NYT’s James Glantz’ smoke and mirrors
James Glantz who was New York Times’ Baghdad Bureau chief in 2007, writes a clearly misleading article today in the Times related to contractors in Afghanistan. The misperception begins in the title “Contractors Outnumber U.S. Troops in Afghanistan“;
Civilian contractors working for the Pentagon in Afghanistan not only outnumber the uniformed troops, according to a report by a Congressional research group, but also form the highest ratio of contractors to military personnel recorded in any war in the history of the United States.
Of course the illusion here is that these “contractors working for the Pentagon” are all security personnel ranging the countryside fighting the war our soldiers won’t fight. Glantz perpetuates his illusion;
What is clear, the report says, is that when contractors for the Pentagon or other agencies are not properly managed — as when civilian interrogators committed abuses at Abu Ghraib in Iraq or members of the security firm Blackwater shot and killed 17 Iraqi citizens in Baghdad — the American effort can be severely undermined.
You have to read every line of the article to find out that he’s not talking about just private security contractors. Buried in the middle of the article is a single line;
The 68,197 contractors — many of them Afghans — handle a variety of jobs, including cooking for the troops, serving as interpreters and even providing security, the report says.
So basically, Glantz is worried because uniformed troops aren’t cooking their own meals, hauling their own trash, doing their own laundry and sewing. Our soldiers are doing more trigger pulling operations while locals are doing the mundane functions that we’ve had to retain active duty people to accomplish through the centuries. Not to mention local interpreters who don’t have to be trained (like the troops whom it costs thousands of dollars and many months to train).
dicksmith at VetVoice recognizes Glantz’ mischaracterization of the situation but can’t avoid a reflex reaction;
Simply put, having more contractors than uniformed troops on the ground in a combat zone is unacceptable. We need to ween ourselves off the use of contract labor in combat all together.
Of course, that’s easy for dicksmith to say, he doesn’t much care that all of those dreary tasks would have to be accomplished by someone – and so what if it drains manpower. He’s not going back, so what does he care?
Category: Bloggers, Media, Terror War
And for my next trick, watch me pull a contractor out of my ass!!!
Right, so what we need to do is
a) Increase the size of the military
or
b) Take teeth (trigger pullers) and turn them into tail (REMFs).
There is always more tail than teeth. That is the way of the world.
TSO and I had KBR (just BR at the time) running our base back in the day and I had 3 hots, clean laundry and my kerosene heater was filled every night.
We also had an Army mail unit that couldn’t be bothered to be open more than 2 hours out of the day.
I have always wondered what in the hell the mail people do all day. Like Gator said, the mail room is open for pick up for a few hours. And seeing as how half of your mail never makes it to you, it is hard to believe they are busy sorting mail the rest of the day.
Are they relying on the innuendo of “contractors” being unrestrained civilian who shoot kids and rape teen girls? The main point in years of journalism is no one reads past the lede- the introductory paragraph. So. Lead with “contractors (bad) outnumber soldiers (less bad).” and they have made their point. Which is:
The war is being waged by baby killers and rapists. Why- maybe because they Army is understaffed, since everyone hates this war. See, point made. no one ever gets to the part where you find out the contractors are washing clothes. The rest is just window dressing, to fill inches.
You know, there are a lot of military members who oppose the privatization of the military. Why exactly are civilians being paid more than our soldiers to do jobs that soldiers could do? Why are we profiting companies with no ethics or morality when we could be benefiting troops.
The article may be misleading, but the privatization of the military is still a real concern.
“You know, there are a lot of military members who oppose the privatization of the military.” Really? Who are these military members? How many is “a lot”? What do you mean by “privatization of the military”, anyway?
“Why exactly are civilians being paid more than our soldiers to do jobs that soldiers could do?” Well, not all of the civilians are being paid more than our soldiers, first off. Second, why shouldn’t we (a) employ local nationals which stimulates the economy, and (b) free up Joe to do his war-fighting mission instead of taking out the trash, washing dishes, and other manpower sapping grunt jobs? Just because our soldiers *could* do these jobs doesnt mean they should.
“Why are we profiting companies with no ethics or morality when we could be benefiting troops.” Uh…what? I don’t know anybody with the market on ethics and morality cornered, but again (for the slow learners,) we pay companies to provide services so our soldiers can do their pointy-end-of-the-spear thing. AS, how’d you like it if I pulled all your E4s and below away from you three days a week to cut grass, replace burned out lightbulbs, and any other job currently being handled by a civilian on your post? Who is that going to benefit?
“The article may be misleading, but the privatization of the military is still a real concern.” Maybe to you, but me and my guys are more concerned with staying alive and killing bad guys. Oh, and having our laundry waiting on us when we get back in the wire.
“Second, why shouldn’t we (a) employ local nationals which stimulates the economy”
Because they do cute stuff like swipe classified thumb drives and gather intel for the bad guys. Having locals on U.S. installations is a serious case of “can’t remember shit” syndrome raising it’s ugly head. Por ejemplo, during the “Russian time” in Afghanistan, much skullduggery was committed by Afghan double agents, ie. Russian being kidnapped and dragged off base to their doom, etc. During the Vietnam war, a certain stud named Hank “the gunfighter” Emmerson allowed no indigenous Vietnamese on any of his installations & skullduggery was kept to a minimum. We’d be wise to stick to his axioms in this insurgency we are eyeball deep in.
“free up Joe to do his war-fighting mission instead of taking out the trash, washing dishes, and other manpower sapping grunt jobs?”
Use Nepalese people, Buddhists and Hindus with no ethnic, linguistic and religious ties to the indig population.
Jack – Seriously were you so busy that you didn’t have time to clean up after yourself over there? I mean, a chow hall is fine, but laundry service? C’mon – that’s a joke. The FOB sounds like Club Med, haha.
@ Junior AG: We call that OPSEC. If somebody is allowing local indigs in areas where they have access to shit they shouldn’t be seeing, shame on them. Run a tight ship and that “skullduggery” won’t be an issue.
Of course, nothing’s perfect, so any joker can look at my remarks and say “Yeah, but what about…” and point out an issue with using contract labor. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be using local nationals for grunt work. My point is still valid: civilian contractors, both US and locals, are both force multipliers and combat enablers. Feel free to respond with another anecdote, but keep in mind that the plural of anecdote is not “evidence.”
@ Jesse: I wouldn’t know. I’ve never been to Club Med.
Jack – Here’s how I see it. I was a SSG in Iraq. I was the lowest ranking person on my MiTT (Military Transition Team). We lived in the city with the Iraqi Army. We advised the Iraqis, we did combat patrols, we went out on missions, we defended our firm base when we were attacked, we filled the generator, we PMCSed the HMMWVs, we cleaned the crew served weapons, we filled sandbags, we built things, we cleaned without running water, we cooked our own food, we did our own laundry, we burned our own trash and our own shit. With the exception of growing our own produce and refining our own diesel, we were pretty much self-sustaining. If senior NCOs and field grade officers can do it and still complete their mission – so can Joe. So I don’t agree with your statement of: “just because our soldiers *could* do these jobs doesn’t mean they should.” If you’re implying that a U.S. Soldier is “above” washing dishes or taking out trash – then you are completely wrong. And from an economic standpoint, there is more than meets the eye in determining whether or not civilian contractors are force multipliers – this would only occur if the marginal cost of adding a contractor is less than that of adding a Soldier, and I’m not sure it is.
I agree 100% with Army Sergeant. The concept of civilian contractors with a rifle, a license to kill, and no standards of accountability scares the shit out of me.
I see your point, Jesse and don’t really disagree with anything you say. You, as part of an MTT, were in a unique situation. But, again, picture taking ALL civilian employees out of the picture. Everybody from the local indig who hauls trash to the cooks and dishwashers to the truck drivers to the “civilian contractors with a rifle, a license to kill, and no standards of accountability”…gone.
Now let me ask: who will do those jobs? Soldiers? Okay, fair enough…then answer this: Are we going to add all of that workload to guys already there, who are already busy as hell, or are we going to bring in more troops? Because those are your options. Either make Joe work twice as hard or get more boots on the ground. Can’t have it both ways.
Glantz is an arrogant, liberal who made a name writing about the Twin Towers, couldn’t get along with his co-author and decided that going to Iraq would get him some notice. With no journalism background or knowledge of the military, it’s easy to shoot your mouth off.