Tell me again we have enough troops in Iraq...

[Theophylact]

...when private "security guards" have to rescue the Marines.

[RADAR1797]

Ah but Theo, you know you would be posting a story along the lines, "Military used to protect private firms, expenses mounting" if we had the entire Marine Corps there.

-RADAR

[jynxedu]

We have always had private security guards. We even have them in the states as well as abroad. (Wackenhutt, ITT, Blackwater). That is nothing new.

[MTAtech]

We outsource everything now.

One would think that it would be cheaper just to have more troops than to hire private firms.

[jynxedu]

Cheaper you say? Not at all.

When you have troops there, the the DoD has to pay for lodging, food, entertainment, transportation, pay, etc...

When they are contractors; all of that is rolled into the contract for a price, and if the company cannot complete the job with what it originally thought, tough. They have a contract with the DoD. They can either request more funds (Death knell for most companies) or take a hit and do it themselves.

[RADAR1797]

MTA,

As you might remember from ealier discussions, Congress set a cap on how many uniformed personnel we can have. Hence we "outsource" morethan we may like, but do so to have more trigger pullers and fewer cooks.

-RADAR

[MTAtech]

What's the salary of a soldier vs what the contractor is charging per head?

Military analysts say the private security arrangement allows regular military troops to concentrate on fighting. But they are concerned that the lucrative pay offered by private contractors -- often more than $100,000 a year -- is depleting the ranks of the special forces.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...aq.contractor/

The $100K doesn't include overhead, typically 50%.

Radar,
I'm questioning the policy. I'm interested in right-sizing the military. What's the sense scaling back the troops and spending ten times more on their replacement.

[Theophylact]

You might also consider that the training of these "security consultants" -- ex-Special Forces types, Navy Seals, and so forth -- was expensively paid for by the US government. Then they were hired away at ten times their military salary, and the government has to train their replacements.

By the way: these guys were providing "security services" for the Coalition Provisional Authority (a.k.a. "puppet government"), not for Halliburton.

[aldtech]

I don't think the solution to the problem here is more troops and less mercenaries but more of a need to think outside of the box. I think that the situation in Iraq will get worse before it ever gets better and that in the long rung more troops may be required. But even then, I think that until we are able to pacify the armed rebels either through open dialogue or force, the Iraqi people will never realize prosperity and the longer we are there the more resentment will grow among the Iraqi’s and the rest of the world.

Unfortunately, I think Sen. Kennedy has got it right to a degree in referring to that Iraq is Bush’s Vietnam but not so much as Bush’s problem or responsibility but a newer/updated version for the new millennium that is the worlds problem, not just ours. It is no longer about facing off against the tyranny of communism and the cold war of the past. This is a new version of the cold war that is not nor ever will be cold and at present, Iraq is the central point.

The war is no longer the West Vs. Russia/Communism but the West Vs. East, Islam and theocratic governments. Some of you are going to scream that this is not about religion but try telling that to those of Islam who are trying to struggle with self-identity while being told that the West wishes to strip you of God. Try thinking that way over the past 4-5 generations, even further back to the Middle Ages. The struggle is an old one that dates back to the crusades and further back to the breakup of the Roman Empire from one to two separate empires. The solution is even harder to fathom than the complexity of the problem.

How do you un-teach the hatred that is already there from generations past. How do you explain that they, the east, can keep and maintain their Islamic identity and still strive towards a democratic society? That in it self is the problem.

Iraq is the tip of the sword, where we go from here determines how much peace, if any, our descendants will enjoy. I fear for my children and future grandchildren in anxiety of what kind of world they will inherit. We seem to be hell-bent on destroying it either environmentally or through war. We have come full circle and no longer have a frontier to explore and expand into but each other to look at. What are you looking at? Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and the list goes on. Who are you? Some can live with the others but others dictate that there can only be one. Lets not loose our heads.

Iraq, in my opinion, is the one chance to do it right. It does not matter how we got there or whether we belong there, we ARE there and to leave without finishing the job will be a legacy that our children will only have to fix later or die trying. So what do we do, fulfill a campaign promise and pull out in order to get re-elected or because we got elected? That is not the solution. We need to bring on board the rest of the west for they too are just a responsible for Iraq and the Mid East as we are and for those of you who say that we are not, you are just fooling yourself in order justify leaving the problem for someone else.

AL

[Pexster]

Hear, hear, AL! So I just heard something on CNN that is making my blood boil (yes, again!). Paula Zahn, interviewing Sen. John Warner (R-Va), Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, asked him if the administration had underestimated the troop strength necessary to quell the resistance. He replied, "No, not the administration -- the military commanders." (I may have paraphrased slightly.) He went on to say that the administration has consistently allowed the military commanders on the ground to dictate the show.

Excuse me? Didn't Rumsfeld kick out the general who insisted that we needed more troops? Shinseki, if memory serves? And didn't Tommy Franks retire over this? Hasn't this been reported early and often? These guys (the politicos) have no shame! Right after Warner was saying how important it is right now to show our support for the troops he turned around and blamed the armed forces for any miscalculations -- as if Rumsfeld had nothing to do with it. What a liar!