Yikes. If these lawmakers were to observe the history of wars in America, they will find that when the war is over, that is when the demand for contractors diminishes and they are naturally phased out. Until then, this idea of ‘phasing’ out wartime contractors in the middle of a war is just stupid thinking, and dangerous. There is absolutely no way in hell that today’s strategists and war planners will say that ‘removing all wartime contractors in the middle of a war’ is a good idea. It would severely and negatively impact the war effort, and I want to know what these lawmakers are smoking?
Another point I want to make is this. Will lawmakers implement a draft in order to increase the numbers of the government or military in order to fill in this gapping hole of manpower they will create? Or when the war is over, do you guys plan on firing all of these military and federal employees? Because you are certainly going to have a surplus of government workers and military veterans, all sucking on to the hind tit of the US government, for a long….long….time. Thats unless we plan on fighting a forever war. Remember, contractors were brought in because congress ‘did not’ want to fund a bigger government or bigger standing army during times of peace. No one could have predicted 9/11 or the global war that came afterwards, and this war is a prime example of what could happen.
After the first Gulf War, we had thousands of troops, and we performed many of these jobs on the battlefield, which was great. I should know, I was a veteran of that war. But guess what? After that war, and after the end of the Cold War, we as a nation decided to make some cutbacks. Something about how taxpayers don’t like paying for massive standing armies or government institutions that support those standing armies during times of peace. I remember being in the military, and seeing all of these early outs and base closures during the nineties, and it sucked to see. The message was clear, and that the American people did not want a standing army as large and as expensive as we had during the first Gulf War or during the Cold War, and they were cool with reducing it’s size and cost.
And thanks to our experience in Vietnam, the draft has become political suicide for whatever President, or party that happens to own congress. No one wants to be the guy that voted for a draft, that forced people to go to war. So what does that leave us? A smaller army, and smaller apparatus to support it, and a congress and President that does not have the political will to implement conscription for wars. If you want to know how contractors came on to the scene, that is exactly the reason. We are simply filling a demand, in which this nation was not prepared for, or even willing to pay for during times of peace.
So my message to congress is to get off your ass, and focus on monitoring and managing these contracts. I don’t know why this is so hard for them–you guys are the paying customer (with tax payer money)–act like it. Legislation like this highlights how absolutely worthless or lazy congress can be sometimes. Instead of fixing obvious problems with sound legislation or the implementation of current laws, they default to ‘burning down the fort in the middle of the battle’.
If I were to guess, our enemies are having a pretty good chuckle over this one, and it is embarrassing. We are in the middle of a war for Pete’s sake. –Matt
US lawmakers push to phase out wartime contractors
February 22, 2010
WASHINGTON — Two lawmakers announced legislation Monday that would force the United States to phase out its controversial use of private security contractors in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Democratic Representative Jan Schakowsky and Independent Senator Bernie Sanders said they planned to introduce the “Stop Outsourcing Security Act” on Tuesday.
“The legislation would restore the responsibility of the American military to train troops and police, guard convoys, repair weapons, administer military prisons, and perform military intelligence,” their offices said.
“The bill also would require that all diplomatic security be undertaken by US government personnel,” they said…