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...