Privatization of military

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

The Draft Era Army I served in 1967-1971-and I was an RA-left a LOT to be desired. It was badly led, badly managed, badly administered and poorly trained, the decision to fight Vietnam by expanding the active military and not activating the reserves created career opportunities for all sorts of borderline, marginal and inadequate people, and remember, we do not have a professional military, we have a CAREER one.
This is something we have to think about. I suspect only people who have "Seen The Elephant" will be accepted, no room for wannabes, wish they'd beens and pretend they ares. Since these would not be government employees there are questions as to who pays for their medical care, their long term injuries-disabilities ? Discipline ? I like the scene in "The Wild Geese" where the Sergeant Major tells them:
"There's no [expletive deleted] Queen's regulations here !"

 

[hostler]

I'm a vet and I'm OK with privatization.
When I was in the military I volunteered, I entered into a contract and I got paid, my employer was the United States.
Not really much difference between being in the military and working directly for the government, or working for a government contractor short of the benefits, retirement and such.
The US military should not be doing police actions and peace keeping. Our military is great at going in and kicking *** but when left in theater to clean up, they usually drop the ball and get a lot of people killed.

 

[amazingflapjack]

Very different...

I'm a vet and I'm OK with privatization.
When I was in the military I volunteered, I entered into a contract and I got paid, my employer was the United States.
Not really much difference between being in the military and working directly for the government, or working for a government contractor short of the benefits, retirement and such.
The US military should not be doing police actions and peace keeping. Our military is great at going in and kicking *** but when left in theater to clean up, they usually drop the ball and get a lot of people killed.

I was government property-expendable-no contracts, no guarantees.

 

[Firesticks]

All I have to do is step back and look at the greedy mess corporations are throughout the world including the USA and it doesn't take a genius mind to figure out exactly how bad an idea it is. They are beholden to the profit and not a citizens or a nation in ANY stretch of the imagination.

 

[Ματθιας]

I'm not worried about mercs being used to fight foreign wars, I'm worried about our government using mercs against American citizens as used after Hurricane Katrina.

I think that if there every were a time where the .gov was going to say confiscate firearms, it's not the police or the US military that's going to to kick in the door, it's likely going to be a merc. And unlike LE and US military they don't have a an oath to honor, but the highest bidder and no accountability.

History has shown that the greatest threat to the individual citizen is their own government. I don't trust our government.

If people want to get paid for fighting and dying by a non government entity in foreign lands, good for them!

 

[Ματθιας]

BTW There's a HUGE difference between the US military and being a merc. -

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Accountability at all levels. A merc has none of that.

 

[Vulcan Bob]

Didn't work so well for the Roman Empire.

 

[S&WIowegan]

When ever someone talks about using mercenaries, I can't help but think of Roland, the Headless Thompson gunner song by Warren Zevon. We should all remember that mercs fight for pay and the life-style and could easily switch sides for more money.

I was drafted after college graduation because I was directionless and broke. My oldest younger brother enlisted in the Air Force soon after. Neither of us got sent to Nam. I well remember tending bar at the officers club and hearing the lifers talk about getting to Nam in a safe posting to get their ticket punched for promotions.

As far as universal draft: 1) too many draftees to utilize all and train them; 2) I am very aware of the fact that a large percent of possible draftees either could not pass physicals or would wash out in basic. I am personally acquainted with a young pro shooter who enlisted in the Army because he wanted to be on the USAMU team. He flunked out of basic in two weeks.

I am aware of European countries that have so-called universal military service, usually one year. I have seen some of these so-called soldiers on duty on Caribbean islands sloppily dressed and just goofing around.

I don't pretend to know The Answer but I'm clear there is no simple panacea.

 

[500SNW]

I think everyone should be required to serve their country...if not in the military, in some capacity such as the Peace Corps or other projects to benefit America and Americans.

Thankfully we don't live in a society that practices the kind of mass conscription you are proposing. That's what makes America great compared to other nations. It's called "freedom" it's called "independence."

 

[Absalom]

As usual these days, because it's so much fun to take a stand, people make this an "either ... or ..." proposition when it should really be a question of "how much" and "for which purposes".

There are also two questions that are getting mixed up: a publicly versus a privately run military is the first issue, and whether a publicly run military should consist entirely of volunteer professionals or partly of drafted citizens is a different one.

The other option, an ideal of some of the Founding Fathers who mistrusted standing armies of any kind and envisioned a militia system where in case of war every citizen shows up with a rifle, is somewhat impractical in the age of aircraft carriers, nuclear missiles, and space war.

So here's my take on the question actually raised by the OP:

There is nothing wrong with using contractors for support functions, including armed work, like security, especially in countries where the US military is deployed as a tool of US foreign policy, not as a matter of immediate defense of the homeland. But as a matter of principle, war-fighting is a state function, should be conducted by national military personnel sworn to loyalty to the Constitution, and should be under exclusive control and command of the national military.

It was considered an enormous step forward in Western civilization when the pillaging mercenary armies responsible for the random slaughter of the 30-Year's-War were replaced by the professional national armies of rulers like Frederick the Great in the 18th century. No reason at all to regress from that.

 

[vt_shooter]

At least military veterans have the VA to rely on, as imperfect as it is, when they come home injured; I wonder what mercenaries will have when they come home injured - maybe nothing.

 

[TomkinsSP]

Let us ask King George III what he thinks about using mercenaries to fight a war without involving Parliment. His response may be different if you ask him AFTER the Continental Congress offered land in Bucks County to Hessians who wished to beat thier swords into plowshares so to speak. So many took the offer, Pennsylvania had a thriving German speaking colony for over 175 years.

 

[Ματθιας]

For those who are advocating the draft - How many of today's people who want to enlist but are DQed because they can't pass PFTs, drug tests, and/or background checks.

Now, imagine the costs to weed out millions of draftees just to find the tiny fraction who are able meet the bare minimums. Would it be worth it? With people who flat out refuse to to be drafted, then, what?

This isn't the USA of 50+ years ago. The way it is, volunteers for military, is probably the best way.

Add to that, the conflicts we, as a nation, find ourselves in, have no clear goals. Like Korea and Vietnam, we fight proxy wars. How do we define "victory"?

Then, our government plays both sides of the same coin. On week we are fighting against a group in country "a". The next week we are training and fighting with the same group in country "b". Syria is a perfect example of this: We fight Syrians in Iraq, Then, a few years go by we are supporting, training, funding and fighting with Syrians in Syria. The media tells us these Syrians are on our side - but how do we know these aren't the same people who're killing Americans in Iraq?

What are we fighting for? It doesn't seem to be for the protection of the USA. It doesn't seen to be for "freedom" for Americans - especially as the USA seems to be turning into an Orwellian police state where we are constantly tracked and surveilled. Again, what is American treasure and blood being shed for?

 

[GKC]

Thankfully we don't live in a society that practices the kind of mass conscription you are proposing. That's what makes America great compared to other nations. It's called "freedom" it's called "independence."

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." JFK

Yes, we have freedom in this country, but only because there were people willing to defend it. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to expect each citizen to do something to serve his country and his fellow citizens. That doesn't mean being in the armed forces, which is not for everyone...but civic duty to help fellow Americans is not too much to ask, IMO.

 

[500SNW]

I don't think it's unreasonable at all to expect each citizen to do something to serve his country and his fellow citizens.

I do it all the time...it's called paying taxes

BTW, read Ματθιας's posts above. One smart cookie IMHO.

 

[ChuckS1]

Just saw a pitch on the news about using more contract troops in Afghanistan (mercenaries). Not real sure what I think about the idea. Lot of veterans here so what do you think?

What's their role going to be? I'm a retired logistics guy and wouldn't have a problem with contractors in base operations jobs. But, hiring a civilian contractor to work in a mess hall doesn't translate to freeing up a cook to be an infantryman.

 

[Drm50]

You don't put Army cooks in 11B. You drop them behind enemy
lines hoping they will get a cooks job. That's where they can do
the most damage. In a weeks time you could walk right in a take
the place without firing a shot. They would all be suffering from
indigestion, constipation and the squirten' dirties.

 

[rwsmith]

I know what I think about it...

We 'outsource' too much already. Maybe they have a place for them, but we need to be able to rely on our armed services to do the job.

 

[Ματθιας]

I do it all the time...it's called paying taxes

BTW, read Ματθιας's posts above. One smart cookie IMHO.

Thank you for the compliment, I really appreciate it.

Honestly, I'm not that smart, I just wonder about things. I'm often wrong about my conclusions.

 

[dr. mordo]

I didn't read this whole thread, or the original source for the story.

That said, the US Special Forces Command (USSOCOM) is under heavy pressure from SECDEF Mattis to slow down the ops tempo for USSOF operators, who are very expensive to train and truly take years to replace when they burn out and leave the military. These guys have been beat up since 2001 and only their devotion to their job has kept them going. One of the possible options being floated now is delegating some of the mission to contract forces to give the SOF operators a bit more down time.

So:

It certainly is not an initiative to turn Afghanistan over to mercenaries, and their activities will be carefully monitored by US military leadership. One lesson the US military has learned repeatedly over the years is a viral video from one stupid Private can extensively damage a campaign and set the war back years. It's all about hearts and minds, and the wrong types of military action are very counterproductive, so they won't intentionally let the contractors run wild.

One astute observer above alluded to the fact that contractors of this type get paid handsomely, but the risks are high and they have no VA benefits after their contract ends, so ultimately they are cheaper than actual USSOF forces in the long run. The difference is accountability is a bit trickier and when the contract ends they disappear with their experience of the operational environment and now a new group of contractors has to stumble until they learn the same lessons.

Too Long, Didn't Read (TLDR): Like I said, this is an initiative to lessen the workload on the busiest and most dedicated troops we have, not an effort to privatize the military.

And for the record, I strongly support a mandatory draft for all young people. I've personally seen how military service almost always changes people's lives for the better, and I believe the extraordinary American successes of the 1950s and 60s were due largely to the widespread military influence created by the WWII draft of over 10 million men. After the war, most of those now skilled and disciplined young men returned to the civilian workforce and pushed America to its greatest successes. The lazy, self-centered nature of young people today would evaporate if they did a stint in the military, and America might actually have a chance of being Great Again.

 

[500SNW]

And for the record, I strongly support a mandatory draft for all young people. I've personally seen how military service almost always changes people's lives for the better, and I believe the extraordinary American successes of the 1950s and 60s were due largely to the widespread military influence created by the WWII draft of over 10 million men. After the war, most of those now skilled and disciplined young men returned to the civilian workforce and pushed America to its greatest successes. The lazy, self-centered nature of young people today would evaporate if they did a stint in the military, and America might actually have a chance of being Great Again.

Nice theory, but some of the most successful people today, the "movers and shakers" who employ millions...like Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Elon Musk just to name a few...never served in the military.

 

[BigBoy99]

I think the draft should be reinstated for all young men.

And women!!!!!

 

[Absalom]

Quite apart from all the theoretical should-and-would arguments about the draft's merits as a giant scouting enterprise to build character:

Absent an overwhelming outside threat along the lines of Nazism or Communism (and no, none of anyone's current favorite anxieties even remotely qualifies), does anyone seriously think this country could achieve the political consensus that would be necessary to re-introduce a draft? Especially since the age group affected votes?

I think that toothpaste simply cannot be squeezed back into the tube.

 

[LVSteve]

Is it even legal for the US to provide and cover mercenaries in another country?

 

[Ματθιας]

If we are going to look at reinstating the draft, we should look at the Selective Service registration numbers vs the males who are eligible. Then, we should look at what happens to the noncompliant. I'm guessing nothing.

My Bro-in-Law was a military recruiter and he says that DoD runs a program called the Joint Advertising Marketing Research & Studies that is a huge data base of personal info that the government uses to track everyone. One or more of the credit agencies is a subcontractor. The College Board, the organization that administers all the standardized tests, SAT, ACT ect., sell personal info to the government.

Military recruiters get and use that info to get new recruits. (On a side note I remember that my recruiter was upset with me when I refused to give him my high school student directory.) It appears, even with that info the US military STILL can't find enough bodies for its endless wars and has to relax standards.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

The "character building" attributed to military service is greatly exaggerated. One Marine told me:
"There's a lot of cheating in the Corps."
And that's a perfect description of the Army.

 

[bigwheelzip]

... using more contract troops in Afghanistan …..

I'm still floored by the acceptance of our supply system paying thousands of dollars per truck on thousands of trucks per week to the Taliban enemy for their "protection" of our supply trucks.
Why would either side want to stop a war reduced to a balance sheet and profitable to both sides, with our taxpayers and volunteer military footing the bill.

U.S. trucking funds reach Taliban, military-led investigation concludes - The Washington Post

 

[hostler]

I'm shocked how many people are in favor of compulsory military service. A "free" country does not take part in involuntary servitude (military slavery).
I do support selective service and draft as a very last resort, but to require kids to serve when there is no immediate need is just not what this country is about. The argument that they should be made to do it because it would make them better people is just bogus. Lets just require everyone to go to college, or stop smoking or require everyone to exercise for 1/2 hour a day, or stop eating fatty foods. All of these things could make us better people. Is that the mentality we have now, "we're going to make you do this because we think it's better for you".
It's upsetting how many people here would be in favor of the government dragging people out of their homes and away from their lives.

Even during politically controversial conflicts such as Korea and Vietnam only 1 out of every 6 combatants were draftees. During the larger conflicts that ratio was closer to 1 in 9. Was the draft even needed at all?

 

[hoosierone]

The "character building" attributed to military service is greatly exaggerated. One Marine told me:
"There's a lot of cheating in the Corps."
And that's a perfect description of the Army.

Would you elaborate? What kind of cheating do you refer to?

 

[medic15al]

I'm shocked how many people are in favor of compulsory military service. A "free" country does not take part in involuntary servitude (military slavery).
I do support selective service and draft as a very last resort, but to require kids to serve when there is no immediate need is just not what this country is about. The argument that they should be made to do it because it would make them better people is just bogus. Lets just require everyone to go to college, or stop smoking or require everyone to exercise for 1/2 hour a day, or stop eating fatty foods. All of these things could make us better people. Is that the mentality we have now, "we're going to make you do this because we think it's better for you".
It's upsetting how many people here would be in favor of the government dragging people out of their homes and away from their lives.

Even during politically controversial conflicts such as Korea and Vietnam only 1 out of every 6 combatants were draftees. During the larger conflicts that ratio was closer to 1 in 9. Was the draft even needed at all?

The mandatory service will enable the nation to call upon trained and in some cases experienced soldiers from a large pool quickly for defense if needed. Training takes time we may not have. That is why I support it.