Welcome to Gaia! ::

Quote:
KABUL, Afghanistan — Even dying is being outsourced here.

This is a war where traditional military jobs, from mess hall cooks to base guards and convoy drivers, have increasingly been shifted to the private sector. Many American generals and diplomats have private contractors for their personal bodyguards. And along with the risks have come the consequences: More civilian contractors working for American companies than American soldiers died in Afghanistan last year for the first time during the war.

American employers here are under no obligation to publicly report the deaths of their employees and frequently do not. While the military announces the names of all its war dead, private companies routinely notify only family members. Most of the contractors die unheralded and uncounted — and in some cases, leave their survivors uncompensated.

“By continuing to outsource high-risk jobs that were previously performed by soldiers, the military, in effect, is privatizing the ultimate sacrifice,” said Steven L. Schooner, a law professor at George Washington University who has studied the civilian casualties issue.

Last year, at least 430 employees of American contractors were reported killed in Afghanistan: 386 working for the Defense Department, 43 for the United States Agency for International Development and one for the State Department, according to data provided by the American Embassy in Kabul and publicly available in part from the United States Department of Labor.

By comparison, 418 American soldiers died in Afghanistan last year, according to Defense Department statistics compiled by icasualties.org, an independent organization that monitors war deaths.

That trend has been growing for the past several years in Afghanistan, and it parallels a similar trend in Iraq, where contractor deaths exceeded military deaths as long ago as 2009. In Iraq, however, that took place as the number of American troops was being drastically reduced until their complete withdrawal at the end of last year. And last year, more soldiers than private contractors died in Iraq (54 compared with 41, according to Labor Department figures).



For the first time, more American civilian contractors died in Afghanistan than soldiers.
Last year 430 contractors died versus 418 American soldiers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46357483/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/#.TzdgafldBzo

I've heard a lot of current and former serving soldiers say how it's upsetting to see these guys get paid so much more than they do. And often times, horrible attrocities being committed by PMC's got blamed on US army soldiers or marines. I've also seen a few comments by people that we shouldn't feel sorry for them, since they willingly go over there and get paid a lot of money. Still though, the whole enterprise feels rather sad.

Besides the allegations of joykilling and abuses with Blackwater/Xe, child prostitution by Dyncorp, abuses by KBR, etc...now that the US combat role in Iraq is over and Afghanistan is winding down it seems like the majority of combat roles may indeed come from the private sector as all sorts of non combat military roles have now gone to pmc's. (both construction/equipment and armed guard services had been a part of both wars since the beginning)

Thoughts on outsourcing so many roles to PMC's? The danger they face/versus how much more money they make than military personnel, as well as thoughts on their exclusive use in conflicts?

In the popular video game series Metal Gear Solid, by #4 and the upcoming Metal Gear Rising conflicts are mostly fought between PMC's and corporations.


*note: The majority of contractor deaths seem to be of non combatant roles, like catering/delivery/communications, etc.

Quote:
The biggest contractor in terms of war zone deaths is apparently the defense giant L-3 Communications. If L-3 were a country, it would have the third highest loss of life in Afghanistan as well as in Iraq; only the United States and Britain would exceed it in fatalities.

Over the past 10 years, L-3 and its subsidiaries, including Titan Corporation and MPRI Inc., had at least 370 workers killed and 1,789 seriously wounded or injured through the end of 2011 in Iraq and Afghanistan, records show. In a statement, a spokeswoman for L-3, Jennifer Barton, said: “L-3 is proud to have the opportunity to support the U.S. and coalition efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. We mourn the loss of life of these dedicated men and women.”

Other American companies with a high number of fatalities are Supreme Group, a catering company, with 241 dead through the end of 2011; Service Employees International, another catering company, with 125 dead; and security companies like DynCorps (101 dead), Aegis (86 dead) and Hart Group (63 dead). In all, according to Labor Department data, 64 American companies have lost more than seven employees each in the past 10 years.
Mercenaries have been around for as long as Humans have been at war. A few hundred years ago, third party contractors would handle all of an army's needs and mercenaries would make up a good percentage of the available soldiers.

Most are extremely professional, get the job done and are far more experienced than your every day grunt/squady but are typically older and/or suffer with some sort of illness etc that prohibits them from joining the regular army. They are expensive but I think it's worth it and can be justified in most cases.

The U.S's use of private security firms and contractors is questionable, they wasted vast amounts of money employing less than reputable individuals doing jobs that could of easily been completed by an efficient regular army. It started out as a great idea, reducing the burden on the U.S. army by employing third party organisations but quickly got out of hand.
LSD TV's avatar
  • 150
  • 50
  • 50
I don't know what to think but I'm pretty sure I don't like it. Things like this encourage war/violence that is not army to army or country to country and could eventually lead to diminished sovereignty of smaller, less powerful states.
Touching Hair
Mercenaries have been around for as long as Humans have been at war. A few hundred years ago, third party contractors would handle all of an army's needs and mercenaries would make up a good percentage of the available soldiers.

Most are extremely professional, get the job done and are far more experienced than your every day grunt/squady but are typically older and/or suffer with some sort of illness etc that prohibits them from joining the regular army. They are expensive but I think it's worth it and can be justified in most cases.

The U.S's use of private security firms and contractors is questionable, they wasted vast amounts of money employing less than reputable individuals doing jobs that could of easily been completed by an efficient regular army. It started out as a great idea, reducing the burden on the U.S. army by employing third party organisations but quickly got out of hand.

Um, yeah. This is pretty much what I was gonna say.

Here's a question I'd like answered: When did the mercenary profession become "frowned upon"? Was it before the s**t hit the fan with companies like Blackwater and DynCorps? Like T. Hair said, mercenaries and war are kind of the default combo meal, if you get what I mean.

Quote:
Other American companies with a high number of fatalities are Supreme Group, a catering company, with 241 dead through the end of 2011; Service Employees International, another catering company, with 125 dead; and security companies like DynCorps (101 dead), Aegis (86 dead) and Hart Group (63 dead). In all, according to Labor Department data, 64 American companies have lost more than seven employees each in the past 10 years.


Wait a minute, why the hell is DynCorp still being hired by the US (to the tune of nearly $3 billion I might add), after all the s**t that's happened thanks to its employees?
I'd like to start this off by pointing out that the vast majority of DoD contractors (of which I am one) do not carry weapons or have anything whatsoever to do with combat arms. Most of us are skilled and unskilled laborers who handle things that grunts do not have the know-how or time to take care of.

Contractors are the most cost effective way for the US and it's allies to handle temporary duties overseas. Base fit-up, security detail for temp locations or for dignitaries on very short-term visits and other such jobs would be very expensive to push on the regular military.

Here's why:

The cost of a cleared communications tech in Afghanistan is between 250-350k per year, cost to government. The individuals themselves typically get paid 150-180k of that. That is the end of the cost to government.

To pay an E-5 to do the same job would be around 40k per year in cash compensation, plus the cost of feeding them, plus the cost of their healthcare, plus the cost of putting him through basic and his advanced schools, plus the cost of getting him the certifications he required (I had two and they were 4800 a piece,) plus the cost of continuing to employ him after the job you needed him to do was completed. To get said Marine up to the technical level of the average contractor also requires a certain amount of time, to include the workup exercises prior to deployment (which are not cheap.)

And then you have to consider the long term costs of his retirement (if he does 20 years) and/or his disability (even if he doesn't.) All of that can easily add up to over two million dollars over the course of a Marine's time in service and beyond.

It's just a lot cheaper, if the task at hand is a short-term one, to hire a contractor.

I also should point out that the vast, overwhelming majority of us are veterans of either the armed services or other government agencies. We all love our country and contribute to the war effort in the best way we know how, and those overseas often pay the ultimate price along-side their enlisted brethren. The fact that we get paid more to do so is not unjust, it is simply a reflection of the fact that unless you're an indentured servant, and that's exactly what enlisted men are, no one in their right mind would go to that death-trap hellhole for less than 100 grand.
Disa Uniflora's avatar
  • 100
  • 200
  • 100
Bang hookers in the Philippines, install televisions for 50+ dollars an hour, game medical disability, BE A PROUD PATRIOT! The closest Unami's ever come to an overseas 'death-trap hellhole' would be that one prostitute with male and female genitalia. Worst 20 pesos ever spent.
Disa Uniflora
Bang hookers in the Philippines, install televisions for 50+ dollars an hour, game medical disability, BE A PROUD PATRIOT! The closest Unami's ever come to an overseas 'death-trap hellhole' would be that one prostitute with male and female genitalia. Worst 20 pesos ever spent.

You mad bro?
Disa Uniflora's avatar
  • 100
  • 200
  • 100
Chains4w
Disa Uniflora
Bang hookers in the Philippines, install televisions for 50+ dollars an hour, game medical disability, BE A PROUD PATRIOT! The closest Unami's ever come to an overseas 'death-trap hellhole' would be that one prostitute with male and female genitalia. Worst 20 pesos ever spent.

You mad bro?

Yeah, but I can wait.
19 yr old Political Geek
Touching Hair
Mercenaries have been around for as long as Humans have been at war. A few hundred years ago, third party contractors would handle all of an army's needs and mercenaries would make up a good percentage of the available soldiers.

Most are extremely professional, get the job done and are far more experienced than your every day grunt/squady but are typically older and/or suffer with some sort of illness etc that prohibits them from joining the regular army. They are expensive but I think it's worth it and can be justified in most cases.

The U.S's use of private security firms and contractors is questionable, they wasted vast amounts of money employing less than reputable individuals doing jobs that could of easily been completed by an efficient regular army. It started out as a great idea, reducing the burden on the U.S. army by employing third party organisations but quickly got out of hand.

Um, yeah. This is pretty much what I was gonna say.

Here's a question I'd like answered: When did the mercenary profession become "frowned upon"? Was it before the s**t hit the fan with companies like Blackwater and DynCorps? Like T. Hair said, mercenaries and war are kind of the default combo meal, if you get what I mean.

Quote:
Other American companies with a high number of fatalities are Supreme Group, a catering company, with 241 dead through the end of 2011; Service Employees International, another catering company, with 125 dead; and security companies like DynCorps (101 dead), Aegis (86 dead) and Hart Group (63 dead). In all, according to Labor Department data, 64 American companies have lost more than seven employees each in the past 10 years.


Wait a minute, why the hell is DynCorp still being hired by the US (to the tune of nearly $3 billion I might add), after all the s**t that's happened thanks to its employees?


Apparently running child rape rings across Bosnia and Afghanistan with the UN isn't enough to get defunded.

Now I notice the majority of those killed seemed to be in non security/non combat related PMC's. Like food catering, or consulting/communications/construction. I do feel very bad for these folks and their families. Much easier for me to feel bad for them than say some CIA/blackwater guys sending drone missiles to muslim villages.
Chains4w
I'd like to start this off by pointing out that the vast majority of DoD contractors (of which I am one) do not carry weapons or have anything whatsoever to do with combat arms. Most of us are skilled and unskilled laborers who handle things that grunts do not have the know-how or time to take care of.

Contractors are the most cost effective way for the US and it's allies to handle temporary duties overseas. Base fit-up, security detail for temp locations or for dignitaries on very short-term visits and other such jobs would be very expensive to push on the regular military.


Well that's what I'm saying and that's what the article I've posted mentioned. While there was a lot of super expensive contracts and a big blackhole of wasted/unaccounted for money, much of the contracting work seems to be of the electrician/communications/consulting/food/construction/energy related kind. I believe I had read about some NGO deaths as well, and just people trying to help teach or provide basic needs to villages
pockybot
Chains4w
I'd like to start this off by pointing out that the vast majority of DoD contractors (of which I am one) do not carry weapons or have anything whatsoever to do with combat arms. Most of us are skilled and unskilled laborers who handle things that grunts do not have the know-how or time to take care of.

Contractors are the most cost effective way for the US and it's allies to handle temporary duties overseas. Base fit-up, security detail for temp locations or for dignitaries on very short-term visits and other such jobs would be very expensive to push on the regular military.


Well that's what I'm saying and that's what the article I've posted mentioned. While there was a lot of super expensive contracts and a big blackhole of wasted/unaccounted for money, much of the contracting work seems to be of the electrician/communications/consulting/food/construction/energy related kind. I believe I had read about some NGO deaths as well, and just people trying to help teach or provide basic needs to villages


There is a difference between Private Military Companies and DoD contractors. I'd've expected you to catch Chains4w's error.

PMCs are military outfits. DoD contractors are people with trade skills who work for the military. And they pay rather nice, too. I'd never take a job but they make up the bulk of DoD job offerings on USAJobs.
The Living Force
pockybot
Chains4w
I'd like to start this off by pointing out that the vast majority of DoD contractors (of which I am one) do not carry weapons or have anything whatsoever to do with combat arms. Most of us are skilled and unskilled laborers who handle things that grunts do not have the know-how or time to take care of.

Contractors are the most cost effective way for the US and it's allies to handle temporary duties overseas. Base fit-up, security detail for temp locations or for dignitaries on very short-term visits and other such jobs would be very expensive to push on the regular military.


Well that's what I'm saying and that's what the article I've posted mentioned. While there was a lot of super expensive contracts and a big blackhole of wasted/unaccounted for money, much of the contracting work seems to be of the electrician/communications/consulting/food/construction/energy related kind. I believe I had read about some NGO deaths as well, and just people trying to help teach or provide basic needs to villages


There is a difference between Private Military Companies and DoD contractors. I'd've expected you to catch Chains4w's error.

PMCs are military outfits. DoD contractors are people with trade skills who work for the military. And they pay rather nice, too. I'd never take a job but they make up the bulk of DoD job offerings on USAJobs.

If you'd read his initial post you would've seen he was referencing all contractors, to include those in food service and communications.
Chains4w
The Living Force
pockybot
Chains4w
I'd like to start this off by pointing out that the vast majority of DoD contractors (of which I am one) do not carry weapons or have anything whatsoever to do with combat arms. Most of us are skilled and unskilled laborers who handle things that grunts do not have the know-how or time to take care of.

Contractors are the most cost effective way for the US and it's allies to handle temporary duties overseas. Base fit-up, security detail for temp locations or for dignitaries on very short-term visits and other such jobs would be very expensive to push on the regular military.


Well that's what I'm saying and that's what the article I've posted mentioned. While there was a lot of super expensive contracts and a big blackhole of wasted/unaccounted for money, much of the contracting work seems to be of the electrician/communications/consulting/food/construction/energy related kind. I believe I had read about some NGO deaths as well, and just people trying to help teach or provide basic needs to villages


There is a difference between Private Military Companies and DoD contractors. I'd've expected you to catch Chains4w's error.

PMCs are military outfits. DoD contractors are people with trade skills who work for the military. And they pay rather nice, too. I'd never take a job but they make up the bulk of DoD job offerings on USAJobs.

If you'd read his initial post you would've seen he was referencing all contractors, to include those in food service and communications.
This is what I get for glimpsing over Pocky's post and making assumptions. My apologies. gonk
Having people licensed on an official national agenda in a foreign country is not bad per se, if the contractor can be shown to operate within the same boundaries and be as accountable as the military in combatant and non-combatant roles. They've failed that. Of the few reports that have surfaced, we find a rap sheet containing some of the most abominable crimes known to man. This is not the end of the world, however, since they are private companies, all the government has to do to wash their hands of such atrocities is to cease working with them.

They failed that too. Now the cherished contractor has acted as an emissary of their nation, its representative, and what it has done is to rape women and children, kill families, and torture men with no punishment even being mentioned. No cessation of contract, nothing. The signals that have been sent with that action is a disturbing and ominous one.
I have no problem with DoDs.

Where I have a problem is with PMCs.

PMCs became unpopular when warring and ******** the s**t out of other nations became unpopular.

Mainly I find PMCs to be a part of that ever fabled "military industrial complex".

The idea of hired gunmen who are used to shoot and kill just...does not sound nice to me. It's a group of people who specifically profit off of the state waging war and killing people. Any PMC will want war for the sake of its own profits.

As with many other industries... you don't want this industry privatised because you don't want a war economy. You don't want a war economy because you don't want an economy which is reliant upon blowing the s**t out of people. Because wars are costly and unpopular. That and lobbyist groups for more war are annoying.

Oh and the fact that you would need a permanent war economy eventually.

It's something that has come up a couple of times. The idea that if you lower your military spending than you will have alot of unemployed soldiers which will increase unemployment (which is why some argue you can't lower military spending now).
The solution then becomes to keep them around consistantly and have them do things. What do you have them do? Kill more and war more.
Why? Because if they don't the unemployment rate will increase.

That being said, this tends to go against what happened in the past...what with the Post WWII Boom. But that's getting into something else.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff