Defense Spending

[Butters 0]

Margie, is that you?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Margie, is that you?

NO Nancy.... its not

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If there had been a draft (more participants, fewer spectators), perhaps more people would have been more vested in the latest conflicts and we'd have had more pressure to end them earlier and bring everyone home.

A draft wouldn't have dramatically changed the troop count in these two wars. It should eliminate the stop gap reenlistments though. But again, this may mean an extra 50%?

Vietnam or Korea or WWII involved a lot more people.

[BIGUN 1,326]

Quote

I guess it never happened eh... no innocent civilians were killed by Blackwater Contractors..

Past performance is indicative of future events.

Innocent civilians and even our own troops (friendly fire) will be killed.
That has always been and always will be the nature of war.
If you cannot stomach it; then its best not to, "Cry Havoc, and let slip the dogs of war."

Mike: Prior to this event, BW was NOT beholding to the UCMJ. However, after the incident; change regarding the UCMJ was inserted into the 2007 Defense Authorization Act by Senator Lindsay Graham who noted that the change would “give military commanders a more fair and efficient means of discipline on the battlefield. The provision clarifies the Uniform Code of Military Justice to place civilian contractors accompanying the Armed Forces in the field under court-martial jurisdiction during contingency operations as well as in times of declared war.” Graham is not coincidentally also a reserve Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer.

The amendment resulted in a small but highly significant change to article two of the UCMJ. Previously article two explained military legal jurisdiction over civilians as being conditional according to the following language: “in time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.” That language has now been altered to read “In time of declared war or a contingency operation, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.” The amendment also defines “contingency operation” as “a military operation that is designated by the Secretary of Defense as an operation in which members of the armed forces are or may become involved in military actions, operations, or hostilities against an enemy of the United States or against an opposing military force” along with a host of other conditions where the military may be called into action. This is significant, as Congress is loathe to issue a declaration of war anymore. In the case of United States v. Averette, the Court of Military Appeals set aside the conviction of a contractor in Saigon because the conflict in Vietnam was not technically a “time of declared war.”

Source:http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222291/blackwaters-legal-netherworld/mark-hemingway

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[mnealtx 0]

That's true, Keith.

Unfortunately, the thread has now derailed from a comparison of military vs. contractor spending.

But, since we've gone there...here's a snip from a GAO report comparing the cost of using State Department employees for security services instead of contractors.

***Our comparison of likely State Department costs versus contractor costs for four task orders and one contract awarded by the State Department for security services in Iraq showed that for three of the task orders and the contract, the cost of using State Department employees would be greater than using contractors, while the State Department's estimated cost to use federal employees was less for the other task order.

For example, using State Department employees to provide static security for the embassy in Baghdad would have cost the department approximately $858 million for 1 year compared to the approximately $78 million charged by the contractor for the same time period.

In contrast, our cost comparison of the task order for providing personal security for State Department employees while in the Baghdad region--which required personnel that have security clearances--showed that for this task order, the State Department's estimated annual cost would have been about $240 million, whereas the contractor charged approximately $380 million for 1 year.

However, because the State Department does not currently have a sufficient number of trained personnel to provide security in Iraq, the department would need to recruit, hire, and train additional employees at an additional cost of $162 million.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Because you're looking solely at the paycheck. The logistical 'tail' for a troop makes them MORE expensive than a contractor. The home base, support structure, support units, training costs, military retirement/medical, etc...

Are you certain that's actually true? I'm not.

Aside from the studies done by two federal bean counting organizations posted above, use your common sense. Consider the cost of providing every basic need for every serviceman sent anywhere. All food, clothing, shelter, weapons, medical, dental, training, transport, and assorted bureaucratic coats associated with a soldier. Now consider that a contractor costs a flat fee. That flat fee is a hell of a lot less. Then consider that contractors don't have GI bill, the VA, and all the other benefits of service. Injured contracted also cost a whole lot less than injured servicemen. If you look at cold hard numbers, the contractors are cheaper. They are also able to respond much more quickly than Fed, inc.

New trouble in Shitholistan? Not sending in big green but you need security for government employees? They can be there next week. How long will the federal bureaucracy take to get people there?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 4]

Quote

Aside from the studies done by two federal bean counting organizations posted above, use your common sense.

I see those previous studies and raise you a more current one. Please note the date and bi-partisan committee making up the report.

The more current one comes flat out and says there are huge wastes and fraud in contracting because of a lack of oversight.

http://www.wartimecontracting.gov/docs/CWC_InterimReport2-lowres.pdf

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Aside from the studies done by two federal bean counting organizations posted above, use your common sense.

I see those previous studies and raise you a more current one. Please note the date and bi-partisan committee making up the report.

Please show where CBO or GAO are uni-partisan, thanks.

Quote

The more current one comes flat out and says there are huge wastes and fraud in contracting because of a lack of oversight.

http://www.wartimecontracting.gov/docs/CWC_InterimReport2-lowres.pdf

1. Since you bring up FWA (apparently to try to debunk the cost of contractors), you need to link to an FWA report for the military so we can compare the two fairly.

2. There report doesn't debunk the already-stated cost advantage to using contractors in lieu of troops. In fact, the report doesn't speak to the comparative cost at all - was there a reason you felt compelled to include it?

Oh - another bit for the grist mill - there are caps on the number of military personnel that can be in-theater, so fed.gov very likely couldn't implement replacing contractors with military even IF they could reduce the cost enough to make it cheaper.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[tkhayes 348]

I am all for a draft, mandatory, no exceptions. Every time congress votes to invade another country, the bill or resolution includes a draft for all persons 18 to 50 years old, mandatory to pick up a gun and go fight. Congress, Senate and their families included. NO EXCEPTIONS for anyone

I would vote for that in a heartbeat. We would never fight another war again.

[davjohns 1]

I've often thought that war should be waged like it used to be. If the King (President) wants to go to war, fine. Ruck up and let's go. Leave the VP in charge and lead the troops from the front. All of you Congressmembers and Senators, grab a rifle and get on the plane. Pray you left the diplomats a way to get you home.

I think it would end us being the world's police force.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

Nor do contractors have to put up with the Politically Correct bullshit of the new and improved corporate military.
Think of them as our own French Foreign Legion albeit already highly trained.

Nor are contractors subject to the command of the President of the United States or the supervision of the United States Congress. Personally, I'm not OK with that.

BTW, the French Foreign Legion is a unit of the French military, and is subject to the command of the French government.

Hahaha - thou art misinformed, and makest me laugh.

US contractors deployed overseas while attached to the US military are subject to both MEJA (Military Extratorritorial Jurisdiction Act [introduced as S.768 in 2000, BEFORE Abu Graib or any of that]) and (believe it or not), as of 2007, subject to Article 2 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I didn't believe it either, until someone showed it to me.

Those who think that US contractors working overseas are a bunch of mercenaries accountable to no one are grossly ignorant.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Guest]

Quote

BTW, the French Foreign Legion is a unit of the French military, and is subject to the command of the French government.

And, when the French government turns them loose, they don't laden them down with silly "Rules of Engagement."