Quote:
Originally posted by ltl/fb
Isn't this the point of the reserves? Should we have both the reserves and these security firms?
It bugs me that there is an incentive for currently active military people to leave, in the middle of a conflict, and go to the security firms to get more money in the short run -- and then either stay with the security firm or come back to the regular military.
|
The problem with reserves is that they're minimally trained. Most of what they do in Iraq, from what I can tell, is back room logistics and work. They're not on the front line; instead, they're unloading the water from the trucks.
I agree that there's a problem if folks are leaving the army and immediately being redeployed in the private sector at triple the salary, but how large a problem is this? Sure, it's happening, but it's not like everyone has left. And are they really welcomed back? I would hope the army is savvy enough to discourage leaving and returning--and how easy is it to leave the army during a deployment, without a dishonorable discharge (which means no return). FWIW, the air force has faced a similar problem for years--they've trained a huge percentage of the nation's commercial pilots, who accrue the flight hours and training and then leave for the greener pastures of commercial aviation.
Furthermore, the security folks have much more limited roles and authority. They can act only defensively; and the equipment support apparently is rather lacking. And bilmore's point is well taken--there's an opportunity cost well above the actual fiscal cost of additional soldiers--you have to make some commitment to them (either employment or a buyout) to get them in teh first place. The private sector is less generous.
