I won’t complain, but will say that’s unfortunate – from the vague hints you left you actually had something worthwhile to contribute to the discussion – knowledge that others lack.

I must have been in a different Iraq.

Now, of course the right wing Milbloggers have rewritten history and are basically stating that the “surge” was a brilliant idea brought up by brilliant military strategists. But we know it was simply what many of us said since day one.

So, why is the use of contractors so big? Well, first, it supports the position many of us have held which is our Military is far too small for our current foreign policy.

Second, it means our military is DEPENDENT on outside contractors, many who are employing third world labor (not even US Labor), to do anything in the world. You can argue whose fault it is or whether if it is the military too small or the foreign policy too broad, but the fact is we are an impotent Country with an impotent Military right now. Why does Russia role into Georgia and threaten Poland with nuclear weapons? Because we are impotent to fight for what really matters thanks to George Bush’s policies.

Finally, I think you will find the “news” is not that we have Indians serving you food but that we have contractors carrying guns, providing security, engaging “enemy” forces etc. etc.

We used to call that a Mercenary Army.

Good job, GreyHawk. As always, I’m proud of you. And I know my contractor buddies agree with all the points you’ve made here. Just because it is expensive to perform these services in a combat zone, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be done. Let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid try running Congress without assistants and administrative staff to make their jobs easier.

Subsunk

Coming from the civil side, the contractors usually start out with a contingent of ex-government employees who used to do the job being contrated out. Generally, and there are exceptions, they get paid better, have better retirement benefits and enjoy their work. The downside is that when a contract goes under, that skill base disappears, although the new contractor often starts to pick up the personnel to do the job. In some areas that works very well on the civilian side, like grounds, building maintenance, and the such. Many government workers pick up ‘off hour’ second jobs doing that due to clearances. As you head up beyond basic IT and get to specific technical needs, the ability of contractors to perform at or below par cost diminishes: those specific skills aren’t cheap to get. And even if you have a contractor, someone has to sign-off on the work, which means that personnel get put on that work on the government side.

In the field and in theater, there is no replacement for contractors and working that system into shape means that those who are in the armed forces get to do the actual pointy-end job. We are long past the ‘lowest cost always wins’ and ‘best value for the money’ means improved services at lower cost. By being willing to pay more up-front, better services and lower overall total cost is the result, and that matters.