previous post next post  

US(sorta)@War

By The Armorer on May 19, 2006 | | Comments (13)

5/18/2006 - -- Joseph Stutzman and Robert Attard, contractors from General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc., switch an AGM-114 Hellfire missile from one MQ-1 Predator to another on May 16, 2006, at Balad Air Base, Iraq. Mr. Stutzman and Mr. Attard are aircraft mechanics assigned to the 46th Expeditionary Aircraft Maintenance Unit. Contractors began replacing some military maintainers in February 2006, and recently took over as the primary mechanics for the Predator. (U.S. Air Force photo/Senior Airman Brian Ferguson)

5/18/2006 - -- Joseph Stutzman and Robert Attard, contractors from General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc., switch an AGM-114 Hellfire missile from one MQ-1 Predator to another on May 16, 2006, at Balad Air Base, Iraq. Mr. Stutzman and Mr. Attard are aircraft mechanics assigned to the 46th Expeditionary Aircraft Maintenance Unit. Contractors began replacing some military maintainers in February 2006, and recently took over as the primary mechanics for the Predator. (U.S. Air Force photo/Senior Airman Brian Ferguson)

Heh. At what point do we just let the troops go, and DoD becomes DoDCMA? Department of Defense Contract Management Agency?

Not an idle question, as this paper discusses.

Hey - *I'm* a contractor. I have a dog in this fight. But as I look around and see where contractors serve, and the rules under which they serve - I question both the aptness of using contractors for certain mission-critical functions - and the codicils in the contracts under which they function - to include ones where truly mission-critical infrastructure personnel are designated as NEO evacuees in the event of conflict, their jobs putatively taken over by their uniformed supervisors. Supervisors who, when I was watching them perform *their* duties, didn't seem to have much slack time to take on another, full-time, mission-critical task set.

Contractors aren't going away - and for many tasks they shouldn't - but where does the mission creep end? I see the appeal of contracting out a lot of essentially war-time only jobs to this Secretary of Defense - he doesn't want the increase in end-strength and force expansion/contraction issues (and long term expenses) that go with it - he can just hire what he wants off the market and run with it, and not take on the long term burden of permanent full-time (or even part-time) troops. He offloads the pension/medical/overhead issues to industry, only having to partially fund them while contracts are in force.

Whattaya think? This is a smart group.

Cross-posted at Milblogs.

Share This Article:

Share |

Categories:

13 Comments

By AFSister on May 19, 2006 8:05 AM
Are these actual civilian contractors, or Reservists hired as civilian contractors? My brother is both. He's in the Reserves and does his weekend duty in uniform, but during the week he does the same job- but as a contractor. This may not be as bad as it seems.
 
By John of Argghhh! on May 19, 2006 8:16 AM
The issue isn't exactly these guys, the pic just being the spark for discussion. It *still* raises the point of off-loading responsibility. Your brother gets hurt on the right weekend, he's eligible for VA benefits. He get's hurt on Tuesday, he's working through Workman's Comp. His protections are very different. Your brother also does this work in the US, right? When he's overseas, flying into the theater, he's in uniform with all the risks and coverages attendant thereto, right?
 
By BloodSpite on May 19, 2006 8:54 AM
Lets face it. As long as their are Contractors there will be Scope Creep. And as long as the civilians can do things the military can't and have access to different hardware, there will be Contractors. But your line of thought is a valid one. Reminds me of a Bad 70's movie where a millionaire got angry and decided to form, fund, and train his own private Army. Of course they were actors and the guns were solid gold, but he still an intresting premise Where will it end? As the saying goes "Its all fun and games until someone gets hurt". My prediction is it will end when someone does get hurt...or killed...and then that Contractor gets sued...and of course the media goes crazy about how we're hiring "mercenaries" etc etc etc and the whole thing becomes a goat rope.
 
By John of Argghhh! on May 19, 2006 9:18 AM
Bloodspite - that's already happening. Over 300 contractors have been killed already - and I believe there is a lawsuit pending involving the 4 Blackwater employees killed and mutilated in Fallujah.
 
By Flip on May 19, 2006 10:43 AM
I think what AFSister is saying is that her brother is in country the entire time. I have heard (but have no firm knowledge) that reserve/guard troops working with a contractor can keep their drill status by doing it with a unit there. Contractors are actually in more danger than us military types. A logistics convoy is made up mostly of civilian tractor trailers driven by civilians. The drivers are American, Filipino, Arab and European. The trucks are not armored. That isn't opsec, the enemy knows that and car bombers and command det IEDs are aimed at the soft targets. The contractors are a major boon here. Food service workers, construction, maintenance, sanitation, FOB security and a host of other services are provided freeing up soldiers for other missions. Another overlooked fact is the distance that Private Military Company’s offer. A US contractor is not a part of DoD and is not bound by our rules, i.e. Geneva what? The real problem is the talent drain this already imposes on the military, particularly in high tech fields and Special Forces. I was offered more money than the chief of staff makes to come over here with a PMC, the only reason I didn't take it was a sneaking suspicion that my six would not be covered.
 
By Cannoneer No. 4 on May 19, 2006 11:05 AM
Contractors on the battlefield will continue to expand their niches until the limit of political tolerance and economic viability is reached. There are few MOS tasks that can not be performed by a civilian who recently held that MOS on active duty. Most MOS's have civilian occupational equivalents, and those tasks could be performed by non-prior service personnel. Servicemembers become ever more expensive to recruit, train, equip, house, keep healthy, and retain, while the American people become ever more casualty averse, thus making contractors a good deal. Dead contractors don't usually make much news, unless their charred bodies are hung from a bridge and danced around.
 
By CoRev on May 19, 2006 11:11 AM
For decades now we have been contracting out functions that are available in the private sector. Overlap with military is a secondary consideration since the goal is to send tax $ to private sector instead of keeping itin the Fed Gov. Now that we are at war it is just more visisble. Good? Bad? Neither, just the way it is. BTW it's a fine way to let those other than in the prime of life to DIRECTLY support the US effort.
   
By John of Argghhh! on May 19, 2006 11:56 AM
C#4 brings up an interesting group - the Merchant Marine. Little known is that the *Federal* Merchant Marine Academy provides the officers of the USMM, officers who while not military per se, hold reserve commissions in the Navy or Coast Guard, while the sailors who crew their ships are putatively civilian - but civilians with special status.
 
By Cannoneer No. 4 on May 19, 2006 12:04 PM
1 in 26 mariners serving aboard merchant ships in World WW II died in the line of duty, suffering a greater percentage of war-related deaths than all other U.S. services. Casualties were kept secret during the War to keep information about their success from the enemy and to attract and keep mariners at sea.
 
By AFSister on May 19, 2006 12:17 PM
John & Flip- My brother is currently stationed in the States, however, he has flown out of the country on short missions but has not been stationed outside of the US. I don't know what would happen if he got hurt on the job (whether on a mission or just on base) during the week vs. during drill. I'm not sure what the difference will be as far as benefits are concerned. I believe that unlike the guys in the picture, he is directly employed by the Air Force as a contractor- not as an employee of a contracted company. As much as I would like to think that our own soldiers can handle the jobs, if we're short on recruits and want the job done, we have no choice but to hire outside help. That is, if we want to stay with an all-volunteer force, which we do. I don't like the idea of contractors doing "battle" jobs, like loading missles on planes or maintaining aircraft or ground vehicles, but I have no problem with them filling "service" positions, like food service, mail delivery, or laundry for example.
 
By John of Argghhh! on May 19, 2006 12:31 PM
AFSis, unless I'm confused, your brother works for a company who has the contract with the Air Force for the service - but is not a "contract employee" of the AF directly? If he is, that's a new one on me (which is entirely possible).
 
By AFSister on May 19, 2006 1:27 PM
I believe he's a direct employee/contractor of the USAF, not an employee of a contractor FOR the USAF. I'm not positive though, so I'll check.