http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3846316477
Ya, um, keep the soldiers who are legally accountable to their jobs there thanx, get these dicks out of there.
Private contracting in Iraq
Moderator: Moderators
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
-
Tim Blokdijk
- Posts: 1242
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 11:18
poor naive tim, if only it were that easy...
no one's vote counts for shit
there are two big conglomerates that fight over control of the government, and both of them do this kind of shit all day long
they don't exist to run the country the way the people want it to be run, they exist to win elections and generate profit for themselves and for whichever companies sponsor them
if you have a good idea of how to stop it you're going to turn up dead, because there's huge systems in place to prevent that from happening
i laugh if you think that we "chose this ourselves". who the hell do you think chose this? the people that are paying for it, or the people that are running the show?
no one's vote counts for shit
there are two big conglomerates that fight over control of the government, and both of them do this kind of shit all day long
they don't exist to run the country the way the people want it to be run, they exist to win elections and generate profit for themselves and for whichever companies sponsor them
if you have a good idea of how to stop it you're going to turn up dead, because there's huge systems in place to prevent that from happening
i laugh if you think that we "chose this ourselves". who the hell do you think chose this? the people that are paying for it, or the people that are running the show?
There is no government without public approval. Government cannot exist without the people obeying. If the people really wanted to get rid of the govt they'd get it done, by force if necessary (without civilians running some economy and making material even the military is grounded).
However I doubt it's that bad in the US, the issue there is mostly complacency. People can't be arsed to become politically active, can't be arsed to vote for the guy who represents them properly instead of a run-of-the-mill candidate they think everyone's voting for and can't be arsed to put some pressure on their elected officials.
However I doubt it's that bad in the US, the issue there is mostly complacency. People can't be arsed to become politically active, can't be arsed to vote for the guy who represents them properly instead of a run-of-the-mill candidate they think everyone's voting for and can't be arsed to put some pressure on their elected officials.
-
Felix the Cat
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: 15 Jun 2005, 17:30
It's more that people in the US are reasonably satisfied with the system here... and the system is more or less the same regardless of who is President or what party controls Congress. The majority of adult Americans have very little interaction with the government, and they are happy with that lack of interaction.
-
Tim Blokdijk
- Posts: 1242
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 11:18
As I understand it the usa actually isn't a two party state in law (as in China is a one party state by law) and we had a rigid system here (Netherlands) to a while back but that changed like over night with this bald gay guy Pim Fortuyn. He was shot so you're right that fighting the system is not good for your personal health but in the end it did change the political system.hunterw wrote:poor naive tim, if only it were that easy...
...
Inevitably in politics there're people who want power and they go into politics for that reason.
For example the Tory/Conservatives in the UK.
In the USA there're numerous people who will be in the same sort of jobs regardless of whose president and theyll be in positions to give a lot of funding. People in the military, advisors, members of the senate, etc.
Perhaps thing might change when the next president comes along if they're not republican. Maybe they wont. But inevitably washington is corrupt with inside deals and favours everywhere, and if a new party comes into power that isnt part of this, they will be by the end of the year.
That senate needs a makeover, that carpets horrible. The houses of parliament in london look much prettier.
For example the Tory/Conservatives in the UK.
In the USA there're numerous people who will be in the same sort of jobs regardless of whose president and theyll be in positions to give a lot of funding. People in the military, advisors, members of the senate, etc.
Perhaps thing might change when the next president comes along if they're not republican. Maybe they wont. But inevitably washington is corrupt with inside deals and favours everywhere, and if a new party comes into power that isnt part of this, they will be by the end of the year.
That senate needs a makeover, that carpets horrible. The houses of parliament in london look much prettier.
I started working on a plan for political reform in the United States five years ago in a fit of depression. I still haven't finished it - but I doubt you'll ever see it. Hard to be rational and find a path to approximate rationality, still harder to remove the element of revolution from any good plan.
From someone who is in the 'industry'
For some of us, the line is so blurred on which days are odd numbered and which are even to decide when we are public or private companies.
Market systems and theoretical cannot predict reality, and reality cannot serve as a basis for experiments to establish hypothesis.
For some of us, the line is so blurred on which days are odd numbered and which are even to decide when we are public or private companies.
Market systems and theoretical cannot predict reality, and reality cannot serve as a basis for experiments to establish hypothesis.
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
What do you do specifically? I mean, to be fair, I realize there definitely is another side to the story, but you must realize at the same time that there are DEFINITELY private contractors profiteering off this war in ways that are far beyond appropriate. This isn't to say that everyone they employ is scum, or that there is no room in war for private contracting. But I think the whistle has blown pretty loudly and clearly to show us that it needs alot more regulation than it's currently getting, and it's NOT something that is appropriate to ignore any longer.vraa wrote:From someone who is in the 'industry'
For some of us, the line is so blurred on which days are odd numbered and which are even to decide when we are public or private companies.
Market systems and theoretical cannot predict reality, and reality cannot serve as a basis for experiments to establish hypothesis.
-
Felix the Cat
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: 15 Jun 2005, 17:30
The alternative to using PMCs (private military contractors) is, of course, reinstating the draft.
Problem is, the people who would line up to protest using PMCs are the same people who would line up to burn their draft cards...
...and some of those same people would line up to protest withdrawing from Iraq.
There's no pleasing some people. (If you're reading this, Dubya, you can please me AND support the troops by bringing them home and letting the Iraqis work out Iraq's problems.)
Problem is, the people who would line up to protest using PMCs are the same people who would line up to burn their draft cards...
...and some of those same people would line up to protest withdrawing from Iraq.
There's no pleasing some people. (If you're reading this, Dubya, you can please me AND support the troops by bringing them home and letting the Iraqis work out Iraq's problems.)
-
SpikedHelmet
- MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 08:25
No, the alternative to using PMCs is having the US military perform all of these jobs by itself but paying the skilled jobs the same amount, instead of paying some middleman contractor an assfuck ton moreFelix the Cat wrote:The alternative to using PMCs (private military contractors) is, of course, reinstating the draft.
-
Felix the Cat
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: 15 Jun 2005, 17:30
...but the reason we have PMCs is that the US military is already unable to perform the jobs due to lack of adequate personnel.hunterw wrote:No, the alternative to using PMCs is having the US military perform all of these jobs by itself but paying the skilled jobs the same amount, instead of paying some middleman contractor an assfuck ton moreFelix the Cat wrote:The alternative to using PMCs (private military contractors) is, of course, reinstating the draft.
The reasons why we don't have enough soldiers are actually surprisingly complex.
The simple version is this.
For various reasons which seemed perfectly reasonable at the time, the US military embraced what is known as the latest revolution in military affairs (RMA).
For various other reasons which also seemed perfectly reasonable at the time, it was decided that, in implementing the technologies and techniques of this RMA, the mission of the US military would be changed.
The US military has become very capable of:
-killing people
-breaking things
-doing both wherever in the world the commander in chief deems it necessary to perform such activities.
However, the US military has become vastly less capable of:
-sitting on a piece of ground
-preventing any hostile forces from entering said piece of ground.
This is because the US military's general war strategy relies on:
-identifying hostile targets at long range
-engaging and destroying said hostile targets at said long range
-relying on modern technology to multiply the effectiveness of each servicemember at performing the above tasks.
If I had to list one reason for all of the above changes, I would list:
-China.
I do lots of things but nothing directly. I just manage money and it's very hard for the government to source quick big ticket items to get moved.SwiftSpear wrote:What do you do specifically? I mean, to be fair, I realize there definitely is another side to the story, but you must realize at the same time that there are DEFINITELY private contractors profiteering off this war in ways that are far beyond appropriate. This isn't to say that everyone they employ is scum, or that there is no room in war for private contracting. But I think the whistle has blown pretty loudly and clearly to show us that it needs alot more regulation than it's currently getting, and it's NOT something that is appropriate to ignore any longer.vraa wrote:From someone who is in the 'industry'
For some of us, the line is so blurred on which days are odd numbered and which are even to decide when we are public or private companies.
Market systems and theoretical cannot predict reality, and reality cannot serve as a basis for experiments to establish hypothesis.
That's where lots of 'defense' contractors step in to pick up the slack.
Just food for though:
Which do you think is a more attractive target to get a RPG up it's rear end?
A military camo-ed cargo plane
or
A FedEx/UPS cargo plane
Lot's of these bigger corporation have specific rules and regulations to get around 'laws'
There is truth in the saying that the law stops applying when you have enough money. Thank your stars it's true. Government itself is too much like molasses to get things changed and to get things done.
There is only one thing the government is good for, it's original intent. A government is created by the will of individuals to give up specific rights in order to protect others. Read up on theories of the social contract; it's a good beginning to start to understand why government should hold a monopoly of force (to an extent of course).
The only problem with this is when it becomes unchecked (for purposes that are good or bad, it goes both ways) and it runs into what Eisenhower said about the military industrial complex from WW2. Now we have to live on it. There's no going around that fact -- but we can start afresh once we've hit space. Considering the variables right now there we have the entire universe to ourselves :) Hopefully we can hold off militarization of space for as long as possible and have private investment outpace public: I think it's certainly possible it in today's young money rich society (thanks to the tech sector).
I'm just the guy that sees the dollar bills and euro's -- so just my perspective on the 'world'
-
Felix the Cat
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: 15 Jun 2005, 17:30
Carrying on vraa's point.
The military has three (possibly four) options when deciding how it will achieve a certain goal.
Let's say that the military needs 50 guards to provide security at a helicopter base in a low-threat area.
The military can do one of four things to meet this need:
1) Deploy a company of troops specifically trained to do the job at hand (preferably military police, alternatively infantry).
2) Deploy a company of troops outside of its area of speciality (say, an ADA [air defense artillery] unit).
3a) Hire an outside (non-local) contractor.
3b) Hire a local contractor.
In Iraq, 3b is out, for what I hope are obvious reasons.
Option 1 involves using troops that are more needed elsewhere - say, fighting insurgents in Anbar province.
That leaves us with options 2 and 3a - and both are being used in Iraq. Each has its benefits and drawbacks. Soldiers in a unit deployed outside its area of specialty will have, of course, received all of the basic training that every soldier receives. They will be proficient in using their weapons, and will generally behave in a soldierly fashion. However, they will not have received as much training in the finer points of ground fighting and guard duty, including ways of identifying friendly and hostile individuals in an unfamiliar environment - in our example, the ADA troops are more adept at identifying friendly and hostile aircraft. This will naturally lead to higher numbers of incidents in which an innocent civilian is fired upon. Not good.
PMC personnel are generally ex-military, and are generally well-trained in whatever they are doing. However, as it's been pointed out, they are less capable of being held responsible for misbehavior. They may also be more expensive (but are also sometimes less expensive) than using non-specialized soldiers.
The military has three (possibly four) options when deciding how it will achieve a certain goal.
Let's say that the military needs 50 guards to provide security at a helicopter base in a low-threat area.
The military can do one of four things to meet this need:
1) Deploy a company of troops specifically trained to do the job at hand (preferably military police, alternatively infantry).
2) Deploy a company of troops outside of its area of speciality (say, an ADA [air defense artillery] unit).
3a) Hire an outside (non-local) contractor.
3b) Hire a local contractor.
In Iraq, 3b is out, for what I hope are obvious reasons.
Option 1 involves using troops that are more needed elsewhere - say, fighting insurgents in Anbar province.
That leaves us with options 2 and 3a - and both are being used in Iraq. Each has its benefits and drawbacks. Soldiers in a unit deployed outside its area of specialty will have, of course, received all of the basic training that every soldier receives. They will be proficient in using their weapons, and will generally behave in a soldierly fashion. However, they will not have received as much training in the finer points of ground fighting and guard duty, including ways of identifying friendly and hostile individuals in an unfamiliar environment - in our example, the ADA troops are more adept at identifying friendly and hostile aircraft. This will naturally lead to higher numbers of incidents in which an innocent civilian is fired upon. Not good.
PMC personnel are generally ex-military, and are generally well-trained in whatever they are doing. However, as it's been pointed out, they are less capable of being held responsible for misbehavior. They may also be more expensive (but are also sometimes less expensive) than using non-specialized soldiers.
There is a wonderful fifth option.
Treat the war like a war, tax to fund, put more boots on the ground and take the PR rap. When the nation is at war, the nation is at war - not a small subset directed and alternatively disowned by both supporters and detractors. Industry supports the military, rationing appears as necessary, the government must organize and protect the populace.
You can not run a war without paying for it. You can not run a war without treating it as a war.
Oh, and send core military, rather than reserves. We send reserves not because we are stretched to the limit (We are stretched to discomfort, a very different thing) but because reserves place less of a load on the system and cost the government less to employ.
Treat the war like a war, tax to fund, put more boots on the ground and take the PR rap. When the nation is at war, the nation is at war - not a small subset directed and alternatively disowned by both supporters and detractors. Industry supports the military, rationing appears as necessary, the government must organize and protect the populace.
You can not run a war without paying for it. You can not run a war without treating it as a war.
Oh, and send core military, rather than reserves. We send reserves not because we are stretched to the limit (We are stretched to discomfort, a very different thing) but because reserves place less of a load on the system and cost the government less to employ.
That would work if the federal level was required to keep a balance (many state and local governments are required to keep balance).Treat the war like a war, tax to fund, put more boots on the ground and take the PR rap.
The logistical nightmares involved in such an implementation on a grand scale reversing all of todays 'bad habits' scares me more than Sefidel's airlifted warriors in my base.
The US Government is a mad machine that cannot be stopped very easily. Change can only come, and will only come over time.
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
This is how I see it... There is nothing wrong with military contractors. They have access to larger pools of resources faster than internal military sources would, they have MUCH more access to qualified personnel than any military operation could get. They know how and where to get hardware and use it in the civilian sector long before they ever need to use it on the battlefield, and they don't have to worry about any arbitrary, per unit cost restrictions, they can just equip their personnel with whatever they see fit for the job they are carrying out.
What's so bad about fighting in a war if you are free to quit your job and go home whenever you want/if you don't agree with the cause? and if you threaten that, well maby your employer will promote you and make the cost worth the suffering. Military contractors have MANY things about them that are much more sensical than an appointed fighting force.
That being said, they need to be regulated for safety/fairness. Military contractors can't be allowed to murder or torture foreign civilians. They must be held under obligation to preform the tasks they are contracted to sufficient quality (they can't allow US army soldiers to shower in contaminated water). They must adhere to the safety restrictions placed upon them (no usage of civilian convoys on black/red roads durrrrr). And they should be paid according to the value and quality of their work, inefficient/poor jobs done on their behalf should cost them contract credit.
Like any stateside company they need to follow rules that hold them accountable to the quality of service needed by the issuer of the contract.
[edit] and, as with all governmental contracting, if the contracts aren't allowed to be competitive it's insider trading.
What's so bad about fighting in a war if you are free to quit your job and go home whenever you want/if you don't agree with the cause? and if you threaten that, well maby your employer will promote you and make the cost worth the suffering. Military contractors have MANY things about them that are much more sensical than an appointed fighting force.
That being said, they need to be regulated for safety/fairness. Military contractors can't be allowed to murder or torture foreign civilians. They must be held under obligation to preform the tasks they are contracted to sufficient quality (they can't allow US army soldiers to shower in contaminated water). They must adhere to the safety restrictions placed upon them (no usage of civilian convoys on black/red roads durrrrr). And they should be paid according to the value and quality of their work, inefficient/poor jobs done on their behalf should cost them contract credit.
Like any stateside company they need to follow rules that hold them accountable to the quality of service needed by the issuer of the contract.
[edit] and, as with all governmental contracting, if the contracts aren't allowed to be competitive it's insider trading.
