I hit someone today. No, not with a vehicle and not with a right hook. I was walking out an outside door that swung out and it hit the leg of a middle aged (about 50 year old) contractor who was in his running attire walking in front of the door opening. I immediately said "Excuse me, I'm so sorry. Are you ok?" All did was to hop around on one leg and scream out two word explicative curses in my general direction. After about fifteen seconds of this nonsense, I turned my back and waled away from this cry baby.
We have a number of civilians working with us in combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some are DoD employees that fill slots not covered by Military personnel such as the PX, DFAS, USACE, DLA, etc. (you can look up those acronyms yourself) Others are contractors who perform critical functions that allow Military personnel who normally don't work in potential combat related roles to become freed up for more combat support forces. There was a great comedy/satire movie that came out about this a few years ago called "War Inc."
Before I go further, let me caveat that I have a number of contractor friends who I personally like and respect very much. The things that I say are not directed to contractors as individuals personally. With that being said...
There is an underlying resentment from Service Members towards contractors in combat zones. It stems mainly from the pay issue where we see contractors getting paid 2-10x what we do at the same to less amount of workload, typically in less danger, and often with better accommodations. More times than not, contractors are former Service Members who have either retired or left after a few years in to return doing in some cases a similar job with the same basic skill sets. Noting that a contractor does cannot be replicated by a Service Member if properly trained as they are.
What probably infuriates me the most is when I see proposals for bringing in contractors and the amounts that the Government is willing to pay to have them serve with us. Without divulging numbers that could be confidential, we spend literally millions on civilian contractors by paying some corporation hundreds of thousands of dollars to provide a person for one year. Those companies in turn provide a body, paying them half or less than what the Government paid them for that resource. Keep in mind that the typical contractor makes well over $100k per year, and many make several hundred thousand per year. If you double that or more, you're looking at the figure that the Government pays for temporary labor in a combat zone. We all see the waste that goes on such as reckless Government spending for no bid contracts, overpaid contractors, squandered reconstruction money, and other situations bordering on fraud, waste, and abuse.
I don't blame the contractors themselves. They're just looking for good money in a bad economy. And to look at it alternately, would we rather that American tax dollars go to Americans or foreign workers? After all, since this is an all volunteer Military, if the Government can't get enough volunteers to sign up for service, they can recruit private civilians with money. We have enough we can spend pretty frivolously right?
More to follow.
We have a number of civilians working with us in combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some are DoD employees that fill slots not covered by Military personnel such as the PX, DFAS, USACE, DLA, etc. (you can look up those acronyms yourself) Others are contractors who perform critical functions that allow Military personnel who normally don't work in potential combat related roles to become freed up for more combat support forces. There was a great comedy/satire movie that came out about this a few years ago called "War Inc."
Before I go further, let me caveat that I have a number of contractor friends who I personally like and respect very much. The things that I say are not directed to contractors as individuals personally. With that being said...
There is an underlying resentment from Service Members towards contractors in combat zones. It stems mainly from the pay issue where we see contractors getting paid 2-10x what we do at the same to less amount of workload, typically in less danger, and often with better accommodations. More times than not, contractors are former Service Members who have either retired or left after a few years in to return doing in some cases a similar job with the same basic skill sets. Noting that a contractor does cannot be replicated by a Service Member if properly trained as they are.
What probably infuriates me the most is when I see proposals for bringing in contractors and the amounts that the Government is willing to pay to have them serve with us. Without divulging numbers that could be confidential, we spend literally millions on civilian contractors by paying some corporation hundreds of thousands of dollars to provide a person for one year. Those companies in turn provide a body, paying them half or less than what the Government paid them for that resource. Keep in mind that the typical contractor makes well over $100k per year, and many make several hundred thousand per year. If you double that or more, you're looking at the figure that the Government pays for temporary labor in a combat zone. We all see the waste that goes on such as reckless Government spending for no bid contracts, overpaid contractors, squandered reconstruction money, and other situations bordering on fraud, waste, and abuse.
I don't blame the contractors themselves. They're just looking for good money in a bad economy. And to look at it alternately, would we rather that American tax dollars go to Americans or foreign workers? After all, since this is an all volunteer Military, if the Government can't get enough volunteers to sign up for service, they can recruit private civilians with money. We have enough we can spend pretty frivolously right?
More to follow.
It seems to me that the only real alternatives are either to start reducing US military presence all over the globe (not just Iraq and Afghanistan) or to reinstate a draft and get rid of the "all volunteer" premise. I hate to find myself saying this for the first time now that I am at an age well beyond draft material, but I'm so opposed to the "business" of waging war that I think the draft system was probably better. I also think there is truth in the notion that the public would have never stood for the 'Stan conflict to have dragged on this long.
ReplyDelete