Well duh! It all makes sense now. CNAS comes out with a report on contractors, fully supporting our use and the future use of contractors in our wars, and now DoS wants to form a ‘mini-army’?(well…. they’ve always had a mini-contractor army)
And the ‘monopoly of force’ argument gets another challenge by none other than…… the US Department of State? Max Weber is rolling in his grave as we speak. lol (I had to stick that one in there…)
I am also reminded of the scenes of Air America rescuing South Vietnamese and American civilians off of the roof top during the last days of the Vietnam War. That was a contractor air force that did that, and not a military one. The idea here is that contractors are the filler during the dangerous stages of a draw down or build up of a war. We can fill those gaps of operational need, and as fast as they come up. Private industry is flexible enough to do this, and account for the surprises or worse yet, poor planning of the war.
Even with natural disasters like the BP spill in the gulf, you must have a partnership between private and public forces in order to meet the operational requirements of the disaster. When the feds run out of a specific resource, or let’s say a disaster has done something completely unexpected, private industry can instantly address the problem. Or in some cases, the federal government can jump in and take over where private industry is faltering. The key to me is to find some kind of equilibrium within that war or disaster, where we reach the sweet spot of private and public partnership. –Matt
Edit: 6/14/2010- I would like to correct one of the things I mentioned in this post that one of my readers brought to my attention as partially wrong. During the draw down stage of the Vietnam war, this was largely a military effort. So I want to emphasize that the military did most of the heavy lifting, and Air America ‘assisted’ in that process. Or in other words, it was a team effort, with the military taking the lead. Here is a run down of Operation Frequent Wind, as just one example of that process.
Also, check this out. The author of this article changed the title of the thing. The content is the same. I will bet that he got some heat for putting together this original title below. The new one says “State Dept Wants Combat Gear For Security In Iraq”. Just a tad bit less flowery or sensationalistic than the original. lol
————————————————–
This BAE Caiman is what the DoS is requesting for their security force. They want 50. They also want 24 Blackhawk Helicopters.
State wants to form a mini-army for Iraq security
By RICHARD LARDNER
June 14, 2010
WASHINGTON — The State Department is quietly forming a small army to protect diplomatic personnel in Iraq after U.S. military forces leave the country at the end of 2011, taking their firepower with them.
Department officials are asking the Pentagon to provide heavy military gear, including Black Hawk helicopters, and say they will also need substantial support from private contractors.
The shopping list demonstrates the department’s reluctance to count on Iraq’s army and police forces for security despite the billions of dollars the U.S. invested to equip and train them. And it shows that President Barack Obama is having a hard time keeping his pledge to reduce U.S. reliance on contractors, a practice that flourished under the Bush administration.
In an early April request to the Pentagon, Patrick Kennedy, the State Department’s under secretary for management, is seeking 24 Black Hawks, 50 bomb-resistant vehicles, heavy cargo trucks, fuel trailers, and high-tech surveillance systems. Kennedy asks that the equipment, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, be transferred at “no cost” from military stocks.
Contractors will be needed to maintain the gear and provide other support to diplomatic staff, according to the State Department, a potential financial boon for companies such as the Houston-based KBR Inc. that still have a sizable presence in Iraq.