What do you mean?
Yeah, profits are a bad thing. God forbid. How about who gets the most “value”?
**What do you mean? **
I mean that I don’t believe the administration cares a whit about whether privatizing all this stuff is cheaper or not- they only care that their pals in the defense industry make mad money. “Outsourcing” all this work to private contractors puts a lot of money in corporate pockets, and that’s what matters.
We finally agree on something.
Actually, I think they at least pay lip service to things being cheaper. I don’t know if they have any real idea whether it’s true or not, but I’m quite certain the private contractors know their economics inside and out.
I guess being CEO of Halliburton is good work if you can get it. Or at least know how to get it.
“Outsourcing all this work to private contractors puts a lot of money in corporate pockets…”
Yeah, so. And the Government benefits all the same. By and large, defense contractors provide a high level of service to their Government customer.
I think they at least pay lip service to things being cheaper.
Oh, they pay *plenty *of lip service to it. I just think they’re lying.
I don’t know if they have any real idea whether it’s true or not, but I’m quite certain the private contractors know their economics inside and out.
I think the administration knows the economics of it just about as well as the contractors do- some key players in the admin *were *the contractors not all that long ago.
Yeah, so.
Well, call me crazy, but I don’t think warfare should be a capitalist enterprise. I don’t think war should be a means of profit. I don’t think private companies should be making mad money doing the military’s job(s). I don’t think we should be hiring what amount to expensive mercenaries at the same time we’re cutting the VA’s budget.
I know, I know- I’m a red socialist.
Just clueless.
Enlighten me. (And you don’t by any chance know a guy named Elwood, do you?)
War has always been big business. Just look at armament, aerospace, and other defense contractors.
The key question for me is, what is the point of turning what was formerly a non-profit segment of the economy (soldiers and the actual military itself) and converting it into a for-profit enterprise? Should the taxpayers be paying to provide somebody an equity return when this was formerly not an expense? And why can’t the military at least theoretically become efficient enough to put these guys out of business?
Obviously, the contractors will respond that they can provide the goods cheaper, and therefore its a win/win for the American taxpayer. I’d personally like to see audited P&Ls before making that assessment personally. Somehow I’m not willing just to take Dick Cheney’s word for it.
But that aside, your other point is cogent as well - is there a moral/ethical component to this which gives you pause when considering whether wars should be fought by what are essentially mercenaries? I don’t necessarily have a problem with things like latrine cleaning and food preparation being outsourced, but when you have outsourced actual field personnel carrying weapons, I think you have a very different situation. And when these private contractors are killed during their duty, are we obligated to pay the same tribute to them that we pay our own soldiers?
**I guess the interesting question is do you grant these security contractors (“mercenaries”) the same esteem you would grant, say, a Marine corporal. Why or why not? Other than of course the $1000/day that guy is billing to the US taxpayer. **
Hey…don’t knock these cats. When my airline finally goes bankrupt and out of business, I might try to line up a gig with 'em. I’ve gotta put all that old, outdated and totally useless special warfare experience I have back to work and make that thousand bucks a day. It’s the American way, dude.
T.
**War has always been big business. Just look at armament, aerospace, and other defense contractors. **
Yes, but there’s a difference between supplying materials for an army, and supplying an army.
what is the point of turning what was formerly a non-profit segment of the economy (soldiers and the actual military itself) and converting it into a for-profit enterprise?
Yeah, that says it better than I did.
Should the taxpayers be paying to provide somebody an equity return when this was formerly not an expense?
Absolutely not.
And why can’t the military at least theoretically become efficient enough to put these guys out of business?
I don’t know that the military isn’t that efficient. Like I said, I don’t think efficiency is a concern for the people making the decisions currently.’
is there a moral/ethical component to this which gives you pause when considering whether wars should be fought by what are essentially mercenaries?
I think it’s a sad comment on the state of patriotism in general when the question even needs to be asked. There are huge ethical components involved in moving towards a mercenary force. And no, I don’t think we’re obligated to pay them the same tribute we do to veterans. I’m pretty tired of hearing about how selfless, brace, idealistic, etc etc, these private contractors are. If they’re so freaking patriotic, why can’t they find they’re local recruiting station? If you’re carrying a gun for Blackwater, you’re not fighting for Iraq’s freedom, and you’re sure as hell not fighting for your country. You’re fighting for a fat bank account.
"what is the point of turning what was formerly a non-profit segment of the economy (soldiers and the actual military itself) and converting it into a for-profit enterprise? "
War has always had profit with it.
“Should the taxpayers be paying to provide somebody an equity return when this was formerly not an expense?”
When was way cheap? Can you put the question in another way?
"And why can’t the military at least theoretically become efficient enough to put these guys out of business? "
For what they do the military is incredibly efficient.
“is there a moral/ethical component to this which gives you pause when considering whether wars should be fought by what are essentially mercenaries?”
What is immoral about the contracters. Armies through out history have used mercenaries.
Now as far how is it cheaper to use mercenaries at a thousand dollars a day then our own guys comes down to training.
It takes us 10-12 years to train a good NCO. In that time we have had to train him, pay him, take care of his heath and his family it all adds up. A mercenary comes in already trained and all you do is assign.
There is no ethical problem.
The ethical problem comes in with there being yet another layer of abstraction between the military action and the voter.
I like for as many government activites to be as directly accountable to the citizenry as possible.
Where is the abstraction? An action performed by a contractor or military member is an action taken.
But after an action, who does a privately contracted soldier answer to?
This is the historical problem with mercenaries, the lack of accountability when compared to a military force run directly by the government. You have a group whose sole focus is on getting the job done and not getting the job done the right way.
We can be tough guys and say “Hey, whatever it takes” but that leads to nothing but barbarism and will, in the end, only create more problems than it solves.
The military is secretive enough as far as releasing information to the citizenry, we do not need yet another wall in the way.
Mercinaries hired by the US goverment are held accountable by the US goverment. These companies are not the jockstrap commandos of that worked in Africa during the 60s and 70s.
These companies are now ran for profit and you will not get the big contracts if your some physco who kills children and tortures people. Also you probably won’t believe this but not everyone who chooses a martial way of life is a horrible person who all wants blood.
Also you probably won’t believe this but not everyone who chooses a martial way of life is a horrible person who all wants blood.
Really? Because I don’t know anyone from the military. I dont even have ex-military in my family or anything. I would have no point of reference at all to think they are not all blood-thirsty killers.
Further, even thinking that in the military there are risks of these things happening and being covered up automatically means you assume all military members are blood-thirsty child rapists.
Yes, this logic is quite sound. Bulletproof, I say.
We are discussing mercenaries not the active military. So what are talking about?
**What do you mean? **
I mean that I don’t believe the administration cares a whit about whether privatizing all this stuff is cheaper or not- they only care that their pals in the defense industry make mad money. “Outsourcing” all this work to private contractors puts a lot of money in corporate pockets, and that’s what matters.
Not to mention the fact that any casualties that occur with contractors don’t accrue to the official body count, and that contractors who commit offenses in Iraq don’t seem to fall under any legal system (not ours, not Iraq’s) for prosecution). A lack of accountability.