of people right now to do this sort of job, and it ends up being far cheaper to go through the private sector to do that.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ctors/ceff.html
QUOTE(Ted @ Jul 15 2008, 03:47 PM)
Well most of the contract labor is not “security” forces – which are higher pay – but even there it is cheaper to contract.
Does it really make sense to maintain our force structure in a manner that requires such a large amount of contracted labor in combat theaters? Does it make sense that contracted personnel from nations around the globe, working for the US military, outnumber uniformed troops in theater?
Don't forget the cost of conducting security screening for all non-military personnel who are allowed on FOB's and bases, not to mention the potential security breaches that can still occur. Don't forget the cost of oversight for these contracted companies. Don't forget the added cost in money and labor in the investigations of wrongdoing by these contractors.
I'm not against companies that contract to provide a service for the military. In a few weeks, I will likely be one of them. I simply have a problem with a reliance on contracted support in a combat theater.
QUOTE
Does it really make sense to maintain our force structure in a manner that requires such a large amount of contracted labor in combat theaters? Does it make sense that contracted personnel from nations around the globe, working for the US military, outnumber uniformed troops in theater
?Not really. As I said I would favor a bigger military.
QUOTE
I'm not against companies that contract to provide a service for the military. In a few weeks, I will likely be one of them. I simply have a problem with a reliance on contracted support in a combat theater.
You going back to Iraq? What’s the “service”.?
QUOTE(Ted @ Jul 15 2008, 07:13 PM)
You going back to Iraq? What’s the “service”.?
Sorry, let me clarify. I am entertaining a few job offers with companies that have contracts with the US Army. Some may involve short trips to Iraq or Afghanistan, but I will not be 'deploying' back to the sandbox.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jul 15 2008, 08:17 PM)
QUOTE(Ted @ Jul 15 2008, 07:13 PM)
You going back to Iraq? What’s the “service”.?
Sorry, let me clarify. I am entertaining a few job offers with companies that have contracts with the US Army. Some may involve short trips to Iraq or Afghanistan, but I will not be 'deploying' back to the sandbox.
Understood. Good luck.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jul 15 2008, 03:08 PM)
QUOTE(Ted @ Jul 15 2008, 10:45 AM)
They cost a fraction of what a “soldier” cost us and they often put themselves in harms way and pay the ultimate price.
Not sure that I agree with this statement. None of us probably have all of the numbers required to crunch them definitively, but comparing the salaries of the average soldier versus the salary of an armed contractor [ie, Blackwater] for a given deployment length........it is most certainly more expensive to outsource some of these duties. It may even out more when we include the menial jobs contracted out to usually third country nationals (KP, Guards, Laundry, etc) But we're still footing the bill for the contract required to run all of these functions, whereas if they were being filled largely by service members, the cost would be far cheaper.
Just a point on this.... You can't just compare salaries. You need to consider all the other administrative and benefits costs as well. For the civilian sector, these costs usually amount to slightly more than the salary the employee gets. I would suspect the amount is even greater for military type personnel, as you have a lot more administrative and infrastructure cost to account for, as well as I think more benefits (just guessing here, but I know these have been really slashed in the civilian sector), as well as deployment & living costs. So, doubling salary is a good rough approximation for corporate jobs, and the factor might be tripling in these types of jobs. Eliminating these costs is the prime driver for companies outsourcing jobs, and it is probably the case in government as well.
1) What national security tasks, if any, are "inherently governmental" and rightfully off limits to private business?
I'm not sure what I would define as inherently governmental. As Julian points out, there are lots of overall tasks the government can own, yet subcontract out the actual performance of to civilian contractors. There isn't any inherent reason any private contractor can't be subject all of the same, or even more, oversight than a governmental employee, therefore I don't know that anything would be inherently off-limits. DTOM and Ted have cited any offensive operations, and on the surface I think that's a good line to draw...but what if some outside agency had a tool or group or weapon or process that performed some offensive task better than the government? Would it not benefit us to us it? Currently, I don't think any private agencies can make this claim--I don't know any companies that have an armored division with air support handy, for example
, so this is purely hypothetical...but just in theory, there shouldn't be any real reason to prefer one over the other. There are lots of corporate tasks that used to be considered "inherently fundamental" to the organization that are now routinely outsourced. 2) Is the growth in scope and scale of private military contractors beneficial, harmful, or neutral to US interests?
Looking at the types of jobs Turnea cites, though, it seems they are targeting niche jobs that the government just hasn't been able to fill. Given that, it would seem the real question is whether we benefit more from having hese jobs done by contractors, or not done at all. I would suspect the answer is that we certainly benefit from having them done, therefore is having contractors do them is the only way to make that happen, then the overall result is beneficial.
Are the oversight bodies currently being employed effectively policing private military firms?
Probably not. As this is cited as a new and growing trend, then the military probably hasn't adopted the necessary oversight processes yet.
4) Should we be outsourcing interrogations?
This is one job I would be extremely careful of, primarily due to the huge liability involved. Again, I suspect this is only happening because they just can't get the necessary interrogators internally...so the question then is whether we're better off using contractors, or not performing the interrogation at all (or at least not in a timely fashion). I think I would prefer having the interrogations done, but with a very strong emphasis on providing sufficient oversight.
QUOTE(DTOM)
Does it really make sense to maintain our force structure in a manner that requires such a large amount of contracted labor in combat theaters? Does it make sense that contracted personnel from nations around the globe, working for the US military, outnumber uniformed troops in theater?
I think we're looking at the problem from opposite perspectives, DTOM. The answer to your questions here is, I think, probably not. However, these jobs are being outsourced, I think, because sufficient personnel are simply not available within the forces. So, does it make more sense to have it done by contractors, or not done at all? Probably better that its being done. I would add that outsourcing is frequently employed in the corporate world for 'temporary' increases in staff size, or to work around budgetary processes. It is usually alot easier to get a position filled by a contractor through a project budget than it is to go through payroll and hire someone. I'm not sure if that's what's happening here, but it would explain the situations you describe above.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jul 15 2008, 11:33 PM)
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jul 15 2008, 03:08 PM)
QUOTE(Ted @ Jul 15 2008, 10:45 AM)
They cost a fraction of what a “soldier” cost us and they often put themselves in harms way and pay the ultimate price.
Not sure that I agree with this statement. None of us probably have all of the numbers required to crunch them definitively, but comparing the salaries of the average soldier versus the salary of an armed contractor [ie, Blackwater] for a given deployment length........it is most certainly more expensive to outsource some of these duties. It may even out more when we include the menial jobs contracted out to usually third country nationals (KP, Guards, Laundry, etc) But we're still footing the bill for the contract required to run all of these functions, whereas if they were being filled largely by service members, the cost would be far cheaper.
When I went into the service the only ones out sourcing their services was the Air Force and they had the worst food of all. The Marines were the best, then the Navy, followed by a great distance the Army (am ex-Army).
I work as a contractor for the DoD. We supply all the benefits for the Active Service members, dependents and retirees. I am very proud of the work we do, and to aid the people defending this country, which includes my eldest.
As a contractor I can't say it enough or loud enough, don't out source anything else period. The services provided by the services to their members helps create the bond that holds them together in war.
Since everyone who's posted so far essentially agrees with each other, I will take an opposite stance...
What national security tasks, if any, are "inherently governmental" and rightfully off limits to private business?
None. Private business should be allowed to compete for contracts at all levels. If no private business exists to fulfill the requirements, only then should government step in to provide the service.
Is the growth in scope and scale of private military contractors beneficial, harmful, or neutral to US interests?
On the whole, beneficial. In general, US contractors represent the goals and intentions of the US quite well. If the UCMJ explicitly disallows things like torture and the US believes torture is justified, then it is up to contractors to fulfill the need. In other words, rules that apply strictly to government-authorized bodies need not apply to private business.
Nationals, like the Iraqis, do not perceive any significant difference between contractors and the US military. Maybe, they're right.
Are the oversight bodies currently being employed effectively policing private military firms?
No, the oversight bodies are not effective. We should use private contractors for oversight as well. We should hire multiple oversight contractors in a competitive arrangement so that we can triangulate based on the aggregated date.
Should we be outsourcing interrogations?
Of course. Similarly, it seems at least theoretically possible that those who we wish to interrogate may have hired private contractors themselves for protection and/or counter-interrogation. This would help reduce the likelihood of gratuitous and/or overly aggressive interrogations if there's risk involved.
What national security tasks, if any, are "inherently governmental" and rightfully off limits to private business?
None. Private business should be allowed to compete for contracts at all levels. If no private business exists to fulfill the requirements, only then should government step in to provide the service.
Is the growth in scope and scale of private military contractors beneficial, harmful, or neutral to US interests?
On the whole, beneficial. In general, US contractors represent the goals and intentions of the US quite well. If the UCMJ explicitly disallows things like torture and the US believes torture is justified, then it is up to contractors to fulfill the need. In other words, rules that apply strictly to government-authorized bodies need not apply to private business.
Nationals, like the Iraqis, do not perceive any significant difference between contractors and the US military. Maybe, they're right.
Are the oversight bodies currently being employed effectively policing private military firms?
No, the oversight bodies are not effective. We should use private contractors for oversight as well. We should hire multiple oversight contractors in a competitive arrangement so that we can triangulate based on the aggregated date.
Should we be outsourcing interrogations?
Of course. Similarly, it seems at least theoretically possible that those who we wish to interrogate may have hired private contractors themselves for protection and/or counter-interrogation. This would help reduce the likelihood of gratuitous and/or overly aggressive interrogations if there's risk involved.
QUOTE
None. Private business should be allowed to compete for contracts at all levels. If no private business exists to fulfill the requirements, only then should government step in to provide the service.
Although you clearly “taking the other side” here you are close. Nearly everything the military uses to fight, wears, drives, eats, flies in, shoots, etc. is made by private companies. This is one of the reasons we have the best military in the world. They are well trained and have the best equipment.
Obviously I feel that the fighting should be left with career government employed soldiers – as well as the interrogation. Non offensive security is being filled by contractors imo only because we are too cheap to expand the Army as we should. And yes its cheaper to hire out but I still believe that in war you expand the Army.
QUOTE(logophage @ Jul 16 2008, 01:20 AM)
None. Private business should be allowed to compete for contracts at all levels. If no private business exists to fulfill the requirements, only then should government step in to provide the service.
Depending on the level and depth of what you are proposing, I would have some substantial issues with this. I'm an extremely strong pro-market, pro-competition guy, but in combat lives are at stake. Combat is not the place for a balkanized, incohesive entity. It matters little if the laundry or kitchen personnel are contracted, but if that extends into force protection, life support or any function that involves being a competitor on the two-way firing range, it's simply unworkable.
This has been in the news again recently.
Link
QUOTE(Reuters)
The White House threatened to veto legislation on Wednesday that would bar CIA contractors from interrogating suspected terrorists, in the latest debate over treatment of detainees in the U.S.-declared war on terrorism.[...]The bill contains many provisions "that conflict with the conduct of intelligence activities," the White House budget office told Congress. "If (the bill) were presented to the president, the president's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."
The contractor provision was the first objection listed by the White House.
CIA Director Michael Hayden has acknowledged that outside contractors were used to conduct some interrogations in the agency's detention program for suspected terrorists, which has been widely condemned for harsh techniques that critics say amount to torture.
He told Congress in February he believed contractors helped conduct "waterboarding," the fiercely condemned simulated drowning technique that he acknowledged using on three al Qaeda suspects.
Critics say the use of outside contractors could allow the CIA to dodge accountability for abuses, but the agency has said contractors are subject to the same laws as agency staffers.
"Our bill will take detention-related activities out of the hands of private contractors and put the responsibility back where it belongs, in the hands of authorized government personnel," U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat, said shortly before the House Intelligence Committee passed the authorization measure in May.
The contractor provision was the first objection listed by the White House.
CIA Director Michael Hayden has acknowledged that outside contractors were used to conduct some interrogations in the agency's detention program for suspected terrorists, which has been widely condemned for harsh techniques that critics say amount to torture.
He told Congress in February he believed contractors helped conduct "waterboarding," the fiercely condemned simulated drowning technique that he acknowledged using on three al Qaeda suspects.
Critics say the use of outside contractors could allow the CIA to dodge accountability for abuses, but the agency has said contractors are subject to the same laws as agency staffers.
"Our bill will take detention-related activities out of the hands of private contractors and put the responsibility back where it belongs, in the hands of authorized government personnel," U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat, said shortly before the House Intelligence Committee passed the authorization measure in May.
Link
QUOTE(turnea @ Jul 12 2008, 06:16 PM)
The government has outsourced a wide range of security functions to 20,000 to 30,000 contractors in Iraq; the exact number has not been disclosed. Contractors protect U.S. generals and key military installations and have served as prison guards and interrogators in facilities holding suspected insurgents, among other responsibilities.
What national security tasks, if any, are "inherently governmental" and rightfully off limits to private business?
What national security tasks, if any, are "inherently governmental" and rightfully off limits to private business?
Commanding U.S. Military, absolutely off limits.
QUOTE
Is the growth in scope and scale of private military contractors beneficial, harmful, or neutral to US interests?
Do you have any idea how many of them are prior military, many of them retired. One of the reasons things did not end in total disaster was the hard work and dedication of these people. I can't vouch for all of them but the ones I was acquainted with had impressive military resumes.
QUOTE
Are the oversight bodies currently being employed effectively policing private military firms?
Early on I would have to admit that they were not. Now I think they are doing a lot better making boundaries clear.
QUOTE
Should we be outsourcing interrogations?[/b]
Can't speak to that, I have never seen an interrogation and I honestly have no clue what is involved.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jul 16 2008, 04:49 PM)
QUOTE(logophage @ Jul 16 2008, 01:20 AM)
None. Private business should be allowed to compete for contracts at all levels. If no private business exists to fulfill the requirements, only then should government step in to provide the service.
Depending on the level and depth of what you are proposing, I would have some substantial issues with this. I'm an extremely strong pro-market, pro-competition guy, but in combat lives are at stake. Combat is not the place for a balkanized, incohesive entity. It matters little if the laundry or kitchen personnel are contracted, but if that extends into force protection, life support or any function that involves being a competitor on the two-way firing range, it's simply unworkable.
Privately contracted military operations do not need to be incohesive. The problem with nationalized military is that it removes market forces from playing a part. A nationalized military may be quite effective in carrying out a national agenda, however it removes the opportunity for competitive players from entering the marketplace. In effect, it coerces one or more parties by preventing them from entering into contracts for self-defense or even counter-offense. With a privatized military, the actual cost (including the value of lives) acts as a check against gratuitous, wanton usage of military power. Similarly, defensive military contracts engaged by opposing parties serve to increase the cost of offensive military operations deployed against them.
QUOTE(logophage @ Jul 18 2008, 02:34 AM)
Privately contracted military operations do not need to be incohesive. The problem with nationalized military is that it removes market forces from playing a part. A nationalized military may be quite effective in carrying out a national agenda, however it removes the opportunity for competitive players from entering the marketplace. In effect, it coerces one or more parties by preventing them from entering into contracts for self-defense or even counter-offense. With a privatized military, the actual cost (including the value of lives) acts as a check against gratuitous, wanton usage of military power. Similarly, defensive military contracts engaged by opposing parties serve to increase the cost of offensive military operations deployed against them.
Brilliant! Except defensive military contracts by opposing parties already serve to increase the cost of offensive military operations. That market check's in place. (isn't Al Qaeda the epitome of a free market 'private combat force'? Complete with generous severance package, but the job's a killer...) Of course, such counter forces might be ameliorated by outsourcing our security to more cost effective venues, such as China and portions of indigent Africa. Sure, there might be a few minor drawbacks but they would pale in comparison to the improved efficiency!
What national security tasks, if any, are "inherently governmental" and rightfully off limits to private business?
I don't think any true 'security tasks' should be outsourced to private entities. I even have issues with so many mundane jobs, even food services, being outsourced. I think it circumvents the democratic process and decreases accountability. How many private contractors have died in Iraq? Does anyone know? If we send 150,000 soldiers to Iraq and (just guessing on this one) 100,000 contractors. We've effectively sent 250,000 people to a warzone of whom only 150,000 are accountable by the US public. This hides the true cost of war. Not good. A president can make political decisions without the associated political cost by employing contractors for covert activities, and effectively cutting the "force number" (for overt activities) down by almost half and hiring the rest privately.
Is the growth in scope and scale of private military contractors beneficial, harmful, or neutral to US interests?
Harmful in part. Beneficial in part. With the cut in defense forces there currently isn't much of an option to do it any other way. A watertank cannot be delivered to a village within a warzone without security forces, and we certainly don't have the military manpower to cover all of those tasks.
But it creates a host of problems for our forces and national security. Divergent interests, lack of accountability on the contractor's part, no unity of command (that's even a large problem with our national guard and reserve units stateside right now). Private contractors can behave appallingly. This is true not only in warzones, but stateside as well. For small example, the Navy awarded EDS a huge defense contract to set up its network computer system. My mother-in-law worked for EDS at the time. She told me that the person in charge would ask the minions to copy reams of classified documentation every day, and take the documents home to peruse each night. In the military, this would be an offense worthy of a prison sentence. The woman was simply quietly moved to another job for different but unrelated incompetence. The more unassociated moving parts in the security cog, the greater the chance for a compromise in our security.
Are the oversight bodies currently being employed effectively policing private military firms?
Should we be outsourcing interrogations?
Not at all. Not at all.
QUOTE
Private contractors can behave appallingly. This is true not only in warzones, but stateside as well. For small example, the Navy awarded EDS a huge defense contract to set up its network computer system. My mother-in-law worked for EDS at the time. She told me that the person in charge would ask the minions to copy reams of classified documentation every day, and take the documents home to peruse each night. In the military, this would be an offense worthy of a prison sentence. The woman was simply quietly moved to another job for different but unrelated incompetence. The more unassociated moving parts in the security cog, the greater the chance for a compromise in our security.
When you say “private contractors” you, I assume, are speaking of the security contractors. Certainly this is not true of the thousands of other companies that make literally everything we use in warfare.
QUOTE
the Navy awarded EDS a huge defense contract to set up its network computer system. My mother-in-law worked for EDS at the time. She told me that the person in charge would ask the minions to copy reams of classified documentation every day, and take the documents home to peruse each night. In the military, this would be an offense worthy of a prison sentence. The woman was simply quietly moved to another job for different but unrelated incompetence. The more unassociated moving parts in the security cog, the greater the chance for a compromise in our security.
Not sure what you mean here. There are a few levels of “classified” documents and only people with clearance can see them. Did you mother-in-law have a clearance? It's more likely they were "Company Confidential" documents.
Anyone who copies allows classified documents to leave a secure area could go to prison for a long time.
Working with the “government” is never easy where “spec creep” and change of scope are common. Add to that that some contracts are directed to companies that may not be the best but are in the district of a powerful member of Congress and you get the picture.
Bottom line though is the government must “outsource” this type of work because they don’t have a clue as to how to do it themselves.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/0327...g-contract.html
QUOTE(Ted @ Jul 23 2008, 10:09 AM)
QUOTE
the Navy awarded EDS a huge defense contract to set up its network computer system. My mother-in-law worked for EDS at the time. She told me that the person in charge would ask the minions to copy reams of classified documentation every day, and take the documents home to peruse each night. In the military, this would be an offense worthy of a prison sentence. The woman was simply quietly moved to another job for different but unrelated incompetence. The more unassociated moving parts in the security cog, the greater the chance for a compromise in our security.
Not sure what you mean here. There are a few levels of “classified” documents and only people with clearance can see them. Did you mother-in-law have a clearance? It's more likely they were "Company Confidential" documents.
Yes, my mother in law has a clearance. She wasn't the lady in question, who also has a clearance. The documents in question required a clearance.
Anyone who copies allows classified documents to leave a secure area could go to prison for a long time.
Certainly in theory this is true. Now imagine you are an executive in a company with thousands of employees and depend on a government contract worth billions. There is a breach in security and if the matter goes public you might either lose said contract or very likely lose future contracts. What do you do? The checks and balances aren't the same.
Bottom line though is the government must “outsource” this type of work because they don’t have a clue as to how to do it themselves.
Of course. That's why they should recruit such types into the military, rather than cutting their jobs and outsourcing them out. (And incidentally, for what it's worth, EDS didn't have a clue either when they took this contract. They learned over time)
QUOTE
Yes, my mother in law has a clearance. She wasn't the lady in question, who also has a clearance. The documents in question required a clearance.
Anyone who copies allows classified documents to leave a secure area could go to prison for a long time.
Certainly in theory this is true. Now imagine you are an executive in a company with thousands of employees and depend on a government contract worth billions. There is a breach in security and if the matter goes public you might either lose said contract or very likely lose future contracts. What do you do? The checks and balances aren't the same.
Anyone who copies allows classified documents to leave a secure area could go to prison for a long time.
Certainly in theory this is true. Now imagine you are an executive in a company with thousands of employees and depend on a government contract worth billions. There is a breach in security and if the matter goes public you might either lose said contract or very likely lose future contracts. What do you do? The checks and balances aren't the same.
What is the clearance of this person? Secret? Top Secret? How about the documents?
The government requires classified documents to be locked up. The security officer has the key generally. They cannot be even read in a public part of the company but only in an are that is secured by key code locks.
I can see no reason why anyone at EDS would illegally copy “secret” documents and allow them to leave the secure area much less the building – knowing that one phone call (anonymous) would lose the company the contract and send him/her to jail.
Sounds fishy to me. Have her get a page and look at it. If its classified you will know immediately.
QUOTE
Of course. That's why they should recruit such types into the military, rather than cutting their jobs and outsourcing them out. (And incidentally, for what it's worth, EDS didn't have a clue either when they took this contract. They learned over time)
I agree on outsourcing security but all other “products” including the EDS networking system need to be outsourced. There is no way the “government” could have the people required to design and build sophisticated equipment or create complex systems – and the good news is if the contractor screws up they can pull the contract and not pay them. Try doing that with a government group!
QUOTE(Ted @ Jul 23 2008, 05:40 PM)
What is the clearance of this person? Secret? Top Secret? How about the documents?
The government requires classified documents to be locked up. The security officer has the key generally. They cannot be even read in a public part of the company but only in an are that is secured by key code locks.
I can see no reason why anyone at EDS would illegally copy “secret” documents and allow them to leave the secure area much less the building – knowing that one phone call (anonymous) would lose the company the contract and send him/her to jail.
Sounds fishy to me. Have her get a page and look at it. If its classified you will know immediately.
The government requires classified documents to be locked up. The security officer has the key generally. They cannot be even read in a public part of the company but only in an are that is secured by key code locks.
I can see no reason why anyone at EDS would illegally copy “secret” documents and allow them to leave the secure area much less the building – knowing that one phone call (anonymous) would lose the company the contract and send him/her to jail.
Sounds fishy to me. Have her get a page and look at it. If its classified you will know immediately.
Oh, she's quite aware of what they were. And my mother in law has since retired. As I said, the woman was quietly moved along. She doesn't work in that department anymore. She took the documents home so she could do her work at home. Believe it or not, there isn't any way to prove it as it certainly isn't something that made the press.
I've personally known other people to do this also (in the military). The difference is, there are incentives for effectively addressing those sorts of breaches in the military. One intelligence officer left a classified computer in his car, which was stolen when he went into a McDonalds. I can tell you he wasn't removed quietly. There is an entire layer of career folks who live to deal with breaches in security, and the other layers are rewarded for that variety of individual whistleblowing. What equal incentive would a company employee have towards making that 'anonymous' phone call you reference, that could likely result in further cuts to employment and the loss of future government contracts? What are the incentives for similar oversight?
QUOTE
– and the good news is if the contractor screws up they can pull the contract and not pay them. Try doing that with a government group!
Not if they have a cost plus contract, as most of them do.
My wife works for a defense contractor. Secure or “classified” documents never ever leave a secure area. Secure areas do not have copiers - for obvious reasons. Anyone thought to be even thinking about this is fired.
No computer that contains “classified” anything ever, ever leaves a secure area (no laptops there) or is connected to the internet. And every laptop that even has company confidential info on it is protected by RSA whole disk encryption.
To the best of my knowledge classified documents are labeled as such on every page. All one would have to do is call the FBI and say that one was given one to take home and the company would be swarmed by FBI within hours.
If it happened someone should go to jail. Certainly it is not typical.
You are wrong. Cost plus just means the final contract price is not fixed. Any company can lose a contract and if EDS did what you said they did and got caught – thay would.
No computer that contains “classified” anything ever, ever leaves a secure area (no laptops there) or is connected to the internet. And every laptop that even has company confidential info on it is protected by RSA whole disk encryption.
To the best of my knowledge classified documents are labeled as such on every page. All one would have to do is call the FBI and say that one was given one to take home and the company would be swarmed by FBI within hours.
If it happened someone should go to jail. Certainly it is not typical.
QUOTE
Not if they have a cost plus contract, as most of them do
.You are wrong. Cost plus just means the final contract price is not fixed. Any company can lose a contract and if EDS did what you said they did and got caught – thay would.
QUOTE(Ted @ Jul 23 2008, 08:51 PM)
My wife works for a defense contractor. Secure or “classified” documents never ever leave a secure area. Secure areas do not have copiers - for obvious reasons. Anyone thought to be even thinking about this is fired.
No computer that contains “classified” anything ever, ever leaves a secure area (no laptops there) or is connected to the internet. And every laptop that even has company confidential info on it is protected by RSA whole disk encryption.
No computer that contains “classified” anything ever, ever leaves a secure area (no laptops there) or is connected to the internet. And every laptop that even has company confidential info on it is protected by RSA whole disk encryption.
Some companies are very secure. Some not as much. Your wife's company sounds like the former. But are you saying there are no laptops with classified information on them? Do a google search for Opsec classified laptop computer. There certainly are classified laptop computers. In the military they are taken on deployments, the incident I am speaking of happened on a deployment in the nineties. Sorry, I won't get more specific than that.
My husband works for the defense department. He has a large vault in the building that he visits regularly. In spite of the fact that this information is in a vault, Operational security breaches are a real concern. They are a concern even with the redundant rules set aside by the military and enforced by strictest regulations. Loose lips sink ships and all that. If you believe that private entities are so very careful with our nations classified information and we can trust them completely with our security, would you support outsourcing our security to foreign countries? If not why not?
QUOTE
To the best of my knowledge classified documents are labeled as such on every page.
You're correct, they are. Actually, I think every paragraph is labeled. Mustang once linked (the link is now dead) to an investigation that had classified material on it. On the worldwide web. Several pages were marked classified. See how easy that was? (the Italian link still works, everything with the S//NF in front of it was classified)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Not if they have a cost plus contract, as most of them do
.You are wrong. Cost plus just means the final contract price is not fixed. Any company can lose a contract and if EDS did what you said they did and got caught – thay would.
Under a cost-plus contract, a government contractor is reimbursed all those costs from the government -- and then paid a percentage of those costs as a fee. I'm not a contract expert, but could you provide an example of such a contract that was revoked without any payment? Their costs are covered. The aerospace industry in particular uses cost plus contracts and they have been paid, screwed up and been paid extra on top of that to get the plane back to the way it was prior to the screw up. So I have limited faith in your contention that "and the good news is if the contractor screws up they can pull the contract and not pay them." Ho, ho, ho.
Edited to add: Heck, the government even paid AEY, the most egregious case of contractor fraud I've ever heard of.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jul 23 2008, 10:23 PM)
Under a cost-plus contract, a government contractor is reimbursed all those costs from the government -- and then paid a percentage of those costs as a fee. I'm not a contract expert, but could you provide an example of such a contract that was revoked without any payment? Their costs are covered. The aerospace industry in particular uses cost plus contracts and they have been paid, screwed up and been paid extra on top of that to get the plane back to the way it was prior to the screw up. So I have limited faith in your contention that "and the good news is if the contractor screws up they can pull the contract and not pay them." Ho, ho, ho.
Edited to add: Heck, the government even paid AEY, the most egregious case of contractor fraud I've ever heard of.
Edited to add: Heck, the government even paid AEY, the most egregious case of contractor fraud I've ever heard of.
I know of at least one case where a cost-plus contract did include a liquidated damages clause that allowed the government to impose a stiff penalty for every day delivery was delayed. In such a case, it's possible to lose money even on a cost-plus contract. This was about 25 years ago, on a project Allied Bendix did for the Navy.
Of course, the same person who told me about this experience also shared a number of highly amusing stories about how the government botched contracts and got shafted by contractors, often paying in full for goods that were unusable. One representative story was about an anti-aircraft gun that was specified to shoot so many rounds per second and turn so many degrees per second, but was unable to do both at the same time, making it useless for tracking a moving target. Your tax dollars at work to fuel the insatiable military-industrial complex!
TC
QUOTE
Some companies are very secure. Some not as much. Your wife's company sounds like the former. But are you saying there are no laptops with classified information on them? Do a google search for Opsec classified laptop computer
.Only the Military have classified on laptops because they have to “take it into the field” – and as you may know the data is heavily encrypted (OPSEC) on them. I know of no defense contractor who allows laptops with classified info to leave their facilities secure area. As I said where my wife works classified info is never ever put on a laptop.
QUOTE
My husband works for the defense department. He has a large vault in the building that he visits regularly. In spite of the fact that this information is in a vault, Operational security breaches are a real concern. They are a concern even with the redundant rules set aside by the military and enforced by strictest regulations. Loose lips sink ships and all that. If you believe that private entities are so very careful with our nations classified information and we can trust them completely with our security, would you support outsourcing our security to foreign countries? If not why not
?I am not saying that security is perfect at contractors but it is at least as good as the government. And when private companies screw up and get caught they get nailed as ITT did for violating ITAR regulations.
http://proliferationpress.wordpress.com/20...ology-to-china/
Possibly our worst breach in history was the government spies scandals and the Wen Ho Lee disaster where we not only lost our super secret nuclear data but we failed to nail Lee for it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6060201060.html
QUOTE
Under a cost-plus contract, a government contractor is reimbursed all those costs from the government -- and then paid a percentage of those costs as a fee. I'm not a contract expert, but could you provide an example of such a contract that was revoked without any payment? Their costs are covered.
I agree they get paid for the work they did – but the contract can be cancelled and they get nothing after that. If EDS did what you said they did then they could have and should have lost the contract. They still have the contract I believe.
QUOTE
Heck, the government even paid AEY, the most egregious case of contractor fraud I've ever heard of.
Well the government is somewhat slow and can be corrupted by the Congress. They did lose the contract got fined – and barred from future contracts:
On May 23, the army suspended AEY from receiving federal contracts, after paying it $66 million, contending that it sent a different shipment of Chinese cartridges to Afghanistan after certifying that they were made in Hungary. And then the State Department suspended AEY's international export activities, meaning any applications for licenses would be refused.
From reading this it looks like they are an 8A. Minority owned entity that essentially does nothing but buy and resell a specified item to the government – in this case ammunition. Obviously the cheaper they “buy it” (China) the more profit they make. This 8A program has been a scam from day one.
Obviously the government shares in the blame here since you would have expected some level of quality control and inspection to have caught this sooner!
Ok I am a defense contractor and do work for the company that is in question.
First off cost-plus contracts are long history. They just don't do them, except research of new technologies.
We do take government security VERY seriously and if any of us ever violate it not only are we down the road there is a very good chance of canceling the contract or failing that not getting a re-prove on the contract.
Everyday there are thousands of us out there working to provide for the services and we not only know how important our work is to the servicemen and women, but really care that we provide nothing but the very best. Yes there are exceptions to that rule and where I work they don't last very long. We spend the first six months proving ourselves to the company and the government, then we are reviewed every six months and have to do all over again.
Am I sensitive over this, your darn tooting and I have a daughter on active duty. I know who I work for, it's the soldiers not the company.
First off cost-plus contracts are long history. They just don't do them, except research of new technologies.
We do take government security VERY seriously and if any of us ever violate it not only are we down the road there is a very good chance of canceling the contract or failing that not getting a re-prove on the contract.
Everyday there are thousands of us out there working to provide for the services and we not only know how important our work is to the servicemen and women, but really care that we provide nothing but the very best. Yes there are exceptions to that rule and where I work they don't last very long. We spend the first six months proving ourselves to the company and the government, then we are reviewed every six months and have to do all over again.
Am I sensitive over this, your darn tooting and I have a daughter on active duty. I know who I work for, it's the soldiers not the company.
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Jul 24 2008, 09:53 AM)
Ok I am a defense contractor and do work for the company that is in question.
First off cost-plus contracts are long history. They just don't do them, except research of new technologies.
We do take government security VERY seriously and if any of us ever violate it not only are we down the road there is a very good chance of canceling the contract or failing that not getting a re-prove on the contract.
Everyday there are thousands of us out there working to provide for the services and we not only know how important our work is to the servicemen and women, but really care that we provide nothing but the very best. Yes there are exceptions to that rule and where I work they don't last very long. We spend the first six months proving ourselves to the company and the government, then we are reviewed every six months and have to do all over again.
Am I sensitive over this, your darn tooting and I have a daughter on active duty. I know who I work for, it's the soldiers not the company.
First off cost-plus contracts are long history. They just don't do them, except research of new technologies.
We do take government security VERY seriously and if any of us ever violate it not only are we down the road there is a very good chance of canceling the contract or failing that not getting a re-prove on the contract.
Everyday there are thousands of us out there working to provide for the services and we not only know how important our work is to the servicemen and women, but really care that we provide nothing but the very best. Yes there are exceptions to that rule and where I work they don't last very long. We spend the first six months proving ourselves to the company and the government, then we are reviewed every six months and have to do all over again.
Am I sensitive over this, your darn tooting and I have a daughter on active duty. I know who I work for, it's the soldiers not the company.
Given how much a company stands to lose if they're found in violation of security measuress, don't you think this might be strong motivation for the big wigs to cover up such incidents rather than reporting them?
TC
P.S.
I just noticed you identify yourself as a liberal Republican. Huh?
QUOTE(Ted @ Jul 24 2008, 08:27 AM)
Only the Military have classified on laptops because they have to “take it into the field” – and as you may know the data is heavily encrypted (OPSEC) on them.
Point of order. As someone in the military who has a security clearance and works with classified information on a daily basis, most laptops and the information found therein is not encrypted. The majority of security measures for these computers and associated thumbdrives is regrettably left to the unit to police. Judging by the number of viruses found on SIPR systems in Iraq, usually from bootleg movies, that system is riddled with holes.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jul 24 2008, 10:35 AM)
Point of order. As someone in the military who has a security clearance and works with classified information on a daily basis, most laptops and the information found therein is not encrypted. The majority of security measures for these computers and associated thumbdrives is regrettably left to the unit to police. Judging by the number of viruses found on SIPR systems in Iraq, usually from bootleg movies, that system is riddled with holes.
I'm just waiting for the day I read that a major security leak was caused by some DoD employee surfing a porn site that depicts women in military uniform disrobing, but is actually run by al-Quaeda and distributes root kits. Then again, I wonder if it would ever make it to the papers if it happened.
TC
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Jul 24 2008, 09:53 AM)
Ok I am a defense contractor and do work for the company that is in question.
First off cost-plus contracts are long history. They just don't do them, except research of new technologies.
We do take government security VERY seriously and if any of us ever violate it not only are we down the road there is a very good chance of canceling the contract or failing that not getting a re-prove on the contract.
Everyday there are thousands of us out there working to provide for the services and we not only know how important our work is to the servicemen and women, but really care that we provide nothing but the very best. Yes there are exceptions to that rule and where I work they don't last very long. We spend the first six months proving ourselves to the company and the government, then we are reviewed every six months and have to do all over again.
Am I sensitive over this, your darn tooting and I have a daughter on active duty. I know who I work for, it's the soldiers not the company.
First off cost-plus contracts are long history. They just don't do them, except research of new technologies.
We do take government security VERY seriously and if any of us ever violate it not only are we down the road there is a very good chance of canceling the contract or failing that not getting a re-prove on the contract.
Everyday there are thousands of us out there working to provide for the services and we not only know how important our work is to the servicemen and women, but really care that we provide nothing but the very best. Yes there are exceptions to that rule and where I work they don't last very long. We spend the first six months proving ourselves to the company and the government, then we are reviewed every six months and have to do all over again.
Am I sensitive over this, your darn tooting and I have a daughter on active duty. I know who I work for, it's the soldiers not the company.
Well, what I said happened happened. Unless my mother-in-law is lying in which case I'm not sure what her motivation would be. She was a project manager for that company for a L-O-N-G time, and pretty high up the ladder when she retired. It would be interesting if you know her.
There are benefits and drawbacks to contracting out jobs to companies. I cannot agree that the security is as tight or tighter, in general for private contractors. It fails the reasonability test because the accountability isn't the same. In theory it is the same, in practical reality I just don't see how outsourcing to hundreds of private entities could possibly be monitored as well. Blackwater isn't monitored as well so I'm not sure why this phenomenon would be completely different when we're speaking of other security tasks. Furthermore, employees can quit at any time, or go on strike. On the plus side, defense contractors stay in their actual positions longer and tend to have a very firm grasp of history and how to perform their jobs since they aren't usually forced to change their positions every year or two for 'career progression' (or perhaps this changes for some). That would be an upside.
QUOTE(Thought Criminal @ Jul 24 2008, 09:39 AM)
I'm just waiting for the day I read that a major security leak was caused by some DoD employee surfing a porn site that depicts women in military uniform disrobing, but is actually run by al-Quaeda and distributes root kits. Then again, I wonder if it would ever make it to the papers if it happened.
TC
TC
It could happen, not from surfing but from thumbdrives. SIPR and the higher echelon networks are closed. I'm no hacker, but virtually the only way to introduce a virus into SIPR is by external media. These thumbdrives are to be labeled, and in some cases left in the secure facility, but my experience is that nobody checks thses measures for individual soldiers or contractors. I'm sure some organizations are better at this than mine.....I hope anyway.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jul 24 2008, 10:35 AM)
QUOTE(Ted @ Jul 24 2008, 08:27 AM)
Only the Military have classified on laptops because they have to “take it into the field” – and as you may know the data is heavily encrypted (OPSEC) on them.
Point of order. As someone in the military who has a security clearance and works with classified information on a daily basis, most laptops and the information found therein is not encrypted. The majority of security measures for these computers and associated thumbdrives is regrettably left to the unit to police. Judging by the number of viruses found on SIPR systems in Iraq, usually from bootleg movies, that system is riddled with holes.
.
Its hard to believe that a laptop with classified info on it does not have the disk encrypted and/or is connected to internet! And has a “thumb drive” to boot. Nothing could be less secure than that – esp. since we know China has penetrated most non classified and non isolated networks at DOD and the contractors.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jul 24 2008, 11:10 AM)
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Jul 24 2008, 09:53 AM)
Ok I am a defense contractor and do work for the company that is in question.
First off cost-plus contracts are long history. They just don't do them, except research of new technologies.
We do take government security VERY seriously and if any of us ever violate it not only are we down the road there is a very good chance of canceling the contract or failing that not getting a re-prove on the contract.
Everyday there are thousands of us out there working to provide for the services and we not only know how important our work is to the servicemen and women, but really care that we provide nothing but the very best. Yes there are exceptions to that rule and where I work they don't last very long. We spend the first six months proving ourselves to the company and the government, then we are reviewed every six months and have to do all over again.
Am I sensitive over this, your darn tooting and I have a daughter on active duty. I know who I work for, it's the soldiers not the company.
First off cost-plus contracts are long history. They just don't do them, except research of new technologies.
We do take government security VERY seriously and if any of us ever violate it not only are we down the road there is a very good chance of canceling the contract or failing that not getting a re-prove on the contract.
Everyday there are thousands of us out there working to provide for the services and we not only know how important our work is to the servicemen and women, but really care that we provide nothing but the very best. Yes there are exceptions to that rule and where I work they don't last very long. We spend the first six months proving ourselves to the company and the government, then we are reviewed every six months and have to do all over again.
Am I sensitive over this, your darn tooting and I have a daughter on active duty. I know who I work for, it's the soldiers not the company.
Well, what I said happened happened. Unless my mother-in-law is lying in which case I'm not sure what her motivation would be. She was a project manager for that company for a L-O-N-G time, and pretty high up the ladder when she retired. It would be interesting if you know her.
There are benefits and drawbacks to contracting out jobs to companies. I cannot agree that the security is as tight or tighter, in general for private contractors. It fails the reasonability test because the accountability isn't the same. In theory it is the same, in practical reality I just don't see how outsourcing to hundreds of private entities could possibly be monitored as well. Blackwater isn't monitored as well so I'm not sure why this phenomenon would be completely different when we're speaking of other security tasks. Furthermore, employees can quit at any time, or go on strike. On the plus side, defense contractors stay in their actual positions longer and tend to have a very firm grasp of history and how to perform their jobs since they aren't usually forced to change their positions every year or two for 'career progression' (or perhaps this changes for some). That would be an upside.
The reality is that the government has never been able, and never will be able to design and build complex systems and vehicles without outside contractors. This will never happen on a significant scale.
The government “specifies” and the contractors design and build for an agreed upon price.
Even the contractors cannot design or build a significant part of the thousands of assemblies that go into an aircraft. They essentially specify buy outside, and then integrate/test/deliver the parts as a finished aircraft (or tank, etc.)
Contractors often help develop the specification for what is “possible” technically in the future. If the government is interested than agencies like DARPA fund the companies research.
http://www.darpa.mil/
This system will change little. Its not perfect but it does work well overall.
QUOTE(Ted @ Jul 24 2008, 10:37 AM)
Its hard to believe that a laptop with classified info on it does not have the disk encrypted and/or is connected to internet! And has a “thumb drive” to boot. Nothing could be less secure than that – esp. since we know China has penetrated most non classified and non isolated networks at DOD and the contractors.
That's not what I said. Classified computers, used by military and contractors, are connected to the SIPRnet, a closed network. Non-classified laptops are on the NIPRnet. The two systems cannot cross domains. The only way to introduce materials from one to the other is by external media, which the Army, in my experience does a lackluster job at policing.
Mind you, this is at the SCI and below level. If someone is working with DOE 'Q' or other cleared material, encryption may be the norm.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jul 24 2008, 12:09 PM)
QUOTE(Ted @ Jul 24 2008, 10:37 AM)
Its hard to believe that a laptop with classified info on it does not have the disk encrypted and/or is connected to internet! And has a “thumb drive” to boot. Nothing could be less secure than that – esp. since we know China has penetrated most non classified and non isolated networks at DOD and the contractors.
That's not what I said. Classified computers, used by military and contractors, are connected to the SIPRnet, a closed network. Non-classified laptops are on the NIPRnet. The two systems cannot cross domains. The only way to introduce materials from one to the other is by external media, which the Army, in my experience does a lackluster job at policing.
Mind you, this is at the SCI and below level. If someone is working with DOE 'Q' or other cleared material, encryption may be the norm.
OK that sounds more reasonable. The SIPRnet is secure and closed – but vulnerable to outside media. One would think these computers would not allow this.
Typically at contractors the classified info is on a separate network and people who use it view it at terminals that have no media access at all.
This is why Mr. Lee at Los Alamos had to take the hard drives out of the computers in order to steal our top nuclear secrets and give them to China.
External media is required for MB/GB intensive files, those that cannot be e-mailed on the SIPR server. They are an unfortunate necessity.
Contractors who are co-located with military units have accounts and conduct business on SIPR alongside their counterparts.
Contractors who are co-located with military units have accounts and conduct business on SIPR alongside their counterparts.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jul 24 2008, 12:26 PM)
External media is required for MB/GB intensive files, those that cannot be e-mailed on the SIPR server. They are an unfortunate necessity.
Contractors who are co-located with military units have accounts and conduct business on SIPR alongside their counterparts.
Contractors who are co-located with military units have accounts and conduct business on SIPR alongside their counterparts.
External media is required for MB/GB intensive files, those that cannot be e-mailed on the SIPR server. They are an unfortunate necessity.
Encrypted files? Or are you talking of moving files only.
In any case having a USB drive with classified and unencrypted data on it is not safe. The new USB drives allow for encryption.
QUOTE(Ted @ Jul 24 2008, 11:37 AM)
The reality is that the government has never been able, and never will be able to design and build complex systems and vehicles without outside contractors. This will never happen on a significant scale.
The government “specifies” and the contractors design and build for an agreed upon price.
Even the contractors cannot design or build a significant part of the thousands of assemblies that go into an aircraft. They essentially specify buy outside, and then integrate/test/deliver the parts as a finished aircraft (or tank, etc.)
The government “specifies” and the contractors design and build for an agreed upon price.
Even the contractors cannot design or build a significant part of the thousands of assemblies that go into an aircraft. They essentially specify buy outside, and then integrate/test/deliver the parts as a finished aircraft (or tank, etc.)
I'm not advocating total government control of the aerospace industry. We didn't even do that during World War II. But we've over-outsourced everything, inviting security risks, often with absolutely no need.
Here is an example: The government used to pay military members in advance for deployments/moves/ect. Then they worked out a deal with the credit card companies and decided to require soldiers to keep a government credit card and charge the costs of their moves and deployments on that card. A few years into this fine idea, the personal information of thousands of soldiers has been stolen/sold/lost through the credit card companies not once but at least twice opening us all up to identity theft. And in this case, the government has continued to do business with the company in spite of the breach and none of us have any alternative but to keep using the card with said company.
QUOTE
Contractors often help develop the specification for what is “possible” technically in the future. If the government is interested than agencies like DARPA fund the companies research.
http://www.darpa.mil/
This system will change little. Its not perfect but it does work well overall.
http://www.darpa.mil/
This system will change little. Its not perfect but it does work well overall.
I have nothing against research through DARPA. The organization has been around for five decades, not exactly what we are speaking of here. Mr P worked with DARPA as a military liason officer a couple of years back. Best assignment of our lives.
QUOTE
A few years into this fine idea, the personal information of thousands of soldiers has been stolen/sold/lost through the credit card companies not once but at least twice opening us all up to identity theft. And in this case, the government has continued to do business with the company in spite of the breach and none of us have any alternative but to keep using the card with said company.
I agree with you on this type of thing. Some private companies cannot spell security. I am only speaking of equipmets, software and systems. The government can only specify – never complete alone.
QUOTE
I have nothing against research through DARPA. The organization has been around for five decades, not exactly what we are speaking of here. Mr P worked with DARPA as a military liason officer a couple of years back. Best assignment of our lives.
They are the link to industry for the “leading edge” technology. Good group and they do important work with individuals and contractors.
I don't think anyone has claimed that we ought to do away entirely with the DoD seeking private contracts for materials and equipment.
It's the other areas of contracting like prison guards, intelligence, and especially the use of private contractors as interrogators that the Bush Adminstration is refusing to end. As well as the lax controls on the more traditional areas of contracting that Mrs. P mentioned.
So far no one has voiced any support for our current policy of outsourcing interrogation. How then is this happening?
Edited to Add:
Well logophage did but possibly as an intellectual exercise
It's the other areas of contracting like prison guards, intelligence, and especially the use of private contractors as interrogators that the Bush Adminstration is refusing to end. As well as the lax controls on the more traditional areas of contracting that Mrs. P mentioned.
So far no one has voiced any support for our current policy of outsourcing interrogation. How then is this happening?
Edited to Add:
Well logophage did but possibly as an intellectual exercise
QUOTE
So far no one has voiced any support for our current policy of outsourcing interrogation. How then is this happening?
I don’t believe any of the interrogation on major AQ fighters has been outsourced – do you?
Esp. the “water boarding” or enhanced type.
QUOTE(Ted @ Jul 30 2008, 01:52 PM)
QUOTE
So far no one has voiced any support for our current policy of outsourcing interrogation. How then is this happening?
I don’t believe any of the interrogation on major AQ fighters has been outsourced – do you?
Esp. the “water boarding” or enhanced type.
We do know that private interrogators were used in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gitmo (including in Abu Ghraib). Against official Army policy apparently.
QUOTE(NY Times @ June 12, 2004)
The use of private contractors as interrogators at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq violates an Army policy that requires such jobs to be filled by government employees because of the ''risk to national security,'' among other concerns, the Army acknowledged Friday.
An Army policy directive published in 2000 and still in effect today, the military said, classifies any job that involves ''the gathering and analysis'' of tactical intelligence as ''an inherently governmental function barred from private sector performance.'' [...]
That violation is just one of several improprieties that government investigators and other officials have discovered in relation to the hiring of contract interrogators and interpreters in Iraq.
For example, the Interior Department, which administers the Army contract for interrogators at Abu Ghraib and other prisons, has suspended the practice, forbidding the military to hire any more interrogators under that contract until the Interior inspector general completes an inquiry, said a department spokesman, Frank Quimby. The department found that 27 private interrogators, employees of CACI, a Virginia company, had been improperly hired under a contract for ''information technology workers.''
The Army directive is a result of a 1998 federal law that was intended to encourage government agencies to turn inherently ''commercial services'' over to private employees. That law, the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act, known as FAIR, also required each agency to draft rules that set out which of its jobs could not be turned over to contract workers.
The Army directive, dated Dec. 26, 2000, was written by Patrick T. Henry, who was assistant secretary of the Army for manpower and reserve affairs. The directive remains on the Army's Web site under a note that says it is ''still in effect,'' and two Army spokesmen confirmed that.
An Army policy directive published in 2000 and still in effect today, the military said, classifies any job that involves ''the gathering and analysis'' of tactical intelligence as ''an inherently governmental function barred from private sector performance.'' [...]
That violation is just one of several improprieties that government investigators and other officials have discovered in relation to the hiring of contract interrogators and interpreters in Iraq.
For example, the Interior Department, which administers the Army contract for interrogators at Abu Ghraib and other prisons, has suspended the practice, forbidding the military to hire any more interrogators under that contract until the Interior inspector general completes an inquiry, said a department spokesman, Frank Quimby. The department found that 27 private interrogators, employees of CACI, a Virginia company, had been improperly hired under a contract for ''information technology workers.''
The Army directive is a result of a 1998 federal law that was intended to encourage government agencies to turn inherently ''commercial services'' over to private employees. That law, the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act, known as FAIR, also required each agency to draft rules that set out which of its jobs could not be turned over to contract workers.
The Army directive, dated Dec. 26, 2000, was written by Patrick T. Henry, who was assistant secretary of the Army for manpower and reserve affairs. The directive remains on the Army's Web site under a note that says it is ''still in effect,'' and two Army spokesmen confirmed that.
Link
QUOTE(Washington Post)
New allegations of detainee abuse at Guantanamo Bay released by the FBI on Tuesday put private contractors at the center of interrogation operations, raising questions once again about where they fit in the military's chain of command.
The FBI's disclosures, which are based on eyewitness reports, refer several times to contractors directing the Army's interrogation efforts at the military detention center in Cuba. In at least one case, FBI agents were told that detainees may have been mistreated on orders from a contractor.[...]In the FBI documents, one agent described a 2002 incident involving a "civilian army contractor, who was in charge of the Army's interrogators." The agent reported being shown a bearded detainee with duct tape covering much of his head. Asked about it, the contractor "laughed and stated that the detainee had been chanting the Koran and would not stop," the documents said.
The same agent said his primary contact was a "civilian contractor employed by the military, who was responsible for the interrogations," the documents said. The contractor "directed military reservists who conducted the interrogations of the detainees."Another agent reported seeing detainees in Delta Camp in sweltering rooms as loud rap music played. The agent was told the treatment had been ordered by military contractors, according to an FBI summary of the documents.
The disclosures, which are based on a 2004 survey of FBI personnel, do not mention which company employed the contractors at Guantanamo. Many of the incidents dated to 2002, but it could not be learned yesterday what company held the contract for some of that time. In November 2002, Affiliated Computer Systems was awarded a contract to supply 30 intelligence analysts and 15 to 20 interrogators and strategic debriefers to Guantanamo. ACS was acquired by Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon's largest contractor, in 2003.[...]Lorton-based Chenega Federal Systems took over the work last year when it won a five-year, $152 million contract. The company had 16 "interrogators/strategic briefers" at Guantanamo Bay as of October, according to the Army.
The FBI's disclosures, which are based on eyewitness reports, refer several times to contractors directing the Army's interrogation efforts at the military detention center in Cuba. In at least one case, FBI agents were told that detainees may have been mistreated on orders from a contractor.[...]In the FBI documents, one agent described a 2002 incident involving a "civilian army contractor, who was in charge of the Army's interrogators." The agent reported being shown a bearded detainee with duct tape covering much of his head. Asked about it, the contractor "laughed and stated that the detainee had been chanting the Koran and would not stop," the documents said.
The same agent said his primary contact was a "civilian contractor employed by the military, who was responsible for the interrogations," the documents said. The contractor "directed military reservists who conducted the interrogations of the detainees."Another agent reported seeing detainees in Delta Camp in sweltering rooms as loud rap music played. The agent was told the treatment had been ordered by military contractors, according to an FBI summary of the documents.
The disclosures, which are based on a 2004 survey of FBI personnel, do not mention which company employed the contractors at Guantanamo. Many of the incidents dated to 2002, but it could not be learned yesterday what company held the contract for some of that time. In November 2002, Affiliated Computer Systems was awarded a contract to supply 30 intelligence analysts and 15 to 20 interrogators and strategic debriefers to Guantanamo. ACS was acquired by Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon's largest contractor, in 2003.[...]Lorton-based Chenega Federal Systems took over the work last year when it won a five-year, $152 million contract. The company had 16 "interrogators/strategic briefers" at Guantanamo Bay as of October, according to the Army.
Link
QUOTE(turnea @ Jul 30 2008, 02:21 PM)
So far no one has voiced any support for our current policy of outsourcing interrogation. How then is this happening?
I'd hazard a guess that it's happening because we cut back on human intel over the years and don't/didn't have enough personel capable at understanding the language and culture to do the job effectively. That sort of training takes years and years. And we are outsourcing other military jobs for the same reason. There's also the other side of the coin...civilian jobs lead to votes for representatives, so Congressmen won't likely balk when their districts inherit those outsourced jobs. Quite the contrary. That's why the smart aerospace defense contractors make sure to have part of their industry in nearly every state.
Edited to add: Interesting perspective from abu muqawama "notes from Anbar":
QUOTE
This is a from platoon commander in Anbar, sharing some RIP-related info:
1) Learn Iraqi Arabic. The best resource I have found is the book
"Beginner's Iraqi Arabic with 2 Audio CDs", by Nawal Nasrallah and
Nadia Hassani. Even just learning the courtesy phrases (masha'allah,
il-hamdul-allah, allah bil-khier) will pay huge dividends. The Iraqi
people are somewhat xenophobic; the more Arabic you know the more they
will trust you. Plus, if you know a little Arabic it helps to ensure
that the terp is translating the conversation accurately and not
leaving stuff out (see below).
2) Watch your terps. As I said, the Iraqis are somewhat xenophobic,
so they will tend to treat terps--especially native Iraqi terps--as
intermediaries instead of as employees of the Marines. If you are not
careful, the terp will end up running the show instead of the patrol
leader. Brief your terps on what you expect from them: e.g., they are
not to receive gifts from the locals; locals desiring to do business
with the Marines have to come to the Marines first, not go through the
terps; for important conversations, the local should look the Marine
in the eye, not look at the terp; the terps should keep side
conversations to an absolute minimum and attempt to translate all
conversation that goes on between Iraqis; the terp does not make any
decisions on his own; the terp attempts to mimic the emotional tone of
the Marine when translating for him. We have already had to fire a
terp for extorting money from locals in exchange for access to us; you
have to watch them closely. That doesn't mean treat them like crap;
they are already treated like crap by the contracting company, so if
you look out for them they will be very loyal to you.
1) Learn Iraqi Arabic. The best resource I have found is the book
"Beginner's Iraqi Arabic with 2 Audio CDs", by Nawal Nasrallah and
Nadia Hassani. Even just learning the courtesy phrases (masha'allah,
il-hamdul-allah, allah bil-khier) will pay huge dividends. The Iraqi
people are somewhat xenophobic; the more Arabic you know the more they
will trust you. Plus, if you know a little Arabic it helps to ensure
that the terp is translating the conversation accurately and not
leaving stuff out (see below).
2) Watch your terps. As I said, the Iraqis are somewhat xenophobic,
so they will tend to treat terps--especially native Iraqi terps--as
intermediaries instead of as employees of the Marines. If you are not
careful, the terp will end up running the show instead of the patrol
leader. Brief your terps on what you expect from them: e.g., they are
not to receive gifts from the locals; locals desiring to do business
with the Marines have to come to the Marines first, not go through the
terps; for important conversations, the local should look the Marine
in the eye, not look at the terp; the terps should keep side
conversations to an absolute minimum and attempt to translate all
conversation that goes on between Iraqis; the terp does not make any
decisions on his own; the terp attempts to mimic the emotional tone of
the Marine when translating for him. We have already had to fire a
terp for extorting money from locals in exchange for access to us; you
have to watch them closely. That doesn't mean treat them like crap;
they are already treated like crap by the contracting company, so if
you look out for them they will be very loyal to you.
Of course, we'll never have the personel necessary to interpret languages at all times without hiring out, but the above gives an insight into the related problems with doing so (and I'd expect the same would apply for interrogations).
QUOTE
I'd hazard a guess that it's happening because we cut back on human intel over the years and don't/didn't have enough personel capable at understanding the language and culture to do the job effectively. That sort of training takes years and years. And we are outsourcing other military jobs for the same reason.
I think you are right. This is one reason we are so far behind translating surveillance tapes. Everyone has the same problem esp. the FBI
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/politics...l&position=
QUOTE(Ted @ Jul 31 2008, 09:52 AM)
QUOTE
I'd hazard a guess that it's happening because we cut back on human intel over the years and don't/didn't have enough personel capable at understanding the language and culture to do the job effectively. That sort of training takes years and years. And we are outsourcing other military jobs for the same reason.
I think you are right. This is one reason we are so far behind translating surveillance tapes. Everyone has the same problem esp. the FBI
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/politics...l&position=
...and I think that would be a perfectly valid excuse were it not for the fact that 9/11 was seven years ago and that even if we don't have enough Arabic speakers in the battle field, you'd think we'd have enough at Gitmo and other long established dentention centers.
The bill the administration threatened to veto was a multibillion dollar funding bill for our intelligence agency, enough I think to hire a few interpreters.
QUOTE(Reuters)
CIA Director Michael Hayden has acknowledged that outside contractors were used to conduct some interrogations in the agency's detention program for suspected terrorists, which has been widely condemned for harsh techniques that critics say amount to torture.
He told Congress in February he believed contractors helped conduct "waterboarding," the fiercely condemned simulated drowning technique that he acknowledged using on three al Qaeda suspects.
Critics say the use of outside contractors could allow the CIA to dodge accountability for abuses, but the agency has said contractors are subject to the same laws as agency staffers.
He told Congress in February he believed contractors helped conduct "waterboarding," the fiercely condemned simulated drowning technique that he acknowledged using on three al Qaeda suspects.
Critics say the use of outside contractors could allow the CIA to dodge accountability for abuses, but the agency has said contractors are subject to the same laws as agency staffers.
Link
There are some abundantly clear negatives to using private contractors this year which are hampering the War on terror (or what's left of it) and it seems to me that the executive is really dragging its feet.
QUOTE
There are some abundantly clear negatives to using private contractors this year which are hampering the War on terror (or what's left of it) and it seems to me that the executive is really dragging its feet.
Why is that? Its always going to be tough to get enough Arabic speaking people in the government and since as you have quoted “Critics say the use of outside contractors could allow the CIA to dodge accountability for abuses, but the agency has said contractors are subject to the same laws as agency staffers.”
If the law is going to be broken the “contractors” must be directed to do it and then they would be liable for the consequences. I would expect them to refuse to participate if the felt they could be prosecuted later – wouldn’t you?
QUOTE(Ted @ Aug 1 2008, 10:17 AM)
QUOTE
There are some abundantly clear negatives to using private contractors this year which are hampering the War on terror (or what's left of it) and it seems to me that the executive is really dragging its feet.
Why is that? Its always going to be tough to get enough Arabic speaking people in the government and since as you have quoted “Critics say the use of outside contractors could allow the CIA to dodge accountability for abuses, but the agency has said contractors are subject to the same laws as agency staffers.”
If the law is going to be broken the “contractors” must be directed to do it and then they would be liable for the consequences. I would expect them to refuse to participate if the felt they could be prosecuted later – wouldn’t you?
Huh? What was that? Are you saying that you believe the contractors who violated the law and abused interrogees were directed to do so? That's surprising coming from you. And so far, to my knowledge very very few have suffered any consequences for those violations. Contractors aren't subject to the UCMJ, and are largely not under military authority or command. Approximately 35 percent of the contract interrogators in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal lacked formal military training as interrogators according to U.S. Army investigators. They were guilty of some of the most egregious abuse cases, and to my knowledge they haven't stood trial for criminal conduct.
Perhaps you could cite a salient example for this perception of accountability?
QUOTE(Thought Criminal @ Jul 24 2008, 10:12 AM)
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Jul 24 2008, 09:53 AM)
Ok I am a defen