the Pentagon has hit upon the strategy of outsourcing the War by hiring Private Security Firms whose men atre now actively involved in combat.

Kindly Read the article in The Forign AFFAIRS OF sEPTEMBER dECEMBER 2004

Thus the contracting idea of services in combat zones should be discontinued since it is more expensive and creates a distraction to our combat forces when the civilian contractors need to be protected.

cOL gENE HAS SAID SOMETHING THAT IS WOTH A LOT IN ERMS OF THE ECONOMICS OF CONTRACTING

It has not done that and that whole process needs to be reviewed. what it has done is made companies like Halliburton very wealthy.

i THINK THE EXPERIENCE OF cOL gENE HAS MADE MY JOB MUCH EASIER. tI thank you, Col Gene

i THINK THE EXPERIENCE OF cOL gENE HAS MADE MY JOB MUCH EASIER. tI thank you, Col Gene

I have spent 18 years in service myself, and can tell you Col Gene is ignoring some of that experience at this time to make a point. He knows that maintaining soldiers is really about four times the cost of contractors. Comparing monthly wages is a poor example, that can be twisted to not reflect the reality of the over all numbers.

All convoys traveling between from one base to another is required to have a minimum numbers of guns, both contractor and military join together at assemble areas before departure. There are only so many military truck Companies in the military structure. Those are rapidly being rotated though Iraq. The first contractors had been high paid US civilians, the latest are lower paid Iraqi nationals that have not received the attacks seen earlier in the operations.

Buhu, believe what you want to make yourself feel good.

It is not just the higher wages paid to civilian contractors. It is the overhead and profit being paid to say nothing about the over billing that has been documented. When you train a person in the military they are First trained as a soldier. They become a support person second. Thus, on the battlefield, that support staff is always available as a combat element when needed. That is not the case with civilian contractors. In fact they become a drain on the combat forces when they come under fire and not an asset that can be called upon when the tactical situation requires additional combat power. Contractors in Garrison or stateside applications for service functions may be justified but NOT as an integral part of a tactical force an area of operations.

That is not the case with civilian contractors. In fact they become a drain on the combat forces when they come under fire and not an asset that can be called upon when the tactical situation requires additional combat power.

--COL--

There are those over in iraq that are "civilian" who contract out, who have prior military experience, so they would [maybe] still retain some of the training...correct?

Buhu, believe what you want to make yourself feel good

It is not a matter of feeling good. Please do not trivialise an issue over which so much blood is being shed. My purpose was merely to draw attention to what is happening in Iraq. After I put up this blog the news came of an explosion in Bagdad that killed 6 civillian employees of a security firm. We are talking about such people.

it isn't true many of these civilian contractors in Iraq or for military. They however are not a piece of military unit they do not have the kinds of support that a military organization would have and when they come under attack and a limited ability to fend off their attackers. I think it is time for an objective evaluation of combat support and combat service support civilianization in the battlefield. It seems to me is set to who's doing everything possible to avoid the issue which is the we do not have sufficient numbers in the active component to deal with the deployments worldwide. Almost every senior military that I have heard comment on the size of the military recommend an increase in both the Army and Marine Corps active-duty end strength. The fact that Bush used stop loss and extended activation of guard and reserve units makes it clear that we do not have been military force structure to deal with our current deployments. Thatis true with only providing 135,000 of the 300,000 that should've been provided in Iraq to properly control the country after Saddam Hussein was deposed.

It is true many of these civilian contractors in Iraq are former military. They however are not as effective as a military unit to fend off their attackers. I think it is time for an objective evaluation of combat support and combat service support civilianization on the battlefield. It seems to me the Bush administration is doing everything possible to avoid the issue which is the we do not have sufficient numbers in the active component to deal with the deployments worldwide. Almost every senior military that I have heard comment on the size of the military recommend an increase in both the Army and Marine Corps active-duty end strength. The fact that Bush used stop loss and extended activation of guard and reserve units makes it clear that we do not have been military force structure to deal with our current deployments. That is true with only providing 135,000 of the 300,000 that should've been provided in Iraq to properly control the country after Saddam Hussein was deposed.

I had quite rightly drawn attwention to the illoegal use of private security forces, operating outside of the law,like Blackwater more than 2 years ago,

Maybe we should go back to having the wives and older children deploy with the soldiers to take care of the support. It worked in all the wars before WWI.