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…
Story here.
Schakowsky today is a member of the Democratic Progressive Caucus in the House of Representatives. The Almanac of American Politics describes her as "an outspoken progressive, one of the leftmost members of the Democratic Caucus."
"Bernie Sanders is an unreconstructed 1930s socialist and proud of it. He's a skilful demagogue who casts every issue in that framework, a master practitioner of class warfare."
The American military is not responsible for training police in most countries. Department of State has that responsibility, but has negligible organic capability to exercise it, and their Diplomatic Security Service is too small to accomplish the Worldwide Personal Protective Services mission.
Comment by Cannoneer No. 4 — Monday, February 22, 2010 @ 10:17 AM
Due to long history of abuse, Cannoneer is (for the most part) right – DoD does not train foreign police. Foreign law enforcement training is a red-headed stepchild. For a while it was USAID, now it is a chaotic mix of programs through several different agencies, some – like INL / CIVPOL – doing the work through contractors while being funded by DoD. (If interested, there are several GAO reports going back at least 15 years on this subject.)
The Foreign Assistance Act is very specific on US authority to train/equip foreign law enforcement, particularly training in lethal arts, weapons and explosives.
One problem is, many times, foreign LE structures do not resemble US LE structures with Federal, State and local civilian LE agencies PLUS Federal (military) and State (NG) defense. Our police do not equal their police. US MIL training foreign CIV police is rightly seen as a threat to sovereignty.
Another problem is, of course, nation building. Do we really want to be in the business of providing security sector reform to all the unstable, fragile, and/or massively corrupt countries of the world? Even if there was political will, we don't have the resources to entertain such an expansive do-good endeavor. Is it in our national interest?
Right now, DoD is spinning up to train Afghan police. DoS continues to train Iraq police. Coast Guard trains Kenyans; SF trains Filipinos; AFRICOM trains Congolese; somebody is still training Colombians; somebody needs to train Mexicans; etc. etc.
The organic capability for training foreign LE is currently within the private sector, mostly retires and former LE or MIL with LE experience.
There is little organic capability in DS or DoS for protecting US missions. Historically, DoS hired local guards. That worked well for hundreds of years. Only in the last few years has it been necessary to hire, in large numbers, US private security contractors to protect US missions during contingency operations.
If Congress wants to have a USG presence (an Embassy or post or PRT or MTT or whatever) in a war zone, then they need to provide sufficient resources to the appropriate agency for adequate protection. Right now, the mission is with State but the resources are with Defense.
Rather than calling it "war time," it should be called what it is and that is a new era. Congress and many of those in it are operating from a paradigm that shifted a long time ago. Like Matt said, our enemies are laughing. It is embarrassing and expensive.
Contract management is important but it is not the root of the problem.
Comment by SteveO — Wednesday, February 24, 2010 @ 11:45 PM
Cannoneer #4 and Steve O-
Excellent points guys. My gut tells me that this is just grandstanding for these folks. Because once the senate starts evaluating the facts behind why we are contracting in the first place, their tone will change real quick.
Right now, the time line for Afghanistan has been established and it is tight. The president wants some major progress by election time, or he is doomed (if he doesn't wrap up the economy or make progress with the war that is). I sincerely doubt he and the majority in his party will support anything that might threaten his war plans, and this bill will certainly do just that.
So going back to the politics of this. They will put it to vote, and it will die, but it will be on record exactly where each politician stands on the issue. That will win them a few votes with their ultra liberal anti-war/anti-military/anti-contractor constituents in their districts, and that is about it. It will also help in other races, where incumbents could be challenged, based on the way they voted on the 'despicable security contractors' bill.
Comment by headjundi — Thursday, February 25, 2010 @ 4:52 AM
I see two things behind this absurd legislation: the economic crisis and political demagogy.
Currently in the US, the thing that lurks in the mind of every US politician is the almost 18% unemployment rate (real rate). The question that arises is how they can get jobs for the American tax-payers. By stopping military outsourcing.
Second of all, starting with it's name, this (ridiculous) legislation is an opportunity for politicians to score some more popularity points. They're building on the general frustration feelings associated with the protracted nature of the war in Afghanistan, the excessive media attention on combat contractors and the economic crisis to look righteous and just. The fact that they didn't even bother with mentioning any of the advantages contractors bring in a conflict or post-conflict environment speaks by itself on the seriousness of their proposal.
Comment by Andreea Zugravu — Friday, February 26, 2010 @ 3:22 AM