Quote:
Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Weren't most of the Americans who are acting as security forces trained by the U.S. military? Is that factored into the cost? Because if you spend a bajillion dollars training them, and then they leave and you pay for them through a security service that allows them to earn significantly more, it seems like it would not necessarily be cheaper.
|
Those are sunk costs. On the margin, in Iraq, it may be cheaper to use the guys we once trained.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Mercenary hires aren't supported by the military. In the US military, more than most, support is the tail that wags the dog - it is huge, gargantuan, and horrifically inefficient. It seems not only possible but likely that it is cheaper to pay a soldier you have trained 5-10x more as a mercenary, instead of supplying him in the field yourself.
|
I find this odd. There's a reason that the military is long on support. It's what we do better than other militaries. It's not clear that any other military in the world could pull off what we're doing in Iraq, so calling it "inefficient" seems not quite right. Presumably the mercenaries are being supported by private industry, and this has costs. Presumably it's also less reliable. They (the private support) don't have to be there, and may cut and run when the shooting starts. Would that be efficient?
I suspect the real reason we are using private suppliers is that the administration would rather spend more money than send more troops, for political and ideological (Rumsfeld's remaking the military) reasons.
