better than US troops? And why not just pay regular US troops more to attract more & better recruits rather than over pay private contract mercenaries like Blackwater USA?
2007-10-04 05:49:41 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
No, it merely means they get paid more.
2007-10-08 05:50:39 · answer #1 · answered by Stephen H 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Pass the buck Bush" implies much. 5x more does as well. The question is valid in itself....... but the stupid Bush thing negates it.
Did you have issues with Blackwater before you saw it on TV? Do you have knowledge of government contracting at many more levels than private security? We are talking about contracts in the hundreds of millions. Democrats and republicans have a part in this. Won't see that on TV though. Understand history? Been in Iraq? No. In a position to be hired by Blackwater? Point is think deeper. Stop thinking political parties..... think why things are as they are. Read some history and your eyes will open.
But I will backdown and agree on the basic point. They have upped bonuses for the "special" troops. But it is not enough. It is more basic than that. Once upon a time even the cooks were military. If needed they could pick up a weapon so you did not have to spend money to protect them.
I say rehaul the pay scale and bonuses. Nobody (maybe a few) if not military enter a war zone. Period.
2007-10-04 16:47:20 · answer #2 · answered by jackson 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We could not afford a military at that price. Also they don't have to deal with the Government BS. Most all Security operators are ex US spec ops, British SAS & Marine Comandos, Frenech Para & Legionare & some Isreali IDF. They just don't hire joe blow pvt. smith US Army. The US Army Pays OK, but Like many things (mail service, Health care,education, etc.) the Goverment does things poorly compared to the private sector. The contractors basically free up manpower to do the main job of fighting bad guys. Without them? You would need a extra 100,000 troops to do the jobs they do........
It's a high risk, high reward gig. Even non shooters make big $$$. KBR was paying truck drivers $100K to work over there. The Con is ?You might find your self without a head & Uncle SAM won't break a sweat to save you....
2007-10-04 13:25:17 · answer #3 · answered by lana_sands 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because Blackwater isn't doing jobs the military does.
So why compare them to the military ?
Blackwater is helping the State Department Diplomatic Security Corp in high threat areas.
Blackwater only has 1,000 employees in iraq.
Why do people act like they have 100,000 ?
2007-10-04 16:11:46 · answer #4 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's corporate America my friend. The contracts made by businesses like these have nothing to do with fighting a war or National Security. Plus "mercenaries", like you call them, are not covered by any benefits or backed by any government which they decided to work for. You can say, they are "At Will" employees.
2007-10-04 12:58:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's my understanding that Blackwater mercenaries do tend to be more capable than the average US soldier. Not 5X more capable though, mind you. I can't answer your second question, your suggestion is purely logical: raise US troop pay, hire more US soldiers. I agree, that's what should have been done.
2007-10-04 12:57:51 · answer #6 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Different job, different benefits, etc.
First, to clarify the misconceptions spread by those deliberately distorting the truth (i.e. liars), they are not "mercenaries". They are not part of the US forces - they are security forces for the protection of specific people. Yes, they sometimes assist the US Armed Forces, but they are not under its command.
They get the pay because they get no other benefits. They don't get the long term benefits offered to soldiers and their families.
And the US military has no problem attracting high caliber people - perhaps this is because so many leftists avoid the military, thus self-culling of a lot of potential substandard recruits.
2007-10-04 13:10:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I agree with you that it's odd that Blackwater protects US diplomats. However most of the contractors work for large engineering companies, NGOs, etc. Obviously an outfit like Bechtel can afford to pay for their own security.
2007-10-04 14:07:32 · answer #8 · answered by michinoku2001 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Problems with your question. Mercenaries fight for anyone or any country with the gold. Since the 1960s it has been illegal to fight for another country. It could cost you your citizenship and prison time.
2007-10-04 13:59:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most of the Blackwater mercenaries are former US soldiers/marines.
It seems to me that Bush could easily "re-activate" them to military service and cut out the middle man (eg: Blackwater), saving millions of dollars annually.
2007-10-04 12:55:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
Well it's best to keep the troops away from the elected officals for many times they are rude and then that offical could lose all his/her protection.
Plus they are not as restricted in the use of force as the troops are and that is what you need to protect someone sometimes.
2007-10-04 12:53:29 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋