So here is one that you won’t hear discussed out there. What happens when NATO falters or members leave unexpectedly, as the war drags on? Each country in NATO has it’s own set of politics back home, and like most countries, they can get into a position where support for operations overseas just diminishes. Call it the economy, or media/activist groups, unexpected rise in war deaths, natural disasters, Black Swan events, etc. An example would be the Dutch, and their sudden switch-a-roo/’I am out of here’ move in Afghanistan. I didn’t see that one coming, but that is exactly what I am talking about. So who is next in NATO? And most of all, who will take up their slack, if the war effort depends upon those troops?
Well for one, my pick is contractors. Mostly because we are the fastest means of filling that vacuum, and we do the least at disrupting the mechanics of the war machine. Especially if the Dutch were tasked with training or menial/defensive operations. Or the coalition can play the game where they rob Peter, to pay Paul, and shift forces from one vital mission, to fill another vital mission. Kind of like with the Georgian conflict with Russia, and how those Georgian troops had to leave Iraq immediately to respond to a crisis in their homeland. The US military had to scramble to backfill, and problems like this cause vacuums in all sorts of places in the war machine. Especially if contractors are already doing the menial jobs out there–meaning troops are already filling vital positions in the war. So you take troops from one effort, and move them to another– it has an impact on the machine.
I also say contractors are a good choice for this ‘vacuum plug’ when it comes to non-offensive operations. If that member nation was tasked with training, convoy operations, PSD or static security, then contractors could easily be called upon to fill that vacuum so the rest of the war machine continues to function properly. Hell, I could put a call out on this blog for a small army, have them vetted, tell them to bring their own kit, secure weapons/vehicles/living quarters/ID cards/licenses and deploy them into Afghanistan to fill those PSD/convoy/static positions quicker than you can say ‘Eric Cartman’. People would be amazed at how quickly security contractors could be spun up, and especially if a company has the resources to do a quick spin up. (and most companies do)
Of course it would be ideal to use military forces to fill these instant voids, and in most cases they do. But my question is how could they possible act as fast as a private company, or how could this not impact another vital mission they are performing? Now the military can do stuff like divert troops from one country, to the other, or do an early deployment for a incoming unit, but yet again, this is taking from one vital mission, to fill another. To me, it makes more sense to not disrupt that harmony of planning, and just contract a company to step in. Especially for the defensive operational stuff. (military replacement is the only option for offensive related ops at this time)
Using contractors can even buy military planners some time to actually assemble a military team to fill in that hole. Another way to look at it, is that we are the 50 mph tape for a hole in the fuel line, so that we can get the car back home. Then at home, we can replace the fuel line. It does not make sense, to disable the brakes and use a chunk of brake line to repair the fuel line. Or you could use a vacuum line to repair the fuel line, but yet again, the engine will not run correctly– if at all.
Now to wrap this up.(pun intended-lol) The point of it all is that when I hear guys like Senator Levin slam private contractors in one hearing, and then in another quote, he whines about NATO not having enough troops to do the training in Afghanistan, I have to think that politically speaking he is saying one thing, but realistically speaking he has to know that contractors are vital to the war effort. Because as more NATO folks leave, do to political turmoil, the economy, or some Black Swan event back home, contractors are gonna be as vital to the war machine tool box, as a roll of 50mph tape. –Matt
——————————————————————
The ever handy roll of 50mph tape.
More Military Trainers Needed in Afghanistan
Coalition forces pressed to fill gap in trainers needed to help growing Afghan Army and Police forces
Al Pessin
09 March 2010
The U.S. Navy admiral who commands all NATO forces worldwide says he and the alliance secretary general are pressing each member to fulfill a specific part of the shortfall in military trainers in Afghanistan. The admiral spoke at a U.S. Senate hearing, where senior members from both parties criticized NATO allies for the shortage.Admiral James Stavridis gave the Senate Armed Services Committee specific numbers. He said the NATO-run command in Afghanistan needed 1,278 trainers for the growing Afghan Army and Police forces, but it has so far received only 541 – a shortfall of 737.”It is absolutely correct to say that NATO has fallen short in providing these vital trainers. What we are doing about it is taking further steps in terms of contacting each of the nations individually and going one-by-one through the precise requirement for each of the nations in terms of where they could most effectively fill in the trainer mix,” Stavridis said.The shortage of trainers comes at a time when Afghan Army recruiting is sharply up, due in part to a significant salary increase the Kabul government implemented late last year.The committee chairman, Democrat Carl Levin, said the training commander in Afghanistan told him some of the Afghan recruits cannot enter the army immediately due to the lack of trainers.”That is totally unacceptable, almost unbelievable to me, that we can not get NATO allies to carry out that kind of commitment, which is not the most dangerous. There is obviously danger anywhere, but compared to being in combat it falls well short of that,” Levin said.