I read this article in my local paper this weekend.
Private firms' perks, pay lure soldiers back to Iraq

It is about soldiers leaving the army at the end of their terms of enlistment and selling their expertise to private firms at much higher pay and benefits.



Is this system best for the United States military and for American foreign policy?
What are the benefits? What are the negative effects? Overall do the benefits outweigh the negative effects?

I'm against it. I believe there needs to be a clear and distinct line between the military and private firms. I also think Iraq is the perfect example of why this is so.

I must be missing something here because I see no problem with this whatsoever. Whats wrong with former military personnel working in Iraq for private companies? They are no longer in the military, and these companies provide them with jobs that can benefit from their expertise. I don't understand why anyone would want to prevent these ex-soldiers from finding a good paying job. Dayna, I am curious as to what you would tell these soldiers when they ask you why they can't work for these companies. Are you really suggesting that just because they were in the military they don't have the right to seek employment in this field??

It isn't the fact that the private firms are hiring ex soldiers...it's the fact that private companies and the military are both doing the same jobs and the lines are becoming too blurred.

Just look at the price gouging going on in Iraq...look at the civilian death toll etc.

And how exactly is this different from government employees quitting and going to work in private industry and dealing with the government from the outside?

I don't see the problem... other than we're losing obviously qualified talent from the military. Where they end up after that isn't as important as why they're leaving in the first place.

I don't think it's a good idea to allow private firms to profit off of war...which is exactly what Halliburton and others have made a habit of doing. They were in the red before the war began in Iraq...now they're making a tidy little profit. You can try to ignore the fact that the VP was heading the company before he bacame the VP and the champion for war but I can't.

Hmmm- difficult question- are they mercenaries or are they technicians whose expertise is not really killing and blowing things up, but safety and security for civilian employees? If mercinaries- then I am again' it- if private technicians- and I am splitting hairs a bit here- then I am all for it.

Oh so instead we should just blow the country to smitherines and then leave it that way?? Gimme a break. Do you honestly think that the Iraqi's could have rebuilt on their own. I sure as hell don't.

Yes, I honestly think they had the skill and experience to rebuild it themselves. I think it's insulting for us to believe we could have or even should have done it for them.

They deserve restitution...give them the money and let them do it themselves.

Although it's drifting off topic, I don't see this as an either-or question as you posed it Venom. That's too simplistic.

But in answer to your question: they sure as hell were able to build it without us in the first place. The question is: would they have rebuilt it in our image?

Back to topic: private firms have ALWAYS (repeat: ALWAYS) profited off war. Joe Kennedy and others did it in WW2, for example. Where there's conflict, someone will always profit. But, yes, the VP and his buddies are definitely munching a bunch at the trough we've built in Iraq, which is unseemly at best. But should individual soldiers be allowed to jump from the public-supported soldier side to the private-supported soldier side? Really... why not? More power to them if their abilities can be used in more than one setting.

My gut reaction is that there are some bad things here.

One thing I wonder is whether Iraqis will make a distinction between an American soldier and an American security guard.

I also wonder if there is the same level of accountability for a private security unit as an official government force.

I also wonder if the casualties taken by security firms are available for public knowledge.

I also wonder why we can't get that higher pay directly to military personnel if we are in fact paying these higher salaries through government contracts anyway (and the profits above that)

However, I do not have better than an instinctual negative response, and some of the above concerns, when analyzed, might be revealed to be positive factors despite my worries.

Hmmm- my brother who is now retired AGR (full time national guard- weekend soldier, weekday mechanic/technician) but was full time during Gulf 1- he could not be ordered to go unless his whole unit was activated- and he is a mechanical genius, especially at field trouble shooting on Armor- such as the M1, Bradley hummers etc- so they hired him as a full time overseas technician- made about 120 grand in one year- course, it was uncle sam that paid, not Haliburton- so why not do the same thing here? I wonder if there is some kick back action going on with KRB?

I think it depends on the level of oversight / accountability of private military companies.

Traditionally mercenaries worked for the highest bidder...obviously that'll be the US in Iraq, but what happens in other areas. How do private military companies choose who employs them?

Can dictators hire them, or do they have codes / regulations to prevent this?

Do they have codes of ethics or is money their only goal?

I'm not sure why the term 'mercenary' is being bandied about. KBR wouldn't qualify for that definition. That term has traditionally been used for hired guns that actually pre-meditatively participate in combat. If one wanted to stretch that definition, you may be able to include companies like DynCorp that provide armed security, but I personally wouldn't.
It makes absolute sense for these companies to hire ex-military personnel. It provides employment for those retiring and leaving the service, and there is less acclimatizing and training overhead, since these hires will already understand military culture and operations to an extent.

i assume it would depend on the Iraqi and whether or not they want to target just those in uniform, or any american-looking person.

It's not the pay that would have to be raised, it's the manpower level. These firms aren't in business because we aren't paying enough, they there because there is not enough soldiers to handle security, patrolling, sustaining AND reconstruction.


Danya, can you name those same functions that are being carried out by both military and the civilian companies? I can tell you with certainty that Halliburton employees are not patrolling the streets of Fallujah.
And although it's chic to keep mentioning Halliburton and price gouging, etc...
Must we AGAIN bring up the facts as to why they have these contracts to begin with? Plus that's for another thread.

Yes- I agree with DTOM on this one- I think that mercenary is a strong word for what they are doing- There is a major difference between a mercenary and a security personal. Mercenaries go out looking for trouble. Security personel wait for it to come to them. Mercenaries would not be appropriate for a US company to hire in Iraq, security personel would.

If we're talking about Iraq the lines are not clear at all. Who is rebuilding the schools we kept hearing about? I have seen countless articles saying the soldiers are doing the painting, cleaning the streets and clearing away garbage and debris, as well as doing repairs on pipelines. The next minute you have USAID taking the credit...or at least taking the funding for the same projects. And then you have the countless private contractors being hired for building barracks, providing meals, doing laundry, delivering mail, and providing other support for the military.

As far as security goes there are plenty of private companies doing that too. But still there is no safety for civilians or military personell...not even in the 'green' and military zones. The Iraqi police we are training are dying even faster than our soldiers. One estimate put's the number of them killed so far at 600. I guess we need a better description of what 'mercenary' work is being done because it looks like they're doing some of that too, IMO. They are doing security and even training the new Iraqi army.


WA Times

The bold part of the article is exactly why I'm against private firms recruiting ex military...at least when both are involved in the same missions. So, maybe you can tell me what functions AREN'T being carried out by both military and civilian workers. I can't think of any.

I've been bringing them up since before we invaded Iraq because it was my opinion that Halliburton's contracts (as well as their subsidiary KBR) were one of the primary reasons we were rushing to war in the first place.

And they are making an obscene amount of tax payer money now aren't they?

It isn't that it's become chic to mention them. It's just that the evidence is now so blatant and in your face that I would like to see you try to deny it.

Danya,
We employ firms such as MPRI and ComTek to help train and staff our military. Does that mean we are employing mercenaries in our own country? I don't have a beef with your disagreement with the use of these companies. But are you writing your congressman to increase the size of our armed forces?

I already have. PMC's are not actively patrolling and carrying out raids against terrorists. I don't have a problem with them guarding installations. As someone who pulled A LOT of guard duty in my time, I think it's not a bad idea. It's better use of military manpower, when each unit runs it's own operations center, quick reaction force, and patrol/raid element.

I do think that there needs to be a Status of Forces Agreement and rules of conduct for armed PMC employees.

As for Halliburton.....I guess since they had the same contract agreement during the nineties, I can now claim that Clinton got us involved in Bosnia and Kosovo purely to line the pockets of corporations.

I would watch using the Washington Times as a source, some of your liberal brethren at AD equate them with the National Enquirer.

I don't believe the Administration WANTS to increase the military except to relieve the current number...but their foreign policy may give them no other choice if they continue down their current path.

If I understand the situation correctly Rumsfeld has wanted all along to transform the military and turn it into a 'lighter' more agile force. He's said many times that he wants the jobs that can be done by civilians like clerical and other non combat duties to be given to civilians and the military forces to be used for combat related activities. I think we're getting a good idea of what that will look like by how things are going in Iraq. However, he's not changing things because Iraq makes it necessary or because it's a special case...this is how he wants it going forward. I think we're in the middle of his transformation at this point and I don't think it's going to improve.

QUOTE

How much of a difference is there between carrying out raids and 'quietly snatching a suspected Saddam Hussein loyalist.'? And there isn't much difference between patrolling and guarding.



It's not even close to the same agreement.

Um.....ever been on a patrol? Do you know what a patrol is? If you did, you certainly wouldn't compare it to guard duty. One is standing or roaming at a checkpoint or perimeter. The other is outlined Here

Yes, Rumsfeld has carried on with a vision of transforming the military into a lighter, more agile force. For the Army, this concept came from the previous Chief of Staff, General Shinseki in 1999. I've served in one of the new light Stryker Brigades, and I think the concept is fairly sound. And I can't honestly argue against taking away much of the housekeeping type of jobs from the military and using civilians to do them. Often it's cheaper, and it frees up soldiers to concentrate on warfighting duties.

LOGCAP. Same contract, whether you want to believe it or not.

Halliburton is working under new contracts...and everytime they screw us they get another contract. These are not jobs that were already written in to some other agreement...they are brand new and they should be going through a bidding process to get them. But you're right, that's a whole other issue.

I still maintain that the private security we are bringing in to train the new army, to secure areas and personnel and to pick up the occasional enemy is blurring the lines between civilian and military. I still think it's a bad idea to mix the two...for the same reasons we do not (as of yet) mix the two here at home. There are good reasons for them to be separate.

And if I may say so Rumsfeld's transformation is costing a hell of a lot more money than it should and is failing. What are we going to do if things have not improved by the date they've chosen to hand over power? And exactly what is it we will be handing over? Apparently the troops will remain...so does that mean Halliburton and KBR and the others will all be sent home?

If we don’t’ have enough soldiers than I’d say we have a larger issue to discuss. This should never be an excuse to hire a more expensive substitute. Let’s see, Republican congress, Republican President, I’d say if we needed to increase our military this could easily get pushed through and since Bush II is so concerned with our safety it should be an easy sell. But then we’d be taking tidy profits away from familiar bedfellows.



I don’t recall VP Gore working for Haliburton. So yes, there is a difference. And you may not like the fact that this company and our current VP is brought up frequently by those of us who don’t like the smell of obvious conflict between Haliburton and our current administration. We see this as a critical issue. Yet again.

I’m all for ex military finding gainful employment and leveraging their expertise where it makes sense. I just don’t think this is a fit. Ex military have plenty of opportunities to work for private company’s internal security departments; we hire them all the time. We outsource our building security and hire them mostly for risk assessment in other countries.

Agree that their experience can be used to train current regulars, but why not retain them ourselves and pay them more? I thought that’s what we’ve done since we’ve had a standing militia.

What will this look like 30 years from now? Will we be completely private? Probably not, but that prospect has to start some where. At what percentage of our current military service does this stop? The thought of increasing private military services is outright frightening.

After we’ve rebuilt Iraq and their services are not needed, what do we do with them? These private firms have hired all this manpower and they still need to pay them some how. Sounds like another built in special interest excuse to start more wars.

As I said previously, we already use MPRI and ComTek employees here at home. I work side by side with a ComTek guy right now. They serve in training and admin units and are not deployable. ComTek's are additonally required to be serving in the Guard or Reserve, but I don't think that's the case with MPRI.


may I ask what yardstick you are using to measure the success of transformation? Keep in mind that it extends well beyond the Iraq conflict, it is the game plan for military operations, tempo and force structure for well into the future.

The civilian population in the US has a much clearer line between the corporate and the military duties. There doesn't seem to be any line at all between the two in Iraq.

Measuring death and dollars with past military conflicts we've undertaken this one looks pretty bad...and it's only been 11 months. It's pretty clear things are not going well...even the President has stopped trying to convince us otherwise.

Maybe this wasn't the best time to completely overhaul the military. One more reason we should have continued with the inspections rather than rush to war unprepared. Considering the lack of planning that went into the occupation I don't have a lot of confidence that Rumsfeld has any kind of workable blueprint for creating the kind of military he's talking about.

One of the concerns I would have is that security forces hired by private companies need not conform to rules of engagement and are not compelled to use approved arms and munitions. This could be particularly tricky in what is essentially a war zone where, for some, international law relating to war need not apply. This came up in relation to another story in these threads which I think exemplifies some of the concerns which a few people here might have.

That said, as long as such jobs exist, there's no reason to prohibit former military from applying. One of the sad facts here is that this may be somewhat indicative of how poorly our armed forces are treated. Perhaps, were their pay and benefits a bit better, they wouldn't be as tempted by the private sector...

Wertz- As far as military pay goes- for a military of our size, we are extremely high paid professional force-if you find a military of our , or even close, it is not a western world military and doesn't pay anything- and the western powers pay thier military very much in comparison, but they are a much smaller force. The military is not designed for "entry" level types to make a competitive wage- it is to gain experiance and schooling that gives you a leg up in the business world later, for the most part (since a small percentage stay "career" and most get out after one or two enlistments). Now, as you move up in the upper ranks, it becomes a tad more competitive. This private security thing is probably like the holy grail for alot of these soldiers, because, provided they survive this "experiance"- they will have outstanding job prospects upon returning, especially for the "grunt" types that are not in the super high tech, super desirable job force training that you CAN get in the military.

So, as long as they are not mercenary (going out looking to get into a firefight) and are security (allowing the fire fight come to them), it is not only okay, it is good, provided they survive the experiance, for the soldier.