What is the average soldier's take on the privitization of the war effort?

Question

Not just folks like Blackwater and Haliburton, but also the privitization of the industries surrounding the Iraq war, such as services for the troops like food, and the privitization of the Iraqi oil wealth. Do you think it is a good thing, a neccessary evil, or a corrupt racket?

Answer 1

I appreciated the privatization during my tour in Iraq.

If we did not have contractors preparing meals (and cleaning up after) I would have had to detail soldiers from more important work to do this.

If we did not have contractors maintaining the latrines - I would have had to divert soldiers from more valuable duties to do this.

Ditto for the laundry services.

Ditto for the trash collection.

Ditto for the building and management of billeting areas.

Answer 2

I am strongly in favor of privatization of selected support services. It is cost effective and allows our boys to concentrate on the mission. It saves lives.
You seem to be implying there is something nefarious in the way oil is handled in Iraq. The oil is supervised by the United Nations. All profits go to the Iraqi government.
You seem to imply there is also something wrong with the award of troop support contracts to Haliburton. This ignores the fact that Haliburton is the only American company capable of full filling the contract requirements. If Haliburton was not given the contract, the administration would be forced to hire a European firm. This would mean all those jobs and billions of dollars would have gone to Europe. That would have hurt the American economy. In addition, the past history of the administrations ties to Haliburton have caused that companies unprecedented monitoring and huge fines for every discovered infraction.

Answer 3

The services part I don't mind. Usually the dirty work is filled by what we call TCN's (Third Country Nationals) and they are usually used to clean latrines, haul trash etc... Where I was at these people got searched thoroughly, most were friendly and they got paid decent money for them.
I'm not exactly sure the entire roll Black Water and Hailburton are playing but I see some good and some bad with what they are doing and why they are there.

I don't agree with no-bid contracts. Maybe during the initial start of the war, fine, but after things have been established better a bid should be offered. No-bids are a huge ethics violations to me.

The wealth needs to stay in Iraq, but the Government there needs to start using it to re-build their towns and villages and to train and supply their own military. This, however, is not happening.

Answer 4

I think it is a necesary thing. After Vietnam, all these support jobs were put in the reserves. Over time those jobs were cut. Now we need them and they don't exist. If we get rid of those contractors who are ready and able to do the mission, we will have to add about 200,000 to the Army alone.

Also, contractors can really do it cheaper then troops in the job. Sure the contract amount looks big, but when you figure up how much it cost to train a soldier to do the job permantly, its cheaper overall. About $100,000 is spent to train a volunteer as a private. More to train them in higher ranks. Plus you have to pay for their familes' support. Not to mention that once the war is over, those soldiers have to be maintained, at war or at peace, a contractor is only paid while at war. Thats why those jobs were cut in the first place, we are at peace more or less for a long time after Vietnam.

So unless you want to pay more and more then like have a draft, contractors are necessary.

Answer 5

I'm for it. Privitization has proven more cost effective with better, more efficient outcomes. Not better because the Operators are better. Better because the political involvement in decision-making ends when the contract is signed and issued. Look what Executive Outcomes did in Sierra Lione. For a fraction of what the UN spent, with no Operators lost (unlike the UN), they not only turned back the tide of the Rebel Army and restored peace, they also assisted in the reinstitution of democracy. This all remained in effect until international pressure from the UN body had them removed, at which point the country fell into chaos. They did it at a fraction of the cost of the UN efforts and with gleeming results. I say if it works, bring it in. Competition is what makes the system operate more efficiently. Government's have a monopoly on violence, which is what breeds corruption.

Answer 6

It's a matter of money. By hiring all these contractors, the US can have a smaller military with less support people and more bullet slingers (at least on a more mature battlefield). It's probably more expensive in the short term, but over the long haul, the government saves on pay, retirements and benefits. When we're done with this one, the contract is cancelled and the civilian work force goes home to find new jobs. The military end strength remains about the same.

It makes sense to me.

Answer 7

Of course there has been alot of corruption invloved with the privatizations, but that is from a lack of oversight on the government's end. The fact is that not only is the gov. not the best entity to do the job (history of inneficiency and incompetence), but realistically the military can't hire and coordinate all that needs to be done. By contracting the support elements to pirvate businesses (who in theory should be competing for best service at best value) it frees up the army to do what it's supposed to do - fight the war.

Answer 8

The joke goes; in the future, an infanaty battalion will consist of the Commander, staff, 1 platoon of 11Bs for security and 300 civilian contractors who will do everything else.

At the moment, the contracting is fine. There are areas where, in my opinion, we'd be better off doing the work ourselves (IT services in particular), but I do worry that someone down the line will take it too far.

Answer 9

It frees them up from old school details like KP and gets them more down time and ICE CREAM. No seriously they serve like 3-4 kinds of it at the KB&R D-FACS . what other war saw grunts eating like pogs!!!!!!! ITS GREAT, yes some of the contractors are cowboys and many are just as bad as or even are the insurgents but it also opens the door for retired SOCOM guys to make real $$$$$$, thats what most of those companies hire is ex SF RANGER RECON and SEALs etc.

Answer 10

I dont think the "troops" have a "take" on any of that.

They are going to perform their duties, and accomplish their objectives the way they have been trained to.

Once you are deployed, you are way past having the time for politics.

Plus, it is the nature of our military to not be political it is designed that way on purpose.

Being political is the job of the elected officials and the average citizen.