Return to Article: CBO: Scale of contract operations in Iraq is unprecedented
-
56650
ROTFLMAO!! Now that is a unique perspective, Paul. I must admit I never thought of it that way and it definitely has some possibilities I must explore. Still, I have to question a few of your assumptions:
Costs: IMHO, and that of many folks dealing on the ground level, Skeeter's feather merchants have never saved us dollar one. As I've pointed out elsewhere, the individual contractors may make less than us but the overall cost is of a plus 40% more per individual due to the profit margin and the additional overhead. You add in the turnover and the inherent training we must do for our replacements and the costs go up further. You consider the loss of funds due to no-bid solicitations, and you don't have a running tap so much as a Niagara-type flood of funds from our coffers to their pockets; without so much as a "Thank you very much!"
Foreign nationals: Without a vested interest or a patriotic motivation I must think that our goals would only be accomplished by a mercenary force in a "wartime" by excessive cost and sufficient supervision. After all, mercenaries are notorious for staying only as long as "the money is right", or the conflict is in their best interest.
I must still hold that any adequate manager of the world's largest and most professional army should have foreseen the need for managing an ongoing conflict and an exit strategy and at least polled the military professionals for their input; after all we had a classic example still within memory. Rummy did neither. The required build up should have taken place, at a minimum, back in '05. The indicators were all there. That would have given the theater commander the forces he needed two years later when the "surge" was called for. Being comprised of mostly privates, and in accordance with their historical figures, the vast majority would be unlikely to reenlist leaving only the most dedicated and professional to remain in; thus saving us out year funds and their retirement costs.
As for medical costs, there is no way around that and nor should there be. As they give to us; so should we give back in turn and kind.
Still, your observation did have a certain ring of truth to it. Thanks for the perspective!
-
56568
Skeeter and Tipsy, you are both missing the point. The current administration has broke the mold on conflict management. The ability of contractors to perform large swaths of Iraqi management is radical. . . Can you imagine the future in which military will no longer be needed to wage conflict management. We can count on private industry through contracts to accomplish the task. The contractors in turn can save costs further by hiring foreign nationals, and by setting up shell offices in foreign countries and thereby escape burdensome US laws and regulations. This is a win-win for everyone: military will not be burdened by excessive overseas duty, companies will make lots of money, and citizens and their elected representatives will be relieved by the unnecessary oversight & regulation caused by the dead hand of burdensome government. Whether you like or dislike the current government, you have to admire its creativity. The previous leftist administration by comparison was bland, all it could do was create a government surplus, cut the size of government, and generate economic prosperity. Where is the excitment in that?
-
56451
Flash/Bang !!! Well rest assured there won't be and flash or bang with Obama. Try poor house. Tipsy the military isn't a faucet that you just turn on and off, it takes years for them to get up to speed not counting $$$ and equipment, so please be honest in your attributions. I noticed that you bring up 9/11 if your renown president had taken Bin Laden when he was offered rather than allowing him to migrate to Afghanistan than the issue would have been avoided. It easy to pass blame if your unwilling to let history account for the facts. Yes see you in Nov, right now McCain is leading in the polls so as least the voting public understand what's at stake 1 candidate has gravitas and the other has the same experience as my paperboy
-
56409
To "loathe" the military would be to hold down their numbers and use political campaign contributors for contractors (another form of kick back) and none have done more so than the current administration. Again, I see many fingers pointing at the previous. How long must an administration be in power before it is held accountable for its actions? Like thunder and lightening, one must see the flash and count until you hear the sound; in this case to realize how divorced from reality this administration is.
News flash: we were attacked in 2001 and deployed to Iraq in 2003 but the buildup of military personnel didn't even start until 2007. Additional "moral" waiver grants, active solicitation of immigrant soldiers (with the carrot of citizenship), extension of the age limits for enlisting, and larger enlistment cash bonuses show the desperation of this administration to implement changes after the election of 2006. It took the ouster of Rummy and a belated military build up for us to show any progress. Now we are relegated to empty saber rattling.
As for "inherently governmental", few functions are more inherently governmental than operations in a combat zone, our national security, and taxation. Insertion of non-governmental civilians, without our (GS) ethical requirements and restrictions, into these functions should ONLY occur with sufficient supervision and competitive solicitation.
We can't afford sufficient enlistment incentives but we can afford the cash to send civilians into a conflict zone? Who believes this logic; these excuses?! While policies should be decided by our civilian leadership, war implementation should accept the tactics and requirements of the military leadership; that's why we train them in the art of war. And our generals have been requesting more troops and control over non-combat participants for years now; even if behind close doors. Remember, military personnel MUST obey and back the leadership and can only speak out publicly after they've left the service. Thus we didn't hear much of this problem until a slew of generals retired back in 2005; well before the public cried "Enough!"
Remember that flash-to-bang standard when you appraise the success of a hard pressed and bare majority congress laboring under the most unconstrained administration in this nation's history.
See you in November.
-
56350
This is what happens when you "loathe" the military as stated by Billy boy. If Obama wins the ratio will be much higher since we'll be fighting the Global War on Poverty
-
56347
All these contractors and some army personnel are still getting electrocuted to death while taking showers and making coffee. Sounds like the animals are running the zoo!
-
56339
The privatization of our military began in the 1990's with the so called "peace dividend" and the Al Gore led Government Reinvention project. I guess that Sen. Conrad does not have such a long memory, and instead thinks that the entire world sprung into being when the current adminstration was elected.
-
56331
I guess the article from the 'Think Tank' citing competitive sourcing being a 'Winning Tool' for taxpayers weren't aware of (1) the number of contractors down range (2) the cost associated with these contractors (3) the over expenditures associated with some of these services (4) the abuse running prevalent by contractors (5) contractors in place not performing up to standard and/or some standing around with nothing to do but, making sure they get that almighty dollar. The number of contractors in some areas is so intense you fall over them and for the most part they're not required. I've seen firsthand the fraud, waste and abuse by contract personnel down range and it isn't pretty. Don't get me wrong there are some ethical contractors down range....however; for the most part the interest of many is the money they're making. As for support of the military they're purported to support...they could care less. This administration has lead many down the garden path on the issue of 'privatizing' and the American public is paying the bill for services not rendered or having contractors without the expertise to perform the services they were hired for. President Bush is going to go down in the Annals of History as non-conforming to approved standards of professional demeanor while paring down the Government by eliminating the Civil Servant in lieu of bestowing favor to friends and contributors in his misguided attempt to exercise sovereign power rather than hold the office as President and Congress as 'do nothings' to preclude what has been occurring and 'shocked' at the result.
-
56328
Hire who ever to do what ever the bottom line is let the Iraq government pay the bill for the US and or anyone eles helping out Iraq.
-
56323
One contractor for every military member in Iraq? Sure sounds like a shadow, mercenary army to me!
-
56321
Where will Washington go for money to fund such activities once people like me are driven out of jobs & stop paying taxes?
-
56315
In this world of "I want it now" there is no faster way to get people on the ground than by contract. There aren't enough military members to provide the level of support that the contractors currently provide in Iraq. Of course, I don't think anyone is looking at the level of support from a "do we need it vs. do we want it" point of view. Are we trying to make it just like a military base in the US? I'm sure there are some troops that are living in tents and eating dirt everyday and let's not forget they could be killed at any time, any place. But what do we really need to be providing in the area of services? Has anyone asked the military troops for their input?
-
56313
Another way to spin these exact same numbers is that, since the ratio of soldiers to civilian contractors is roughly 1:1, that the soldiers are five times more expensive than contract workers on average. The private security workers may be about the same cost as military, but the vast majority of the contract workers are MUCH less expensive. Very interesting report.
-
56311
And the chairman is surprised.....this says what about his abilities, job knowledge, and skill sets? How does he think the services do their jobs? With the continued downsizing of military personnel, outsourcing is mandatory to feed and supply all military personnel worldwide. This has been ongoing since the beginning of downsizing during the Clinton years. Brac wasn't just about unneeded assets....these assets included personnel and services.
-
56287
Really,
If you believe this report I've got a bridge you can invest in. What a joke.
-
56283
Outsourching the military... it is a root cause of why Rome eventually fell.
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.