Bravo to Doug Brooks for standing up for the industry at this hearing. The debate on what is ‘inherently governmental’ continues to rage, and there are those out there that continue to be very forgetful of the sacrifice of today’s private industry and of our contributions to this war and wars past. Arguably, we are a strategic asset for the simple reason that without contractors, there would have to have been other means of raising an army to deal with the manning requirements of the war.
My message to all the elected officials on that wartime commission panel is that because you did not have the political courage to implement a draft and authorize the raising of a massive military force, that in effect you gave the war planners no other choice. And as long as we continue to have a military composed of individuals that ‘chose’ to serve, meaning they signed a contract and willfully serve the country, then we will always have manning issues. Simply because you either do a really good job of making the military and war fighting appealing to potential recruits, or you lose them to the private sector. An all volunteer force concept works great during peace time or during the successful periods of a war campaign, but when there are multiple wars and a multitude of chances of dying or getting wounded on the battlefield, the whole military idea becomes less attractive–and especially when you ask a recruit to sign four years of their life away for the war effort.
It is the freedom of choice that we are talking about here. Our leaders do not have the courage to take away that freedom of choice and implement a draft. Because of the legacy of our war in Vietnam, that required a draft to raise an army, is what I am referring to here as the example. The draft is political suicide, and many politicians out there are not willing to implement that tool to raise an army.
They are also not willing to accept the costs of raising such an army. With contracting, it is easier to bypass the political risk that goes along with increasing troop levels for wars that continue to drag on and on. With contracting, it can be wrapped up in all sorts of budget deals, and companies can subcontract to get the mission accomplished.
Not to mention the political costs of when a soldier dies, versus when a contractor dies. I have noted that over 2600 contractors have been killed in this war, and probably more if there was an accurate accounting of all private sacrifices. That is 2600 less folks that politicians had to answer for with their constituents. Not to mention all the wounded, and all the folks from numerous countries from all around the world that have contributed to the contractor work force. It is a sacrifice that barely registers with the tax paying and voting public.
Then of course there are the politics of war fighting. At the height of the Iraq war, when everyone was wanting to pull out and give up, it was contractors that were able to step up and fill in the necessary man power requirements while congress tried to figure out what they wanted to do. And also, that surge of military force could more focus on combat operations as opposed to kitchen duty or guard duty at some camp. That is a huge strategic asset for a war planner, because if he could not depend on contractors for that support, then they would have had to go to congress and ask for even more troops.
Probably one of the most significant contributions in this war, is the legion of contracted interpreters. Without them, our US troops would be nowhere with this war in Iraq or Afghanistan. These contractors are also on the front lines, participating in the offense and defense by default. They are also dying and getting wounded right there with the US troops and coalition partners. Oh, and without contracted interpreters, we would have never have gotten as far as we had with the hunt for Usama Bin Laden. Someone had to interpret the Arabic or Pashtun materials and statements over the years, and yet no one mentioned in the hearings as to how important their contribution has been?
Even the surge in Afghanistan couldn’t happen with out the support of contractors, and war planners know it. But just imagine if war planners had to go to congress and instead of asking for 50,000 extra troops, they had to ask for 100,000 or 200,000? The sticker shock for 50,000 troops would freak out congress, and just imagine if they had to ask for twice or three times that? That is why contractors are a strategic asset. I also imagine that the war would have definitely turned out differently without this highly flexible and scalable work force and strategic asset called contractors.
Finally, there is the precedence that continues to be forgotten by all the experts that speak to congress about what is inherently governmental. In the constitution there is proof positive of the US government’s use of a private offense industry during times of war in the form of Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 11 (or the Letter of Marque and Reprisal). We used privateers for offensive operations against our enemies, and it wasn’t a one time deal either. We heavily used privateers in both the Revolutionary War and War of 1812, and back then they were a strategic asset of those wars. That is what we used to go up against the world’s best navy at the time called the British Royal Navy. It was also the most cost effective use of private force for war time that I can think of.
Privateers were a part of the US government’s early use of ‘offense industry’ to not only destroy it’s enemies, but to also profit from the destruction of an enemy. It was also a way of raising man power at sea in a very rapid and scalable way, and involving the innovations and enterprising ways of private industry during times of war. Did I mention that congress issued 1700 Letters of Marque during the War of 1812 and that our country’s founding father Thomas Jefferson was a huge supporter of the concept? And yet this precedence continues to be conveniently forgotten and cast aside as insignificant at these hearings.
One final thing. There are examples of private industry being used in modern times as well, that would certainly helped to define what is ‘inherently governmental’. The awarding of the Medal of Honor to a civilian contractor named William Cody during the Indian Wars is significant to this discussion. The US allowing Claire Chennault and his Flying Tigers to conduct offensive operations for another country for the destruction of a mutual enemy, is another example of what I am talking about. The US endorsing the private volunteers that went to Israel to support their wars and raise their army and navy was significant. Even the issuing of a license by the Department of State to MPRI for giving key strategic guidance to the Croatians during the Balkan conflict would be considered a precedence as to what is ‘inherently governmental’.
Perhaps instead of dwelling on trying to erase or re-invent history with this ‘inherently governmental’ debate, we should instead invent a new definition as to what the defense of national security is? Because from where I stand, contractors have been extremely important to national security and to this country’s survival over the years, and yet folks are still wanting to destroy this strategic asset or weaken it. To me, all things must be considered during times of war, to include all and any means of using private industry. We had a good fix on that in the past, and yet with all of our modernity and current technologies, we are still incredibly ignorant and naive as to what kind of asset private industry can be during times of war. That is my thoughts on the matter. –Matt
Role of security contractors debated at hearing
By SARAH CHACKO
May 2, 2011
Contractor groups are taking issue with a commission’s recommendation to restrict the government’s use of private security workers.
“You don’t need James Bond to guard a gate,” Doug Brooks, president of the International Stability Operations Association, said during a Commission on Wartime Contracting meeting. “You need somebody who’s professional and disciplined and following the rules.”
The commission recommended in its February interim report to Congress that agencies should provide their own personnel for security operations.
Agencies are being forced to use contractors because of limited resources, commissioners said during Monday’s open comment session.
“At the average place, at the average government facility, it’s okay to have private security contractors,” said commissioner Robert Henke. “But in some places they’re so important that you want absolute government control and government performance.”
Commission chairman Chris Shays said it is illegal but not criminal for agencies to use contractors for work that is considered to be inherently governmental.
Professional Services Counsel Vice President and counsel Alan Chvotkin said agencies should not be confined by terms like “inherently governmental.” If an agency does not have the employees for its security needs, it should be able to use contractors until it is able to reallocate resources.
Center for American Progress visiting fellow Pratap Chatterjee said his visits to police training centers in Afghanistan show that some work might better be done by a federal force.
Aghan police officials didn’t have systems to track guns and ammunition supplied by the United States. The Government Accountability Office and legislative committees have cited incidents with tracking guns and problems with private security force abuses.
Chatterjee said he also worked on a report in 2006 that revealed the private security company United States Protection and Investigations was hiring local criminals to protect USAID construction contractors in Afghanistan, supplying money and weapons to “some of the worst elements of society.” Since then, co-owners of USPI pled guilty to defrauding the government.
“We do not often know who we are hiring,” Chatterjee said. “We don’t know if they are qualified, we don’t know if they paid bribes to get their jobs, we don’t know what they do with their weapons, and we have no way to find out.”
A qualified federal force would be better than relying on former state police and park rangers to train officers in a warzone, some of whom are illiterate, he said.
Chvotkin said it is unlikely that government could grow enough to do the tasks currently performed by contractors.
The Congressional Budget Office, Government Accountability Office and others have shown that kind of growth would be prohibitively expensive, Chvotkin said. Contingency operations also fluctuate constantly in scope and pace, lending the work to temporary, not permanent, jobs, he said.
Shays said the recommendation in the February report was just a “warning” that the issue would be revisited in the commission’s final report to Congress in July.
“We’re going to try to come to some sort of helpful conclusion on it,” he said.
Story here.