If an experienced soldier is paid $60K/yr, and the private security firms pay $400K/yr, doesn't common sense tell us that an experienced soldier is serving his enlistment and then going to work for the security firms? Doesn't common sense also tell us that privatizing traditional military roles is very expensive?
2007-10-03 01:05:56 · 8 answers · asked by Crystal Blue Persuasion 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I agree. Working as a helicopter mechanic, I worked with contractors do the same work, just less of it, and getting paid $120K/year while I managed to make about $35K/year. Many of the guys I was deployed with went back overseas with a private contractor after they got out of the military.
And the beauty of working for a contractor is that (1) you can leave whenever you want (2) You aren't jumping through ridiculous hoops just to get overseas to do your job(I spent over 4 months out of a total of 16 months deployed sitting in the States either inprocessing or outprocessing. So that left 11 months on the ground accomplishing something. The rest could have been condensed down to 2 weeks.) And (3) while you may not get lifetime benefits, you can still rejoin the military later after you've paid off your mortgage from working for the private contractor for two years!
The plain fact is that military personnel are not being paid what they are worth and if the billions that are being spent on private contractors was spent on military personnel, equipment and training, we probably wouldn't be at war to begin with because it wouldn't be financially beneficial to anyone.
2007-10-03 01:40:10 · answer #1 · answered by bmattj121 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes the reason the standard in the military has fallen is due to the fact that the people we trained actually had to give a crap while now days when you ask why did you join you will hear answers such as (I'm not joking I'm currently in the infantry) "I was board and thought it would be fun", "I couldn't get a job any where else", (this one just about killed me) "my mom said I was really good at Call Of Duty so I figured I would be good at being in the infantry" and so on and so on. It also comes from the high numbers. Before hand maybe one or two guys out of a thousand would slip by while when you have higher numbers more mistakes go unnoticed and more idiots would slip by. Along with the fact that now the new guys can't be screamed at or yelled at with out us facing action in which we loose rank could go to the brig and can get kicked out other than honorably (which isn't dishonorable but still bad). Yes we still get the job done we still do our best to be the legacy but we can't!
2016-05-19 21:55:56 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think its true to say that security firms are attracting quite a few ex-soldiers but its a good thing in at least one respect as SNCO's leaving to join private firms are liberating places for younger up and coming NCO's and SNCO's.
My unit has seen quite a few departs of this kind but I don't feel theres' been a drain of experience, as the most part the people that have "defected" were for the most part SNCO's more or less at the end of their careers.
As for the "privatizing" of military roles I think its could be good for certain branches of the army.
Doing away with a good part of the "rear echelon" and keeping only combat units and certain specialised combat personnel (e.g tank crews and pilots) while contracting out the support part to private firms would be in the long run cheaper and create a more efficient "sharp end".
To a certain extent I think we are well on the way to this system and the quicker we get there the better.
2007-10-03 02:09:47 · answer #3 · answered by kisser 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Sometimes they do. But the military offers them something that they won't get in the private sector: Job security. Great Vacation Packages. Medical Insurance for life....even after retirement. They pay for you to move including your vehicle anywhere in the world.
2007-10-03 01:12:11 · answer #4 · answered by holeeycow 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's how it should be. We live in a free capitalistic society. So people should be free to work wherever they want. It's also how wages go up for all concerned. If there was no competition the military would pay its people minimum wage and that would be that!! Same thing in the private sector, no competition and companies would never give anyone a raise.
2007-10-03 01:44:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
The young soldier with any specialized skills is in high demand by private companies. These used to be termed mercenaries. The money is great, if you live to collect it, and the contracts are there, if you are interested.
2007-10-03 01:16:59 · answer #6 · answered by Beau R 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes, it is true. yes, it is unfair to the enlisted/commissioned servicemember. yes, it is infinitely more expensive for all roles that contractors play not just security but also food/supply/support.
and finally NO, privatization of the military is not just "good capitalism". capitalism is for making profits, as it should be. just not when it comes to decisions about warfare.
2007-10-03 03:35:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
It is incredibly expensive, but it means they don't have to tally up the extra troop deaths, plus the politicians' friends make a lot more money.
The privatisation of war is just a thinly veiled corporate welfare scheme.
2007-10-03 01:22:00 · answer #8 · answered by 8Dave 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋