Outsourcing soldiers

[radhak]

Came upon this only now. interesting read. Outsourcing soldiers (http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=14280&repository=0001_article)

at first i thought it was something along, 'those damned Indians. now they are taking away all our glory and death too!' ;)

but looks like GWB's people have been mighty creative with numbers : quite like some of our CFOs.

They used to be called mercenaries or Hessians, but now hired soldiers are called contractors. Outsourcing allows the government to hide some of the costs on the American side of a conflict, at the same time confusing the mandate. In the case of the Iraq war, the death toll is higher than we think and virtually impossible to know, since security contractors keep their business — both how many employees they have on the ground and how many come home in coffins — secret.

As for the costs to contractors, private companies don’t return phone calls, but The Independent, a London paper, reported that during the Fallujah siege in the first week of April, 80 mercenaries — from the United States and other countries — died in addition to the 70 American troops who perished while fighting the rebellion.

[skunk]

but looks like GWB's people have been mighty creative with numbers : quite like some of our CFOs.
I misjudged the Administration: I thought they were being racist and cynical in only counting American dead, but now it looks like they aren't even doing that. Someone should be collating all this. Looks like the first casualty of War is Math.

[zimv20]

math is hard

[Chip NoVaMac]

Let the poor fight the wars, while the contractors, who probably give more to the GOP than to the Dems, get fat off of our tax dollars. Which of course with tax cuts that favor the wealthy, they get see see even more of the blood money.

St. Peter is going to have fun these folks.

[Voltron]

Let the poor fight the wars, while the contractors, who probably give more to the GOP than to the Dems, get fat off of our tax dollars. Which of course with tax cuts that favor the wealthy, they get see see even more of the blood money.

St. Peter is going to have fun these folks.
ok, so wheres the problem?

[mactastic]

ok, so wheres the problem?

I guess you don't have anything against war profiteering, but some of us do.

[Voltron]

I guess you don't have anything against war profiteering, but some of us do.
No I get tired of arguing that there is nothing wrong with a volunteer army. I hate to hear a recruiter say "sorry we can't let in we reached our quota of poor people this quarter." Those who wish to join should be allowed, as long as we have enough volunteers we have no need for a draft.

[blackfox]

Voltron, this is not about legitimate US armed forces recruits, who are free to volunteer or not, but about the hiring of mercenaries from around the world, who ar subject to only a private mandate, and whose numbers, oversight and accountability for actions are not known to the public, nor judged by our military standards, even though they fight in our name. The armed forces do not recruit for profit, these "contractors" do...there is a difference.

[mactastic]

There's nothing wrong at all with an all volunteer army. But what happens when you overextend your all volunteer army, and need more soldiers to meet an increasing level of commitment?

[Chip NoVaMac]

There's nothing wrong at all with an all volunteer army. But what happens when you overextend your all volunteer army, and need more soldiers to meet an increasing level of commitment?

I disagree, when you have GOP led initiatives that give the lower class little hope of a future other than the military, and that same GOP then sends them to places that can be deemed questionable that is wrong.

If the rich politicians in both parties and the big money supporters sent more of their children to war zones, they might not be so quick to start them.

I want a draft. Make it harder for the rich boys to spend their time not reporting for duty with the ANG. Using their connections to get better postings.

Maybe if the "rich" spent more time with the "poor" they might truly have more compassion in the GOP.

[blackfox]

Chip, there was an Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post, that was pro-draft re-instatement...drawn from the context of the Vietnam War, one of the author's points was how having to serve in the military was a uniting principle for the youth generation, and it did much to foster understanding and respect between rich and poor, black and white, volunteer and draftee, as they were forced to serve together as equals, under tense situations, where their lives depended on each other, where out in general society, they may never have interacted...

While I am not necessarily in support of a reconstituted draft, I do concede that point. The fact that the new draft proposal (if implemented) abolishes the previous exemptions of college and Canada, will further insure a healthy mix of cannon-fodder...and those who survive and return to society will probably do much to help unify and strengthen the health of our society. After all, after getting shot at with all kinds of people, and having them possible save your a**, makes the petty divisions of society look pretty stupid and, well, petty.

At least I would imagine so...

Just a thought...

[Voltron]

Voltron, this is not about legitimate US armed forces recruits, who are free to volunteer or not, but about the hiring of mercenaries from around the world, who ar subject to only a private mandate, and whose numbers, oversight and accountability for actions are not known to the public, nor judged by our military standards, even though they fight in our name. The armed forces do not recruit for profit, these "contractors" do...there is a difference.
Aren't Mercenaries, being civilian, subject to Iraqi law?

[Voltron]

There's nothing wrong at all with an all volunteer army. But what happens when you overextend your all volunteer army, and need more soldiers to meet an increasing level of commitment?
Then you draft.
However, Oliver North pointed out today on Fox that we still have 80,000 troops in Germany 73000 troops in S. Korea and a bunch of numbers that equal to about 400,000 troops overseas, including Iraq, Japan etc. Since only 103,000 are in Iraq we got more that can be moved around.

[miloblithe]

Then you draft.
However, Oliver North pointed out today on Fox that we still have 80,000 troops in Germany 73000 troops in S. Korea and a bunch of numbers that equal to about 400,000 troops overseas, including Iraq, Japan etc. Since only 103,000 are in Iraq we got more that can be moved around.

Um, aren't those troops there for a reason? And if we could just use them, why were 5,600 people called up from the IRR?

[zimv20]

47,000 troops in japan (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea-orbat-usfj.htm) as of jan 04
37,500 in south korea (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea-orbat.htm) as of late june 04
14,200 in afghanistan (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oef_orbat.htm) as of late june 04
138,000 in iraq and 30,000 in kuwait (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat.htm) as of late june 04

according to GlobalSecurity.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm), military analyst Jon Pike's site:

As of early May 2004, there are some 250,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen deployed in support of combat, peacekeeping, and deterrence operations. This figure does not include those forces normally present in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom or Japan unless bases at those locations are actively supporting a combat operation. Furthermore, tours of duty in these locations are routine and not considered hardship tours. If one were to include these forces the number of deployed troops worldwide would be around 350,000.


i'm not sure from where oliver north is getting his figures, but they do not agree w/ mr. pike's.

[Voltron]

Um, aren't those troops there for a reason? And if we could just use them, why were 5,600 people called up from the IRR?
I'm not sure about all the other troops, but the reason for the 70,000 or so troops in Germany is no longer valid. In fact there is no purpose for them to be there other than the low rent we get from the Germany. Radio Site Geigawank (mispelled it :( ) I was told cost us 1 dollar a year. This was back in 1981 when I was stationed there.

[Voltron]

47,000 troops in japan (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea-orbat-usfj.htm) as of jan 04
37,500 in south korea (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea-orbat.htm) as of late june 04
14,200 in afghanistan (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oef_orbat.htm) as of late june 04
138,000 in iraq and 30,000 in kuwait (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat.htm) as of late june 04

according to GlobalSecurity.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm), military analyst Jon Pike's site:


i'm not sure from where oliver north is getting his figures, but they do not agree w/ mr. pike's.
I said around 400,000, I didn't actually add up the numbers he stated as he stated them so did a quick estimate after the fact of the numbers I did remember, and that I think includes the troops in Iraq.

[zimv20]

I said around 400,000, I didn't actually add up the numbers he stated as he stated them so did a quick estimate after the fact of the numbers I did remember, and that I think includes the troops in Iraq.
since you're the one talking about moving troops around, the total is not even a relevant figure. it's the proportion of the total who can be moved to iraq that's interesting. north's figures for iraq and s. korea were way off.

of great interest to me is to note that afghanistan, the attack base of 9/11, warrants only 3.5% of the US' overseas force. since UBL is still on the loose and karzai was in instanbul this week asking for int'l troops to secure the upcoming elections, i would have expected that number to be higher. much higher.

[miloblithe]

I'm not sure about all the other troops, but the reason for the 70,000 or so troops in Germany is no longer valid. In fact there is no purpose for them to be there other than the low rent we get from the Germany. Radio Site Geigawank (mispelled it :( ) I was told cost us 1 dollar a year. This was back in 1981 when I was stationed there.

The idea that the troops could be shifted somewhat to the east makes sense, but to say that the reason for having troops in Germany is no longer valid isn't really true. Sure the old reasons aren't really there, or are there in different ways, but the reasons change. It's a base of operations for any war/conflinct in Europe, but it also has a significant effect on US-EU/European relations. If we left, what would happen?

But basically, the U.S. has global 'interests', so we maintain a global presence. If we decide that it's up to Japan and Europe and South Korea to defend themselves, we are retreating from the world stage, and our influence in those regions will decline.

[takao]

well the truth is that in 2003 already thousands of soldiers got shifted out of germany and directly into the persian gulf region...don't know a number but in 2003 it was 70.000....and now it's less..

[blackfox]

Aren't Mercenaries, being civilian, subject to Iraqi law?
To be honest, I no longer know...during the "occupation" phase ending June 28th, civilian contractors were not accountable to any law...US military, US legal, or Iraqi Legal...it is possible that things have changed in the past few days with the transfer, but I do not know if general rules applying to foreign nationals will apply, or those rules (namely, none) that I just mentioned...

[Chip NoVaMac]

Um, aren't those troops there for a reason? And if we could just use them, why were 5,600 people called up from the IRR?

To me it is Bush administration is using "smoke and mirrors" to "grow" the economy. By using the Reserve and IRR there are holes created in the workforce. Some of which have to be filled temporarily. Not sure how that gets counted by the DoL. I assume that the Reservists are not counted as unemployed. So if some is hired to fill that job, they are off the unemployed roles. And there you have a growing economy.

[Voltron]

To me it is Bush administration is using "smoke and mirrors" to "grow" the economy. By using the Reserve and IRR there are holes created in the workforce. Some of which have to be filled temporarily. Not sure how that gets counted by the DoL. I assume that the Reservists are not counted as unemployed. So if some is hired to fill that job, they are off the unemployed roles. And there you have a growing economy.
Maybe they are looking for a specific talent to fill and are only recalling those with that talent, like being able to speak Arabic for example?

[Neserk]

Maybe they are looking for a specific talent to fill and are only recalling those with that talent, like being able to speak Arabic for example?

That is my understanding.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Maybe they are looking for a specific talent to fill and are only recalling those with that talent, like being able to speak Arabic for example?

OK, I agree that the IRR may be in a different circumstance. But it does not diminish by not using more of the regular units, it does help lower the unemployment rate. Those called up have to leave their jobs.

[Ugg]

OK, I agree that the IRR may be in a different circumstance. But it does not diminish by not using more of the regular units, it does help lower the unemployment rate. Those called up have to leave their jobs.

Not necessarily. Certain jobs may be unfillable if they involve specialty trades or knowledge, especially those who speak Arabic.

The number called up so far is pretty small and will have a negligible effect on unemployment but will have a negative effect on the economy. Many of those being called up have special skills that are RARELY reimbursed at the same rate in the military as they are in the private sector. That means fewer taxes rolling into govt. coffers and a much greater chance of increased dependence upon government services due to loss of income for the family. As well as less spending by the families which means less economic activity in the US.

The more troops called up for service abroad means more money spent abroad as well to house and feed and transport them. That means that war spending has a huge negative effect on the US economy, something that is barely made up for by increased manufacture of war materiel.

[Voltron]

OK, I agree that the IRR may be in a different circumstance. But it does not diminish by not using more of the regular units, it does help lower the unemployment rate. Those called up have to leave their jobs.
5000 or 8000 people, whatever the actual number is, isn't going to change the unemployment rate all that much. It moved what over 100,000 this month alone? So the ulterior motive thing doesn't make sense to me.