The Iraq War's Outsourcing Snafu

Ever since Ronald Reagan proclaimed in his 1981 inaugural address that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem," leaders at all levels of government, Democrats and Republicans alike, have been outsourcing as much work as possible to the private sector. This is generally a good idea, but when it comes to the military, this trend may have gone too far.

Peter W. Singer, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of "Corporate Warriors," estimates that there are 20,000 to 30,000 civilians in Iraq performing traditional military functions, from maintaining weapons systems to guarding supply convoys. If you add foreigners involved in reconstruction and oil work, the total soars to 50,000 to 75,000. To put this into perspective: All of Washington's allies combined account for 23,000 troops in Iraq. In the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, Singer quips that "President George W. Bush's 'coalition of the willing' might thus be more aptly described as the 'coalition of the billing.'"

Let us stipulate that most contractors are upstanding, hardworking individuals who perform valuable and dangerous work. At least 175 have been killed and 900 wounded in Iraq. But their labor has been tarnished by scandals and snafus too numerous to ignore.

Oil-services giant Halliburton and the security firm Custer Battles, among others, have been accused of swindling U.S. taxpayers. Other contractors are said to have been simply ineffective. Vinnell Corp. did such a poor job of training Iraqi army recruits that half of its first battalion walked off the job. The Army had to step in to perform the work itself.

The most valued contractors are experienced former U.S. Special Forces operatives whose training cost the Pentagon hundreds of thousands of dollars. They are being lured out of uniform by the promise of making $500 to $1,000 a day. (If they stay in the service they'll be lucky to make $140 a day.) And where does that money come from? Pretty much all the foreign firms in Iraq are paid by the U.S. Treasury. So the government is in competition with itself for its most skilled and hard-to-replace soldiers. Does this sort of outsourcing really make sense?

Kinda makes up for all those days without enough food, sleep and water...

When I read a rant like this, I just want to urinate in my medical scrubs!

I was posted at Bagram Air Base in '03-'04. KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton, operated 3 Dining Facilities on base. These Dining Facilities provided 3 nutritious, hot meals per day, for approximately 10,000 troops, contractors, and NGO's (Non-Governmental Organizations, everybody's). This equates to over 30,000 meals per day! Not to mention the laundry facilities, the cleaning of the latrines, the disposition of supplies which the troops require, the MWR facilities and activities, housing and the maintenance of housing facilities of our troops, water production, fuel supplies, the disposition of wastes, etc.

All this was for a cot, 3 meals per day, life away from the family with few phone calls and an intermittent e-mail system. Civilians are not used to sleeping with 8-10 others in a wooden hut and no privacy. Many of our employees never spent a day in the military and had a difficult time handling such privations.

Yes, we did earn a nice salary, but the work load was hard. We received none of the perks which the military is accustomed to. We performed the job for the troops.

My answer to the Jewish World Review......keep your nose in something you have experience in. Stay out of our business!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.