Replies

I’ve asked on other threads, but nobody has answered: How did we get by in WW II, Korea, Vietnam and Desert Storm without private security firms (let alone a private security firms that “reportedly has close ties to the former Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi)? Anybody know? And did I read correctly that this private security thing was started by Clinton in his war on Haiti?

look here to understand Erinys’ origins

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5731.htm

the answer to your other Q is that we had plenty of active duty personnel to do the job.....see, “privatization” in the absence of a draft is very profitable......GI’s haven’t pulled KP since the 70’s.....etc, etc.

"How did we get by in WW II, Korea, Vietnam and Desert Storm without private security firms (let alone a private security firms that “reportedly has close ties to the former Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi)? Anybody know?"

Although the circumstances varied in each of the conflicts you name, the answer lies not so much in addressing "private security firms," in specific, but "private contractors" in general. VN_Survivor answered the question accurately in #3, but hopefully, I can furnish a few more details. First, what we're engaged in now, unlike Desert Storm, is a nation building exercise. There are substantive numbers of diplomatic personnel (i.e. Department of State) in country. If the DoD were to dedicate military personnel to the security details of State Dep't personnel, that would greatly increase the requirements on the number of military personnel needed in theater, and fewer service members would be available for the purely military aspects of the mission.

Another matter is the increasing sophistication of our weaponry and equipment. Whereas in Vietnam, for example, a crew of (uniformed) helicopter mechanics could generally service everything on the flight line, something as sophisticated as an AH-64 has individual guidance/navigation, weaponing, avionics, etc. systems that each require individual specialists. It is far more cost effective for the military to have service technicians from the manufacturer or other contract specialists than it is to train personnel in these very limited, almost arcane disciplines.

FWIW, I see it as a double-edged sword. It does allow for a leaner, meaner military with more trigger pullers, but it does complicate the matter of synchronization and coordination between many, many organizations and can cause potential problems with command and control. I'm not sure if there's a "perfect" solution or balance, only better and worse ones....

How did we get by in WW II, Korea, Vietnam and Desert Storm without private security firms (let alone a private security firms that “reportedly has close ties to the former Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi)?

Others have answered much of your question. Another reason is because of numbers. DoD has been under the gun for over 20 years to reduce the number of military and then the number of civilian employees.

Somebody still has to do the work. DoD substituted civilians and then contractors to meet the numbers imposed on them by politicians. Many, many former military jobs are now performed by contractors. They say it saves money to use contractors but I never have really understood that.

In addition, many military missions have been transferred to the Reserves and National Guard over the years. That explains why we must use them more to augment the active force.