Politics: J'accuse!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
But there's no guarantee that there'll be these conflicts for the security firms to suck at the teat of. (E.g., Bush might not be re-elected.)

this says so much more than you intended.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

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.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Isn't this the point of the reserves? Should we have both the reserves and these security firms?

We've already deployed most of the reserves. The cupboard is bare.

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.

I guess I haven't seen anything that suggests that this is happening to a meaningful level. I'm guessing that the people they get out of the military are the ones who wouldn't have been enticed by the re-enlistment incentives, but for whom the bigger bucks are enough to make the difference.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
But there's no guarantee that there'll be these conflicts for the security firms to suck at the teat of. (E.g., Bush might not be re-elected.)

Did you see the pictures of those guys hanging from the bridge a few days back, sucking at the teat of this conflict? Slackers and thieves, I say.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

ltl/fb
It seems like if we (the US) just used our soldiers and didn't hire the security firms, there wouldn't be as much of a market for them.

There's been discussion for years of doing just that - effectively, greatly increasing the required time of active duty service. However, requiring longer terms of service (and, in the current case, that means recalling the independent ready reserves who are still formally "on call" but have already fulfilled their active duty requirements) would probably go over about as well as a draft, and would harm recruitment generally. And, much though no one wants to admit it, there are real training and battle-readiness issues with the regular reservists (partially due to the currently required levels of technical expertise, which also would affect the competence of IRR guys who have been inactive for several years).

Incidentally, "currently active" military people can't leave to take a mercenary job. And if they are inactive but still on enlistment contract, they would have to come back if recalled - but I don't think the gov can arrange to only call up reservists/IRR who are already acting as mercenaries anyway.

TS
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.

Just because no one else could do it at all doesn't mean we're doing it efficiently or well.

TS
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.

Certainly that is a factor on some level, but I think the real reason actually more distressing than that - I think they're near the point where there literally isn't anybody else to send short of conscription, calling up a lot more of the reserves or recalling the IRR. Of the 10 active divisions of the US Army, only one hasn't already been sent to Iraq or Afghanistan - the one in South Korea.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
We've already deployed most of the reserves. The cupboard is bare.

Where are all the people in the security firms coming from, then? Are they random people who got laid off by dot.coms and can't find another job? Or have they been in these security firms all along -- which raises the question of what they were doing before they went to Iraq.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
http://www.memri.org/video/segment8_program.html

I think that this discussion is a typical interpretation of islam as it is practiced in the middle east. The hatred of and abuse of women flows from the religious beliefs. The fact that Arab culture reinforces this hatred, too, doesn't mean that the religion isn't also to blame.

There are certainly misogynistic Christian sects, for instances the Mormons. And ultra-orthodox jews are no better in this respect, either.

The PC crowd, though, prevents us from talking about the religion being at the root cause of the problem and in so doing, they seal the fate of these women.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Where are all the people in the security firms coming from, then? Are they random people who got laid off by dot.coms and can't find another job? Or have they been in these security firms all along -- which raises the question of what they were doing before they went to Iraq.

There are plenty of ex-mil people who still like to shoot guns and shit, but aren't very happy walking the beat in their local town, or working at a factory to pay the paint-ball bills on the weekend.

From what I can tell, a lot of these folks are making double or triple what they could make in their usual jobs, and figure, WTF, why not make some $ while the chance is there.

[eta] incidentally, I went to a federal building the other day for a meeting where teh security guards were wearing "Blackwater Security" patches--I'm sure the ones bored of desk-jockeying were excited to pick up some automatic rifles and hop a plane to iraq.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Where are all the people in the security firms coming from, then? Are they random people who got laid off by dot.coms and can't find another job? Or have they been in these security firms all along -- which raises the question of what they were doing before they went to Iraq.

Believe it or not, some of them leave higher paying jobs to join these security firms. They are former Navy Seals and other special forces types who do it not just for the money but because they believe in the cause. I am sure that some of them get a macho kick out of it, but you are just wrong if you think this is all about money for them. They are doing very dangerous work and are doing so for less money than the average Biglaw associate.

Call them mercenaries all you like but you are mischaracterizing them. They are patriotic Americans not sitting in front of a desk in a cushy Biglaw job.

[Gattigap]

Robert Samuelson, who usually bores us (well, ok, me) with dry op-ed pieces on tax policy, posts a piece on the campaign that boils down the choice as well as anything else I've seen recently.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
From what I can tell, a lot of these folks are making double or triple what they could make in their usual jobs, and figure, WTF, why not make some $ while the chance is there.

Where are you getting your information? From what I can tell, many if not most of these security firms are employing former navy seals and other former special forces. Not exactly guys who are working in factories stateside. Anyhow, unless they live in China, I doubt they work in a factory. Last I checked, there wern't too many factory jobs left in the US.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
Where are you getting your information? From what I can tell, many if not most of these security firms are employing former navy seals and other former special forces. Not exactly guys who are working in factories stateside. Anyhow, unless they live in China, I doubt they work in a factory. Last I checked, there wern't too many factory jobs left in the US.

What does a former SEAL do for work in the US, go on shooting sprees? SOme of them are employed as lawyers (I know one), but he's got a better gig there than putting his life at risk in Iraq. Some of them are employed as security guards--think the pay's the same in Iraq? And some of them do other work, be it blue collar or white collar. Point is, there's not much call for guys who shoot shit and infiltrate things in the US, and their next-best job quite often isn't nearly as highly paid.

(and I didn't say they don't have training)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Robert Samuelson, who usually bores us (well, ok, me) with dry op-ed pieces on tax policy, posts a piece on the campaign that boils down the choice as well as anything else I've seen recently.

from the ed.

What this suggests is that the formal campaign of competing position papers, tax plans and stump speeches may count for less than usual. The contest may ultimately turn on the nature of responsible power. We'll get conflicting portraits: of Bush as dangerously bold and too strong, of Kerry as dangerously passive and too weak. The final verdict may come down to some millions of undecideds who reach a gut judgment about whose instincts best fit the times.

My point exactly, and its pretty clear whose instincts best fit the times, as Ty inadvertantly pointed out.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
From what I can tell, many if not most of these security firms are employing former navy seals and other former special forces.

How many ex-SEALS and special forces guys do you think are available for people to hire?

I'm sure they hire those guys when they can, but (per SS's point) hire up and down the spectrum because they must.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What does a former SEAL do for work in the US, go on shooting sprees? SOme of them are employed as lawyers (I know one), but he's got a better gig there than putting his life at risk in Iraq. Some of them are employed as security guards--think the pay's the same in Iraq?

Show me one example of a former navy seal employed as a minimum wage security guard. Maybe they are body guards for celebrities and other high profile people, but those jobs pay well and aren't that dangerous.

You are underestimating the job opportunities that are available in the private sector for these highly trained military personnel. Former special forces types can find plenty of well-paying jobs in the private sector.