PDA

View Full Version : What do our vets think about the US hiring military contractors?



CreepyOldDude
01-21-2015, 03:06 PM
I don't like them. I served for various reasons, none of which was money.

nathanbforrest45
01-21-2015, 03:31 PM
I would think those who want to be mercenaries would be more willing to fight then those who were drafted and didn't want to be in there in the first place.

As a vet I have no opinion on the matter other than the above.

CreepyOldDude
01-21-2015, 03:40 PM
I would think those who want to be mercenaries would be more willing to fight then those who were drafted and didn't want to be in there in the first place.

As a vet I have no opinion on the matter other than the above.

Well, since we haven't drafted anyone since 1973 or so, I doubt your answer is really germane.

Peter1469
01-21-2015, 03:40 PM
Contractors do a lot of things. Some I would agree with, others I wouldn't. When I was a private we got put on Post Detail all the time. Cut the grass, etc. Contractors do that now.

In a combat zone, contractors have taken over a lot of the logistical stuff, like operating the mess halls. When I was enlisted, soldiers worked and managed the mess halls. A lot of that is caused by the force strength Congresses authorizes. So the Army will say, we are going to contract out these specialized non-combat jobs and use our boots for warfighting work.

CreepyOldDude
01-21-2015, 04:02 PM
Contractors do a lot of things. Some I would agree with, others I wouldn't. When I was a private we got put on Post Detail all the time. Cut the grass, etc. Contractors do that now.

In a combat zone, contractors have taken over a lot of the logistical stuff, like operating the mess halls. When I was enlisted, soldiers worked and managed the mess halls. A lot of that is caused by the force strength Congresses authorizes. So the Army will say, we are going to contract out these specialized non-combat jobs and use our boots for warfighting work.

I don't have a problem with those instances. But they aren't really what I mean by military contractor. Those are contractors who happen to do work for the military. I'm talking about the companies providing security services. Like ArmourGroup. They did such a piss poor job at the US Embassy in Kabul, that the compound had to rated as in jeopardy. Guard posts were unmanned for hours at a time, a fair percentage of the guards didn't speak either English or Pashto, buying cheap, under-armored armored vehicles, etc.

While I think the Marines are glorified chuckleheads :), there's not a chance in Hell the Marines would have done such a piss poor job.

Peter1469
01-21-2015, 04:12 PM
If they are guarding an embassy they are working for the Department of State.

We used contractors to act as security on our larger posts in Iraq. But we had US quick reaction forces to take care of any problems. And aircraft.
I don't have a problem with those instances. But they aren't really what I mean by military contractor. Those are contractors who happen to do work for the military. I'm talking about the companies providing security services. Like ArmourGroup. They did such a piss poor job at the US Embassy in Kabul, that the compound had to rated as in jeopardy. Guard posts were unmanned for hours at a time, a fair percentage of the guards didn't speak either English or Pashto, buying cheap, under-armored armored vehicles, etc.

While I think the Marines are glorified chuckleheads :), there's not a chance in Hell the Marines would have done such a piss poor job.

CreepyOldDude
01-21-2015, 05:04 PM
If they are guarding an embassy they are working for the Department of State.

We used contractors to act as security on our larger posts in Iraq. But we had US quick reaction forces to take care of any problems. And aircraft.

The Department of State isn't part of the US?

Maybe it's because I'm older, and served a long time ago, but I saw a lot of security problems because of the use of non-military personnel on base. The Green Beanies never had the security problems we did, because they didn't let any non military into their camps.

I've mellowed a bit over the years, and I'm okay now with contractors taking care of the Mickey Mouse, but I really don't like them doing security that the military should be doing.

Peter1469
01-21-2015, 05:35 PM
The title of the thread is about hiring military contractors.

State Department contractors don't fit the definition.

The DoD offered to provide security for the DoS. They refused.

CreepyOldDude
01-21-2015, 06:21 PM
The title of the thread is about hiring military contractors.

State Department contractors don't fit the definition.

The DoD offered to provide security for the DoS. They refused.

Fine, call them Private Military Companies, then.

I did specify that they were being hired by the US, not the DoD specifically.

Peter1469
01-21-2015, 07:27 PM
Fine, call them Private Military Companies, then.

I did specify that they were being hired by the US, not the DoD specifically.

My mistake. My response was based off the title of the thread.

Peter1469
01-21-2015, 07:27 PM
If we want to talk about Private Military Companies I have lots to say about them. Be back in a bit.

Peter1469
01-21-2015, 07:44 PM
Private Military Contractors (PMCs) have their place. They can also be used incorrectly. I would not use them for offensive operations inside a theater of conflict where the US is actively fighting. Defensive fine. Special missions like personal protection fine.

Where I think PMCs can be used to great effect is by the United Nations in conflicts where no nation-state has a vital interest to get involved. Like a lot of the wars in Africa where there are humanitarian crises. UN nations can pay the bill and not have to risk their own troops.

Cthulhu
01-27-2015, 01:36 AM
I think mercs are a wonderful thing.

You get people willing to do things for a paycheck. You don't have horrible stories of soldiers forced to do horrid things because they have to follow orders. If someone of dubious moral caliber wants to do it for a wad of cash - super.

Plus it will limit the amount of warfare available. Mercs are only so willing to do crazy and stupid things. That means less BS the super power could pull on the rest of the world.

CreepyOldDude
01-27-2015, 12:19 PM
My mistake. My response was based off the title of the thread.

Using the wrong phrase is part and parcel of the trouble I'm having after the latest concussion.

CreepyOldDude
01-27-2015, 12:32 PM
Private Military Contractors (PMCs) have their place. They can also be used incorrectly. I would not use them for offensive operations inside a theater of conflict where the US is actively fighting. Defensive fine. Special missions like personal protection fine.

Where I think PMCs can be used to great effect is by the United Nations in conflicts where no nation-state has a vital interest to get involved. Like a lot of the wars in Africa where there are humanitarian crises. UN nations can pay the bill and not have to risk their own troops.

I can see them having their uses for personal protection details, but what about security details, like ArmourGroup guarding the Embassy in Kabul? Those, I definitely think should be kept in the hands of the military.

I'll have to give some thought to the idea of the UN using mercenaries in conflict countries where no nation has enough interest to step in.

CreepyOldDude
01-27-2015, 12:34 PM
I think mercs are a wonderful thing.

You get people willing to do things for a paycheck. You don't have horrible stories of soldiers forced to do horrid things because they have to follow orders. If someone of dubious moral caliber wants to do it for a wad of cash - super.

Plus it will limit the amount of warfare available. Mercs are only so willing to do crazy and stupid things. That means less BS the super power could pull on the rest of the world.

I think you're being overly optimistic with the idea that the rise of mercenary companies will result in less warfare. After all, the more conflict there is, the more money they make.

Peter1469
01-27-2015, 01:34 PM
I can see them having their uses for personal protection details, but what about security details, like ArmourGroup guarding the Embassy in Kabul? Those, I definitely think should be kept in the hands of the military.

I'll have to give some thought to the idea of the UN using mercenaries in conflict countries where no nation has enough interest to step in.

I have no problem with PMCs doing defensive roles like guarding an embassy. The State Department refused to allow DoD to do it in Iraq.

CreepyOldDude
01-27-2015, 02:52 PM
I have no problem with PMCs doing defensive roles like guarding an embassy. The State Department refused to allow DoD to do it in Iraq.

Personally, I think the security risks are far too great, using a PMC at an Embassy. It should be military, and State shouldn't have a say in it.

If an Embassy were to be attacked. mercenaries are not going to fight overwhelming odds. They don't get paid to do things like that. Marines, or Army, would, if they were ordered to. Which could be enough time to allow for proper disposal of classified documents and data.

SoonToBe2LT
02-10-2015, 01:09 PM
I don't like them. I served for various reasons, none of which was money.

Most government contractors were military. I was a government contractor briefly after being in the military. However, the contractors get a much nicer setup than a soldier. It feels awkward.

Cthulhu
02-10-2015, 01:22 PM
I think you're being overly optimistic with the idea that the rise of mercenary companies will result in less warfare. After all, the more conflict there is, the more money they make.
Perhaps, but industrial scale warfare would be a rare sight indeed. Simply due to the costs of someone who can quit when they feel like it, and then the salary you have to pay that guy.

I think it would work better than you'd think.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

Ivan88
01-09-2016, 01:58 AM
During WW2 the enlisted guys in the Navy managed to sink 8 US submarines according to this report:
At the outset of the interview, Prof. Chi asserts that submarines are the “克星” [nemesis] of aircraft carriers. He explains that over the course of World War II, no less than seventeen aircraft carriers were sunk by submarines. With another nod to the U.S. Navy’s prowess, Prof. Chi points out that eight of those seventeen were put down by U.S. submarines.
http://russia-insider.com/en/military/how-sink-us-carrier-china-turns-france-ideas/ri11829

Crepitus
01-11-2016, 12:18 AM
I know this is an old thread, but I just saw it for the first time so I'm gonna comment.

From 1985 to 1996 and a couple of times after that I worked for a variety of different PMCs. Oddly enough you will find that money is not always the main motivation for joining one. Yes, the money is good, especially if you've got skills/training to trade on, but often enough you will find especially in the younger people that something else, a desire to prove one self, excitement, adventure (for lack of a better word) is the main motivating factor.

With the good companies training tends to be better than pretty much anything you will get from the government, Dyncorp sent me to API and various other places, and they provide opportunities for advanced training (at your expense but they set it up) for all sorts of cool stuff. I went to Israel to train hostage rescue with Yamam for instance. Everything you add to your resume adds to your paycheck so while pretty pricey up front they tend to pay for themselves in the long run.

You also tend to see a lot more variety as a merc. I've guarded diamond mines in South Africa (also got involved in a nasty little bush conflict down there, and that sucked big time), we did CPP in Lebanon as well as being used as point to retake a couple of different objectives, guarded an airfield in Iraq (cushy job there, air conditioning, 3 meals a day, access to the club and all that) and all sorts of other stuff.

With the international companies you meet a lot of interesting people, I've worked with folks from all over the world. Lotsa Brits and Russians, Boers, Koreans, you name it.

That's a little bit about it, feel free to ask any questions. I'll answer as best I can.

Tahuyaman
01-24-2016, 11:30 PM
I would think those who want to be mercenaries would be more willing to fight then those who were drafted and didn't want to be in there in the first place.

As a vet I have no opinion on the matter other than the above.

I have no problem with military contractors as long as they are used in a combat service and support (CSS) role.