Does contracting out defense jobs make the army more dangerous?
Think about it. All the laundry, food, and I imagine many other non-soldier type jobs, are funneled off to the big defense contractors.
Just wondering, but wouldn’t that mean that the jobs available to enlisted folks would be narrowed down, with a higher percentage doing actual fighting and dying-type jobs? In the pre-contractor days, a guy who could cook could have joined the army and become a cook, but now that guy has to ride in an insufficiently-armored hummer instead.
Any folks here serve or served in the armed forces? I’d love to hear from an experienced point-of-view.
I am NOT experienced, but here is a stab at maybe part of it.
How much does it cost to train a soldier for deployment? All must do a minimum of Basic Training. Then, to be deployed into a non-combat job might be a little (or a lot) wasteful. This is not to suggest the big defense contractors are being super-efficient with our tax dollars either, but might explain a more specialized workforce.
But I imagine the salaries for all the contractors are quite a big higher than they are for the military personnel.
And lifetime benefits for PTSD or any injury, and care through the VAMC, though Bush has consistently tried to cut their benefits, to reduce the tax burden for the wealthy. The soldiers deserve better.
Salaries is not all. The big money goes to the corporation, who dole out bits of it to salaried workers who need to endanger themselves, because they cannot afford to live on a WalMart salary.
Contracting makes the world more dangerous because the contractors profit from war, and lobby for war, and make unnecessary wars more likely. EEK!
Just kidding! Actually, I don’t know anything about this. Let’s call the experts!
Yes, without a shadow of doubt. It’s simple maths. With less ‘non-die’ jobs available to the average enlistee, enlisting becomes a much more dangerous option.
Figure it out. Over 2000 USA GIs since the invasion began. Many of the contractors hire non-USAs, and many non-USAs have died for USA contractor. See the list of names and nation of origin.
Of course, many USA GIs are not USA citizens, either, like so many who do difficult and dangerous work for the USA.
I suspect in a war zone, a soldier would want soldiers doing his cooking, laundry and so on - at least anywhere near where the action is. Soldiers have the soldier’s ethic. A contractor will not.
However, it makes economic sense not to spend thousands on training someone to march and fire weapons, onyl for them to sit in a nice safe base or hospital, cooking and cleaning.
There has to be a place for contractors, but economics should not be the only argument.
But if economics were important in wars, we would have none.
Add up the cost of all the fuel and munitions expended in Afghanistan soon after 9/11. This money was spent killing people who hated the west (and lots of people who didn’t hate the west until the bombing started). Now, spend that money on hospitals, schools, water treatment works and so on. How much would they hate the west then? We spend so much effort and money protecting a pie too big for us to to eat from people who would be happy with a small slice. (Then Bush gives the gravy to his best friends.)
