Tweet
For the purposes of this thread/post, the term contractor includes both armed and unarmed personnel.
A very brief history of what caused the need for contractors:
1) Force reduction after Vietnam - Army logistics support elements get relegated to the Army Reserve and the National Guard in order to cut troop numbers and the force reduction in post–Cold War that cuts the Army from 18 to 10 divisions with corresponding cuts in support forces. That reduced the Services' ability to support long-term operations.
2) The 1990's - the US employs contractors in the Balkans to build traditional camp-building to the concept of force development that saw Military Professional Resources Incorporated training the Croatian army.
3) The decision to invade Iraq with minimum forces left the USA with too few troops in-theater to deal with the disorder that resulted from the removal of that country's leader.
Why the US uses contractors:
1) continuity
2) speed of deployment
3) reduction of troop requirements
4) economic inputs to local economies
5) reduction of military casualties
6) executing tasks the military and civilian workforce cannot
Continuity
While the U.S. military has a policy that the vast majority of personnel rotate every 6 to 12 months. Contractors are often willing to stay for longer periods. Private contracting companies can offer significant bonuses to people who stay longer . The companies know that they save money due to the personnel continuity, and employees see an opportunity for increased pay and bonuses.
Speed of deployment
The Pentagon failed to plan for large numbers of security personnel to protect all U.S. activities once the Afghan and Iraqi governments were removed from power. The Pentagon had not planned to keep large numbers of troops in Afghanistan or Iraq for any period of time. Also, it had not planned for the required logistics support. Why? I've no idea. Seems a bit short-sighted doesn't it?
Using database hiring, running job fairs, and contracting for labor from regional companies, private contracting firms were able to hire, and ship people to run base camps, drive trucks, and perform "housekeeping" chores required to maintain both combat forces and civil administrators in Iraq and Afghanistan. Contractors replaced tens of thousands of soldiers normally required to move, and transport personnel and supplies into Iraq and Afghanistan. As a side bar the electrical grid built by us in Iraq was completed by contractors.
Reduction of troop requirements
At the height of the surge in April 2008, the DOD reported it had 163,000+ contractors supporting around 160,000 troops in Iraq. Without contractors, the United States would have had to provide twice as many troops. The U.S. Armed Forces struggled to maintain those 160,000 troops in Iraq. It is very doubtful that we could have supported the 320,000 troops needed or supply 320,000 troops to the area. We robbed troops from Afghanistan to deal with Iraq. That didn't turn out to well and has caused long term issues ever since in the region.
Example: The majority of contractor personnel are in noncombatant tasks/roles. In Iraq and Afghanistan, many unarmed logistic support personnel functioned in what the military would define as a combat role. Convoy drivers are a perfect example of what I am trying to describe. Drivers are/were subjected to ambushes using either improvised explosive devices and/or direct fire attacks. This combination of drivers willing to run through the ambushes and armed contractors replaced at least two full combat divisions. Those divisions would have been needed to run, supply, and secure Services' operated supply convoys. At the height of the war in Iraq the supply convoys ran 24 hours a day.
The cost benefit of contractors
Contractors can be let go when their contract expires. Generally, the length of a contract is 6, 9, or 12 months. They can be longer or shorter depending on the billet. Unlike military or government employees who continue on the payroll, contractors are simply paid off and shipped home.
Reduction of military casualties
Contractors absorbed over 25% of the KIA in Iraq. By the end of 2009, contractors reported just under 1,800 dead and 40,000 wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are not counted by the Pentagon. They get reported through the Dept. of Labor. Thus, the current political party in power gets to play a shell game with the American public about casualties. That gets done by both parties. Political clout is not expended with those numbers to keep a war going. Harsh isn't it? I didn't say all the reasons I would provide would make you feel warm and fuzzy inside did I? However, it is one of the realities of contracting and why contractors are used. Its a grown-up world and everyone knows the risk going in.
Provide economic inputs to local economies by hiring locals
Creating jobs and stimulating the economy are aspects of the counterinsurgency the US has put into action. In the Balkans and Afghanistan, NATO and ISAF have hired large numbers of local personnel to conduct both armed and unarmed tasks. We want people dependent on us for their monetary survival - kind of like a counterinsurgency of "welfare" but they have to work a job to receive it.
Contractors can execute tasks that U.S. military and civilian forces cannot
In Afghanistan, we lack the forces to secure primary supply lines to Pakistan. They run through areas controlled and/or contested by the Taliban/bandits and police who charge for use of the roads. Afghan contractors have displayed the mix of force, personal connections, and negotiation skills to maintain US supply lines.
A very brief history of what caused the need for contractors:
1) Force reduction after Vietnam - Army logistics support elements get relegated to the Army Reserve and the National Guard in order to cut troop numbers and the force reduction in post–Cold War that cuts the Army from 18 to 10 divisions with corresponding cuts in support forces. That reduced the Services' ability to support long-term operations.
2) The 1990's - the US employs contractors in the Balkans to build traditional camp-building to the concept of force development that saw Military Professional Resources Incorporated training the Croatian army.
3) The decision to invade Iraq with minimum forces left the USA with too few troops in-theater to deal with the disorder that resulted from the removal of that country's leader.
Why the US uses contractors:
1) continuity
2) speed of deployment
3) reduction of troop requirements
4) economic inputs to local economies
5) reduction of military casualties
6) executing tasks the military and civilian workforce cannot
Continuity
While the U.S. military has a policy that the vast majority of personnel rotate every 6 to 12 months. Contractors are often willing to stay for longer periods. Private contracting companies can offer significant bonuses to people who stay longer . The companies know that they save money due to the personnel continuity, and employees see an opportunity for increased pay and bonuses.
Speed of deployment
The Pentagon failed to plan for large numbers of security personnel to protect all U.S. activities once the Afghan and Iraqi governments were removed from power. The Pentagon had not planned to keep large numbers of troops in Afghanistan or Iraq for any period of time. Also, it had not planned for the required logistics support. Why? I've no idea. Seems a bit short-sighted doesn't it?
Using database hiring, running job fairs, and contracting for labor from regional companies, private contracting firms were able to hire, and ship people to run base camps, drive trucks, and perform "housekeeping" chores required to maintain both combat forces and civil administrators in Iraq and Afghanistan. Contractors replaced tens of thousands of soldiers normally required to move, and transport personnel and supplies into Iraq and Afghanistan. As a side bar the electrical grid built by us in Iraq was completed by contractors.
Reduction of troop requirements
At the height of the surge in April 2008, the DOD reported it had 163,000+ contractors supporting around 160,000 troops in Iraq. Without contractors, the United States would have had to provide twice as many troops. The U.S. Armed Forces struggled to maintain those 160,000 troops in Iraq. It is very doubtful that we could have supported the 320,000 troops needed or supply 320,000 troops to the area. We robbed troops from Afghanistan to deal with Iraq. That didn't turn out to well and has caused long term issues ever since in the region.
Example: The majority of contractor personnel are in noncombatant tasks/roles. In Iraq and Afghanistan, many unarmed logistic support personnel functioned in what the military would define as a combat role. Convoy drivers are a perfect example of what I am trying to describe. Drivers are/were subjected to ambushes using either improvised explosive devices and/or direct fire attacks. This combination of drivers willing to run through the ambushes and armed contractors replaced at least two full combat divisions. Those divisions would have been needed to run, supply, and secure Services' operated supply convoys. At the height of the war in Iraq the supply convoys ran 24 hours a day.
The cost benefit of contractors
Contractors can be let go when their contract expires. Generally, the length of a contract is 6, 9, or 12 months. They can be longer or shorter depending on the billet. Unlike military or government employees who continue on the payroll, contractors are simply paid off and shipped home.
Reduction of military casualties
Contractors absorbed over 25% of the KIA in Iraq. By the end of 2009, contractors reported just under 1,800 dead and 40,000 wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are not counted by the Pentagon. They get reported through the Dept. of Labor. Thus, the current political party in power gets to play a shell game with the American public about casualties. That gets done by both parties. Political clout is not expended with those numbers to keep a war going. Harsh isn't it? I didn't say all the reasons I would provide would make you feel warm and fuzzy inside did I? However, it is one of the realities of contracting and why contractors are used. Its a grown-up world and everyone knows the risk going in.
Provide economic inputs to local economies by hiring locals
Creating jobs and stimulating the economy are aspects of the counterinsurgency the US has put into action. In the Balkans and Afghanistan, NATO and ISAF have hired large numbers of local personnel to conduct both armed and unarmed tasks. We want people dependent on us for their monetary survival - kind of like a counterinsurgency of "welfare" but they have to work a job to receive it.
Contractors can execute tasks that U.S. military and civilian forces cannot
In Afghanistan, we lack the forces to secure primary supply lines to Pakistan. They run through areas controlled and/or contested by the Taliban/bandits and police who charge for use of the roads. Afghan contractors have displayed the mix of force, personal connections, and negotiation skills to maintain US supply lines.
Comment