The US Military should Stop Competing with Contractors

[Accountable]

I recently found out that Japan pays the lion's share of the costs of our military presence. That makes us nothing more than mercenaries. That's not the job of the US military. That's not the oath that soldiers take.

We are depriving private industry of revenue streams by maintaining military posts outside of US borders. As I understand it, we routinely contract combatants now to fight in the ME. If the industry is strong (and it appears that it is) then we should let them protect all these countries we currently provide protection to - Japan, S Korea, countries throughout Europe, etc.

 

[Zorak]

Ah, war for profit, could there be a more noble cause?

 

[Accountable]

It's what we're doing now - war for the profit of our big multinational corporations rather than defending our land. Standing in defense of other sovereign nations while they send their people to universities ... our universities ... sometimes to work in direct competition with those same multinational corporations.

I'd rather see a combat contractor make the profit. It's more honest.

 

[Minor Axis]

I was in the U.S.Navy from 1979-1986. I just missed the first Desert Storm and as I recall this war was the first war where contractors were relied on to such an extent. Besides the usual characters like Boeing, or McDonald Douglass, aircraft, ship, and submarine builders, a whole slew of contractors were brought in with the official reason of taking the load off of military personnel, but anyone with half a brain can put 2 and 2 together and see that this is a natural extension of big business, which war in most cases ultimately is. Why have a grunt getting $15 per hour to rebuild electronics when you can have him go drive a truck through hostile territory and you can have a contractor employee get your company paid $1000 per day? Or grant a no-bid, no-questions-asked, no accountability, no limit contract to provide services to the military. The Bush Administration made all of this happen. I assume it continues under Obama and I'm not happy about it at all.

 

[Accountable]

I'd rather use our troops for just wars, meaning in defense of the actual country, not it's "interests", and certainly not just in defense of corporate interests.

 

[Alien Allen]

I used to think Ikes comment about the military industrial complex was crazy conspiracy

It sure seems like he was spot on

But it is just part of the corruption

Anyhow I agree about letting mercenaries do the work instead of our troops. But then that means the govt loses control of things and can't drive the bus.

And then you would have huge groups of Blackwaters and not sure how you keep them from getting further out of control

Bottom line is let other countries figure out for themselves and lets bring troops home. Provide incentive for men and women to get into a national guard that could be ready on notice if the situation arose. Kind of like having a citizen army so to speak for a large number of what would have been active troops.

 

[Accountable]

But then that means the govt loses control of things and can't drive the bus.

And then you would have huge groups of Blackwaters and not sure how you keep them from getting further out of control

That's a really good point.

Bottom line is let other countries figure out for themselves and lets bring troops home.

YEA!!

 

[Tim]

So do you guys think that having troops abroad doesn't help in our countries protection at all? I think there are very valid points to having troops stationed over seas for our protection here at home. That doesn't mean I believe that we should have nearly as many as we do.

And as far as hiring contractors to do that work... Never! Not in a million years would I think that it's even a remotely good idea.
I don't think the US government should hire a single contractor to do the work our military should be doing, not one single job. It's not cost effective for one, it removes the direct accountability equation, we lose direct control over those representing the US and it's just plain bad policy.

 

[Accountable]

So do you guys think that having troops abroad doesn't help in our countries protection at all?

Why is it somebody always has to do that? Is it the only way you can find disagreement is to take it into the realm of the ridiculous? Yes, of course having troops abroad helps our protection. It also makes us more vulnerable and gives people who hate us fodder to fuel their hate, such as the fact that we occupy countries and never leave. But hey, if troops abroad help us, wouldn't troops in every country help us even more? Maybe we should just take control of the entire planet. Then we'd really be safe.

And as far as hiring contractors to do that work... Never! Not in a million years would I think that it's even a remotely good idea.
I don't think the US government should hire a single contractor to do the work our military should be doing, not one single job. It's not cost effective for one, it removes the direct accountability equation, we lose direct control over those representing the US and it's just plain bad policy.

You misread. I didn't mean that WE should hire mercenaries to protect other countries. I meant that they could hire their own and leave us out of it.

 

[Tim]

Why is it somebody always has to do that? Is it the only way you can find disagreement is to take it into the realm of the ridiculous? Yes, of course having troops abroad helps our protection. It also makes us more vulnerable and gives people who hate us fodder to fuel their hate, such as the fact that we occupy countries and never leave. But hey, if troops abroad help us, wouldn't troops in every country help us even more? Maybe we should just take control of the entire planet. Then we'd really be safe.

You misread. I didn't mean that WE should hire mercenaries to protect other countries. I meant that they could hire their own and leave us out of it.

Do you really think that's what I meant by my post? Seriously?

The only one taking it into the realm of ridiculous right now is you. Of course I am not trying to justify having troops over there because there might be a modicum of security to the US. Like I said before, I think there is a time and a place for it. I think we as a country have greatly abused the practice but I would not feel completely comfortable if we pulled every single last troop home tomorrow.

Maybe I can make this a little clearer for you...
Do I think we should have any troops in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, etc...? Nope, bring them all home.
Do I think it's a good idea to keep a base in Germany or Japan who are our strong allies? Yes, I believe it has merit to keep some troops abroad for quick responses to an ever changing world. But how many? I really don't know.
Having troops abroad can be a very effective means of preventing unnecessary wars and skirmishes among smaller countries.

I don't see it much different than having more police cars cruising in high crime areas. It does have an effect/deterrent

 

[Accountable]

Do you really think that's what I meant by my post? Seriously?

You asked the question. You were maybe joking?

The only one taking it into the realm of ridiculous right now is you. Of course I am not trying to justify having troops over there because there might be a modicum of security to the US. Like I said before, I think there is a time and a place for it. I think we as a country have greatly abused the practice but I would not feel completely comfortable if we pulled every single last troop home tomorrow.

Nor would I.

Maybe I can make this a little clearer for you...
Do I think we should have any troops in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, etc...? Nope, bring them all home.
Do I think it's a good idea to keep a base in Germany or Japan who are our strong allies? Yes, I believe it has merit to keep some troops abroad for quick responses to an ever changing world. But how many? I really don't know.

I don't understand. You want to bring troops out of the areas infested with terrorists, but you want to keep them in countries where we have been at peace for over 65 years? What kind of threat to the USA could be thwarted from Okinawa?

Having troops abroad can be a very effective means of preventing unnecessary wars and skirmishes among smaller countries.

I don't see it much different than having more police cars cruising in high crime areas. It does have an effect/deterrent

Oh. So you see us as having the responsibility to be Planetary Police force. Is that right? Why can't other nations be expected to cruise their own areas? Why should we cruise the 3rd and 5th richest countries in the world? Can't they afford their own deterrent?

 

[Alien Allen]

anybody know when we started stationing troops in other countries?

did we do that before either of the world wars?

 

[Accountable]

anybody know when we started stationing troops in other countries?

did we do that before either of the world wars?

Hmm, not sure but it's a good question. I believe we were more honest back then. We just took territory and claimed it as our own. But I could be wrong.

 

[Alien Allen]

Hmm, not sure but it's a good question. I believe we were more honest back then. We just took territory and claimed it as our own. But I could be wrong.

what territory did we take?

or are you just referring to providing undue influence to have an impact

 

[Tim]

You asked the question. You were maybe joking?

Nor would I.

I don't understand. You want to bring troops out of the areas infested with terrorists, but you want to keep them in countries where we have been at peace for over 65 years? What kind of threat to the USA could be thwarted from Okinawa?

Oh. So you see us as having the responsibility to be Planetary Police force. Is that right? Why can't other nations be expected to cruise their own areas? Why should we cruise the 3rd and 5th richest countries in the world? Can't they afford their own deterrent?

Keeping troops in countries who are our allies will allow for quick response to those areas of potential problem to us and our allies.
Trying to deploy large contingents of troops and supplies to the other side of the globe in a crisis is not something that can happen quickly. Mobilizing troops from a much closer local would be better.

Maybe you can equate it to having fire stations placed strategically throughout a city and not just in one place. You can expect a much better response time to put a fire out before it gets out of control because of your lack of response.

 

[Accountable]

Keeping troops in countries who are our allies will allow for quick response to those areas of potential problem to us and our allies.
Trying to deploy large contingents of troops and supplies to the other side of the globe in a crisis is not something that can happen quickly. Mobilizing troops from a much closer local would be better.

Maybe you can equate it to having fire stations placed strategically throughout a city and not just in one place. You can expect a much better response time to put a fire out before it gets out of control because of your lack of response.

I could ... except that it's not our city. Plus, isn't the ME a bit more fiery and crime-y than Japan & Germany?

 

[Accountable]

what territory did we take?

or are you just referring to providing undue influence to have an impact

I was thinking about the rest of CONUS, Virgin Islands, Panama, etc.

 

[Tim]

I could ... except that it's not our city. Plus, isn't the ME a bit more fiery and crime-y than Japan & Germany?

Not our city... but in today's global economy, any conflict in the world can have a direct impact on our survival...

And I haven't pulled out an atlas to see the best areas to have troops. I won't pretend to know which areas are best.

I guess my whole point is that I see having some troops (how many I don't know) stationed around the world (in what areas I'm not sure) are a direct benefit to world stability/security which directly leads to our own stability/security.
I do think we have too many troops stationed around the world with our newer technologies and I do believe we have some of them in the wrong areas. But I would never advocate bringing all of them home. So I guess you can say I am somewhere in between the Neo-cons and Ron Paul.

 

[Minor Axis]

For places like Afganistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, the general populace hates our guts. Unless we plan on occupying for perpetuity, it's a loosing game and most likely will revert to the good/bad old days as soon as we leave. Honestly at this point, I have no idea why we still have a presence in places like England, Germany, and Japan unless it is to keep someone from Russia to think twice before invading?? If so, we should be refunded for all of our expenses to maintain a presence because obviously it benefits the host country more than us. We may be getting reimbursed. If I knew, I've forgotten.

 

[Accountable]

I do think we have too many troops stationed around the world with our newer technologies and I do believe we have some of them in the wrong areas. But I would never advocate bringing all of them home. So I guess you can say I am somewhere in between the Neo-cons and Ron Paul.

Would you be willing to take the hit on the employment rate in order to reduce the military to more sane levels? I really believe that's a primary concern in Washington.