Article

2008-01-25 Home Front: Politix

U.S. Cannot Manage Contractors In Wars, Officials Testify On Hill

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Besoeker 2008-01-25 07:39|| || Front Page|| [10 views ] Top

#1 "over 196,000 contractor personnel working for the Defense Department in Iraq and Afghanistan,"

Now we know the minimum by which the Armed Forces must expand in the immediate future, beyond actual fighting needs.

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2008-01-25 11:51|| 2008-01-25 11:51|| Front Page Top

#2 The problem is that contractors fit into a gap in a military situation. They can no more be "managed" by the military than an equal number of US citizens visiting Iraq on their own. They can be told where they can't go, but they can't be told what to do.

The US contract with them is on the same footing as a typical civilian contract, *not* a government contract. That is, a government contract has all sorts of silly rules that have to be micromanaged and enforced by bureaucrats *in the US*.

However, contractors overseas don't have all those bureaucrats to watch over them, and they aren't going to, either. So they have to be dealt with simply. That is, like a typical non-government contract.

If you hire someone to remodel your kitchen, you usually pay them half down and half when they satisfactorily complete the job. You have NO right to tell them HOW they do their job, WHO to buy their materials from, HOW to hire workmen, etc.

No unions, no OSHA, no nothing. And while that bugs the HELL out of Washington, tough titty. If they want the job done, they have to do it the way the contractors want to do it; not the way Washington bureaucrats want it done.

The one odd angle is under who's laws the contractors work. If they work under local laws, it will probably be cheaper in all respects, both price and quality. If they work under US laws, then it will cost a LOT more, but the quality will possibly be better. However, even under US laws, it doesn't mean under US rules.

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-01-25 12:04|| 2008-01-25 12:04|| Front Page Top

#3 TW, the number needed is the few thousand (2-3?) required to plus up the logistical system admin again. Many of those contractors will not be needed once we reduce forces in Iraq. I personally would not volunteer again if I knew I was going to interspace my training with KP. Most of the contracts deal with relatively short term logistics better dealt with by a contractor than plussing up Army units that don't get used. Personnel are a huge percentage of the Defense budget.

Posted by Throger Thains8048 2008-01-25 13:03|| 2008-01-25 13:03|| Front Page Top

#4 Maddox added that 3 percent of Army contracting personnel are active-duty and that the acquisition workforce shrunk by 25 percent from 1990 to the end of fiscal 2000.

S'where the 'savings in government' came from...

While the contracting workload has increased sevenfold since 2000, he said, about half of the military officers and Army civilians in the contracting field "are certified for their
current positions."

And there are a heck of a lot of hoops to jump through to get certified. That also means time and money. Also, I don't see any mention of acquisition-workforce turnover (which in my branch is fairly high). Lots of other places in government and industry to go to where the money is better and the political/Congressional b.s. isn't as deep.

Posted by Pappy 2008-01-25 16:08|| 2008-01-25 16:08|| Front Page Top

#5 logistics isn't sexy, but an ill-equipped, ill-fed military performs exactly as you'd expect. Using contractors allows for flexibility, and is the smart move. Naturally, that doesn't sit well with our Donk opposition, who would like to reduce the military to peacekeeping in areas in which we have no strategic interest

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-01-25 19:49|| 2008-01-25 19:49|| Front Page Top

#6 "our Donk opposition, who would like to reduce the military to ~~peacekeeping~~ getting shot at, while not being allowed to shoot back, in areas in which we have no strategic interest"

There - fixed that for ya', Frank.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2008-01-25 21:32|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/] 2008-01-25 21:32|| Front Page Top

23:51 JosephMendiola
23:50 Old Patriot
23:47 JosephMendiola
23:43 Steven
23:28 OldSpook
23:22 Redneck Jim
22:53 trailing wife
22:03 Alaska Paul
22:00 SR-71
21:37 Pappy
21:33 Barbara Skolaut
21:32 KBK
21:32 Barbara Skolaut
21:30 no mo uro
21:28 DMFD
20:58 GolfBravoUSMC
20:37 Skunky Glins5285
20:22 Skunky Glins5285
20:07 Frank G
19:58 Skunky Glins5285
19:55 Skunky Glins5285
19:54 JosephMendiola
19:49 Frank G
19:45 Skunky Glins5285