Where is the Balance?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1ZlLd1fnxU&feature=player_detailpage 

After watching this short video, I am challenged to think about what Aung San Suu Kyi is advocating. Considering I was raised in the South with guns in my home, used guns to protect myself, and plan to be an officer in the military this video is challenging to me. The non-violent approach to solving problems and conflict within her country, Burma, she believes to be best. How does this play out for the United States? Our military doesn't oppress the people like the Burmese government did to the generation of Aung San Suu Kyi. Domestically and governmentally I believe we don't have this problem (except domestically own guns, which is another blog) . However, the US military is the dominant military in the world and I feel could have the temptation to oppress other nations or peoples. Maybe impose our will on others. But where is the balance, where is the line drawn in the sand? When do we need to take action by force and when do we diplomatically solve problems. For example, the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan, diplomacy and policy in my eyes will not work, but right now, neither does the violent approach. When President Bush was faced with the decision to go to war with Saddam Hussein I wonder what was going through his mind, considering the entire nation was breathing down his back to go to war. Im sure he was thinking about a non-violence approach, but with the pressure of the nation all around, could he have made that decision to fight Saddam non-violently? Im still torn... what is the balance. This goes back to my first blog with realism and idealism, Where is the balance.

Weakening or Strengthening Continued

Continued from last post.


So we know what the good and the bad are of military contractors. In my opinion the good and the bad almost cancel each other out. The good can greatly benefit the military in many ways whereas the bad can seriously cripple the military.

Now, I seek to understand the strategic impact contractors have on within the military and any recommendations that could be helpful.

STRATEGIC IMPACT

Dr. T.X. Hammes argues that contractors are not evaluated on the strategic impact they may or may not have upon the counterinsurgency operations like we have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. While contractors do get reviewed by the Defense Department, but simply not evaluated over strategic impact. Contractors ultimately make it easier for a military/country to go to war. Think about it... instead of mobilizing a force of 300,000 soldiers, cut out to preform all the tasks that the contractors usually perform, you may only mobilize 150,000 men and the rest (150,000) would be civilian contractors. As a military general or politician, you are only responsible for mobilizing 150,000 soldiers, not the contractors. This could make entering a conflict much easier and less burdensome militarily and publicly (the public only hears, and cares about the men and women in uniform). A country using contractors are much more capable and flexible. For example, the US was involved in Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously. We could not preform that task without the help of contractors. Contractors involved in combat zone are especially at risk of negatively impacting the United State's legitimacy. Field Manual 3–24, Counterinsurgency, states that the conflict is a competition for legitimacy between the counterinsurgent and the insurgent. If the contractor in some way hinders the military's legitimacy with the host nation and or a particular insurgent, the impact could be massive.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Hammes says, "The U.S. Government's default position should be no contractors "outside the wire" in a conflict zone. Contractor presence outside secure facilities places them in direct contact with the population. Contractors can undercut the legitimacy of the host nation government, reduce the accountability of the U.S. Government for actions taken in its name, irritate the population, compete directly for the most competent local personnel, fragment the chain of command, provide an excuse for forming local militias, and are difficult to fire—even when ineffective. Given these issues, the United States should strive to keep contractors out of conflict zones. This will not always be possible but should be the standard. Most of the problems highlighted in this article occurred in conflict zones. The unique stresses on the contractors combined with the severe limitations on the government's ability to oversee their performance resulted in repeated actions that reduced operational effectiveness and undercut the U.S. strategic position. The cost savings of using contractors are uncertain at best. In contrast, the strategic and operational problems that arise from using them in a counterinsurgency are clear and documented. If U.S. Government capacity is exceeded, the default position should become using host nation organizations first and host nation contractors next with U.S. or foreign contractors being a choice of last resort.Examples where local contractors should be first choice are inside secure facilities and as fixed point security. Many of the jobs contractors perform inside facilities—meal preparation, cleaning—can easily be done by local labor...Hiring local laborers provides economic stimulus.In addition, the fixed point security mission may well be appropriate for local personnel because these jobs require little training and, because they are in a fixed position, are easier to supervise.If contractors are required, they must be under the direct supervision of a U.S. Government employee. While the government is making strenuous efforts to increase the number of contracting officers and to become more specific in writing contracts, the fact remains that the government cannot control contractor actions without direct supervision. Unless it has direct supervision, the government will remain unaware of contractors whose actions alienate the local population or fail to meet U.S. standards. The degree of supervision will vary with the type of work being done. Routine maintenance work in a secure facility would require only normal contracting oversight. Armed escorts or drivers who are in regular contact with civilian populations would require constant supervision in the form of a government employee riding with each vehicle and commanding each convoy. Armed contractors are having a global impact well beyond that of the two irregular wars America is fighting. Armed contractors introduce a new element into international relations. Current international law and international organizations such as the United Nations have developed protocols and procedures for dealing with the use of the armed forces of nation-states as well as insurgents. However, these same organizations have a paucity of experience in dealing with the introduction of armed contractors into a conflict zone whether those contractors are hired by a private firm or a nation-state. This leads to a final recommendation.

The United States must develop policies and procedures to deal with the presence of armed contractors in conflict zones. Because these armed entities are generally outside the experience and mandate of current international organizations and mechanisms, they will continue to have unforeseen impacts. Thus, the United States must work with other states, NGOs, and international organizations to develop policies, procedures, and institutions to deal with the presence of armed contractors in conflict zones".

Weakening or Strengthening?

The United States Armed Forces is the dominant military force in the world. This is great some may say, others may think America is over stretching its military capability. With Armed Forces all over the world, the US military cannot simply perform all of the tasks at hand by itself, therefore, the demand for outside contractors is available. Military contractors range from chefs and food industry, interpreters, Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) detectors, combat vehicle manufactures,and the famous personal defense organization, Blackwater. Some contractors may be absolutely necessary, while others not so much. And this is my question, do contractors, foreign or domestic, help or hurt our military? This is a topic in which I hope to explore further in the future and this blog post will be just the beginning of my research. 

T.X. Hammes, a retired US Marine Corp Officer states, "In Iraq and Afghanistan, the use of contractors reached a level unprecedented in U.S. military operations. As of March 31, 2010, the United States deployed 175,000 troops and 207,000 contractors in the war zones. Contractors represented 50 percent of the Department of Defense (DOD) workforce in Iraq and 59 percent in Afghanistan". Both armed and unarmed contractor are present. "The presence of contractors on the battlefield is obviously not a new phenomenon but has dramatically increased from the ratio of 1 contractor to 55 military personnel in Vietnam to 1:1 in Iraq and 1:43.1 in Afghanistan". 

THE GOOD

Hammes argues contractors are both good and bad. The advantages he says are "speedy deployments, continuity, reduction of troop requirements, reduction of military casualties, economic inputs into local economy, and, in some cases executing tasks the military and civilian workforce simply cannot". Logistically, contractors can help with deployment and even packing up to go home or to leave a particular region. Do you think the US military picks up after itself after leaving Iraq? Im mean its much easier to hire someone and save the troops for something else more important. Contractors can recruit personnel who would stay in a region supporting troops longer than the 6-12 month deployment troops are required to stay. Im sure there are nice incentives to stay overtime for contractors. Contractors have reduced absorbed casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. The contractor deaths are not reported through the DoD, therefore, keeping support for a particular conflict. "The decision to hire contractors can be taken out of view of the public while decisions to increase troop strength are usually subject to intense debate". Also, contractors are less expensive compared to hiring a government employee.

THE BAD

The government has no control over the quality of the particular contractor and has limited control over their overall behavior. Unless there is a government employee or military personnel, the government has no control of there whereabouts and interaction with the locals. Also, we the people hold our government responsible to anything the contractor does or does not do. Hammes says, "In reality, it is virtually impossible to determine the actual effectiveness of any contractors—armed or unarmed—until they begin to operate in theater (and only then if a member of the U.S. Government can observe the contractors as they operate)". Contractors have the ability to undercut the legitimacy of the US government and even the host nation. Because of the lack of control, contractors can give the US government a bad rap and also treat the local population without respect, deepening the wound. Contractors can and will counter what they are meant for. "In addition, private security companies can compete directly with host nation attempts to recruit and retain military and police personnel. In January 2010, Major General Michael Ward, Deputy Commander Police, NATO Training Mission Afghanistan, stated that Afghanistan's government was considering capping the pay of private security firms because Afghan police were deserting in large numbers for the better pay and working conditions associated with private companies". Not only are the armed contractor stealing men, but unarmed contractors and even NGOs have been taking away locals from there government because of higher pay. Contractors that are not armed are highly vulnerable. Contractors are risking there lives in hostile regions and may run into insurgents and or a IED. Are the contractors who have the possibility to encounter these prepared? Are they properly trained to act when attack or their truck hit with an IED. Or are they simply trained to drive from point A to B. This puts contractors and the government at harm. Plus, contractors are not under any military control. Our military has not authority over them. This could be a problem?

To be continued... 

Certain Views

I have been introduced to a couple of new terms this week that I find to be very interesting. Also, I have been reading two books that have striking similarities in the way America conducts war/foreign policy. I would like to examine both the two books and the new terms and somehow relate the two. The reason I want to write/explore this area is because it has been on my mind for a while now. Without further adieu, here goes!

First, recently I have been introduced to the terms realism and idealism. However, these terms I have heard before, but the reasons I count them new is because this is the first time I have actually given them thought and or explored them. Realism, in a nut shell, explains that war is inevitable, it is bound to happen, only a matter of time. That people are naturally born bad resulting in eventual conflict. Idealism, in a nut shell, explains that war/conflict is avoidable. There can be a solution to the conflict and problems can be solved through certain processes and procedures like institutions. Also, people are inherently good and seek for peace. As I process these terms I find myself falling in both courts not just one or the other. Can you be on both sides, though? I definitely believe conflict can be resolved, however is war completely avoidable? Is there a way out of conflict no matter what? I believe America should have a stout military force with up to date technology and equipment (hard power), but also have way in which we can use ideas and other techniques to avoid war and promote peace (soft power). I truly believe people want to get along and live in harmony, but there will always be someone, group, or nation that doesn't like the other.  I find myself thinking about these and forming my own personal views which is good. But which one is right, or is there a right and wrong? 

I have a Christian worldview and the thoughts above lead me to the Bible or to God. I wonder is there foreign policy in the scriptures that could lead to war policy? Ecclesiastes 3:2-8 says, 

"For everything there is a season, a time for every activity under heaven. A time to be born and a time to die. A time to plant and a time to harvest. A time to kill and a time to heal.  A time to tear down and a time to build up. A time to cry and a time to laugh. A time to grieve and a time to dance. A time to scatter stones and a time to gather stones. A time to embrace and a time to turn away. A time to search and a time to quit searching. A time to keep and a time to throw away. A time to tear and a time to mend. A time to be quiet and a time to speak. A time to love and a time to hate. A time for war and a time for peace."

Hopefully, as I venture into the very heart of this subject, I can gain wisdom, knowledge and a understanding of what really needs to happen.

Secondly, I have been reading two book that I find to be very similar in nature. The first book The Nez Perce Story: The Last Indian War by Elliot West and the second, The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in The Midst of a Big One by David Kilcullen. The two books relate by how America misses the mark and seems to be occupied with a greater goal than understanding the situation that might harm them and others, is right under their feet. In the Nez Perce Story, according to West, America had one thing on her mind throughout the 1800s; expansion. And "with the [Civil] war won, a triumphant federal authority turned westward and took command". To a degree never attempting to understand the Native American and their way of life and culture. America, in that day, seemed to roll right over them. We tried to understand the Indians, but nevertheless kept getting frustrated and impatient and eventually telling the Indians, specifically the Nez Perce, forget it! We are taking your land whether you like it or not. Yes, there were many other factors that played a role, however, I believe it was our responsibility to cooperate with the Indians (soft power). A quote from The Accidental Guerrilla can be put right in with West's book. Kilcullen says, there is "a complex interaction between two interdependent trends: small wars and global confrontations, local social, networks and worldwide movements, traditional and post-modern culture, separatist and imperialist ambitions, nativist and pan-Islamic traditions. Our actions in what western governments have called the "war on terrorism" (war with Indians) to date have conflated these trends, blurring the distinctions between them and masking the very real disputes  and differences of interest among their members. This has enormously complicated the West's challenges and multiplied our enemies. I understand there is a time gap and we are now dealing with global threats and not just internal threats (indians), but almost same concept. In 1877, America was to powerful for the Native Americans. Now, in 2013, Can American put a cap on the war on terror like it did with the Indians? Did we bite off more than we can chew? Or was war with the terrorists unavoidable. 

^{2 3 4 5 6 7 8}