As the situation on the ground dictates…
One of my favorite games played by the Pentagon is to replace uniformed personnel with contractors and pretend the mission of the “eliminated” billet has gone away. As the Obama administration continues to pretend that the situation on the ground permits the natural withdrawal of military personnel comes the news that Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan will be taking on private military contractors to provide physical security for the base. According to the Marine Corps Times:
U.S. commanders want civilian contractors to provide military security at the Marine Corps’ largest base in Afghanistan as a planned withdrawal of U.S. forces from the war-torn country expands.
—
“As we prepare for fewer Marine boots on the ground, the requirement to maintain a certain level of security aboard Camp Leatherneck must be maintained,” Player said. “That’s where contractor support will provide Camp Leatherneck security where Marines have in the past.”
U.S. Army Contracting Command announced a competition for the job in November. At least 166 civilian guards will be needed at all times, meaning the company that wins the contract will almost certainly need more to account for vacations and other leave time. Companies who seek the job must hire guards who are citizens of the U.S. or some of its closest allies: the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
Now, of course, the stationing of PMCs on base, even foreign nationals is nothing new to those of use who served in Iraq. I’ve worked with Marine Corps provisional security companies a few times from 3/2, 8th Tanks and, during work up, 2nd LAAD. As long as the mission is performed by a reputable company and the base QRF is still Marine Corps there’s nothing about the job that requires it be done by uniformed service members.
Still, this begs the question, why replace Marines with contractors? The demand hasn’t gone away, Afghanistan will be as dangerous on the PMCs first day as the Corps’ last. The mission is already mainly performed by Reservists and the shortage of fresh troops isn’t nearly as critical as in the heart of the surge in Iraq. I doubt the DoD is saving any significant money, PMCs are not cheap and it doesn’t reduce the end force reduction goals with the looming cuts. They certainly aren’t going to do a better job.
The answer is simple: reducing the number of American troops in Afghanistan creates the phony impression the war is “winding down” and the Obama administration is reducing our commitment there. Of course neither of these things are true but, as already displayed by the sabotaging of the negotiations in Iraq to keep the desperately needed US troops there another year, this administration doesn’t actually care about winning our nation’s military campaigns, only their party’s political ones.
Category: Foreign Policy, Marine Corps, Military issues, Politics
Again a decent write up has to end with prattle like ‘sabotaged the negotiations’ for purposes of partisanship?
re #1
You bet. The Obama administration didn’t negotiate to extend the American presence in Iraq because they wanted to have already ended our commitment there going into 2012. It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s politics. Now the Iraqis are going to pay the price in blood while our national interest is hurt in the long run.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/28/iraq-surges-advocates-fear-gains-will-be-lost/
This started with President Clinton and the “peace dividend”. It is supposed to be “we’ll cut out support positions so warfighters and concentrate on warfighting”. So no police details (we have people for that), no KP (we have people for that) and now no security/perimter controal duties (we have people for that). Exactly which ground force commander is going to play “you bet your commission” with contractors securing his compound?
@2 – While I regret using the term prattle, it wasn’t called for……..it doesn’t change the fact that the Maliki regime was nowhere close to desiring anything more than trainers post-2011. Or the fact that Maliki didn’t receive Parliamentary approval to begin negotiations on that front until August. Nor does it ask the question why the SOFA wasn’t adequate as agreed upon in 2008, as the very same problems were present then.
re #4
I can concede all your points with the knowledge it doesn’t change the validity of mine.
Even with the nature of the negotiations being very last minute and the mission of the American military presence being mainly training the continued US presence in Iraq acted as a guarantee against the sort of power grab we’re seeing now. American combat troops and QRFs protected the power sharing agreement in Iraq. It’s not coincidence that Maliki started purging Sunni politicians the day after we left.
The Iraqis made their initial offer and the Obama administration responded with “No, that won’t work. Bye.” They were in as much shock as anyone else.
@5 – I’m not trying to change the validity of your opinion; I’m disputing the analysis.
“It’s not coincidence that Maliki started purging Sunni politicians the day after we left.”
Not a coincidence, as in Maliki’s intention all along. So how would our side ‘sabotage’ anything in the face of that? Funny thing, that immunity…..imagine the outcry if the Administration left US forces in country without it….
re #6
I don’t want to totally derail the comments section so I’ll end by saying that if Maliki (or anyone else) didn’t intend to make a move we wouldn’t need to stay. As someone else said, I can’t remember who, Maliki’s political ideology is Maliki-ism. The idea is give the civil institutions and security apparatus time to solidify, to have a few sets of elections and get people used to peaceful transitions of power. By leaving early we allowed Iraqi democracy to, in all likelihood, be smothered in the cradle.
Of course we wouldn’t have left US troops in Iraq under the jurisdiction of Iraqi courts, nobody ever expected that, least of all the Iraqis. The initial demand was just that, initial. It’s how negotiating works, you go back and forth and then meet somewhere in the middle. The Obama administration didn’t negotiate, they just walked away after the initial offer.
“I don’t want to totally derail the comments section…….”
Fair enough. I didn’t mean to derail your main points.
“The Obama administration didn’t negotiate, they just walked away after the initial offer.”
Though I have no explicit evidence to support this view, I think his conduct and faux pas over the last three years, as well as his clearly anti-American (as I see it) ideology, is enough to support a credible guess that this is most likely very close to, if not EXACTLY, what happened.
Is contractor spelled “$” or “$$$?”
As El Marko in #3 said:
In ’96 Bill Clinton took the State security burden from the Marines and opened the door to private contractors. In ’97 Eric Prince, seeing something that was right up his alley, formed his company and provided security for the State Department, in many countries. Silly Billy was able to show how much less it cost DOD to get the Marines out of the security business, but very carefully did not show that the costs at State went up proportionately. As he drew down the services, there were many who took off one uniform and put on another, becoming NGO’s working as PSD’s for State. Same expense to us the taxpayer without the footprint of US Military and the good that it carries.
Anyone who doesn’t see the politics in this should roll the brim of their tinfoil hat up and look around.
#1-8 Hey CI, sounds like a familiar conversation.
NSOM points are correct.
I would add one more point too about Iraq, as I stated earlier(somewhere) we never needed parliamentary approval to begin negiotations. Something all parties, US commanders, including Maliki, made plain more then once. The article itself points to this. All that was required was approval by the government not a formal agreement by Parliament, something that for practical purposes is unattainable. Last I looked they still couldn’t agree to the ministers for MOD and MOI, how was that going to happen?
Above last paragraph. The war in Afghanistan is not winding down, by a long shot. In the East for example we have been pushed out of because of a lack of manpower and awful strategic decisions made by RC-East over the last few years.
To NSOM, did you post an intro? Sorry might have missed it, curious on background.
Here’s the real kicker about “contractors” all the jobs they do, (including security) cost about 3-5 times more than what it would cost to send actual ya know soldiers. While I’m all for Capitolism, and it many virtues I’m not for being a retard with your money. You had Dems screaming about how much Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us, and how all that money could have been used to harvest unicorn farts or soemthing.
But if the DOD could support troop deployments of DS levels (say 500K) and we actually had that many Soldiers Sailors Airmen and Marines that we could use in a conflict, and contracting was kept to only higher end things (like Sat Radios, or prototype tech) then we could have done the job for at least half the price.
Only thing is when you say “there’s 250,000 troops” somewhere that tends to perk up ears. I’d be willing to bet though with all the Contractors the numbers of people fighting and supporting OIF were equal or greater to that.
I hate to say it but the first thing we should have done in this DoD draw-down is kicked as many contractors as we could to the curb.
Cedo,
I’ve commented here for a few years as “Not So Old Marine”, starting back in probably 07 or 08 when I was still on active duty. I was aviation C2 by my Primary MOS but I also volunteered for a lot of odd jobs and did a stint as a baseline MP. I deployed to both the Horn and Iraq. Passed on the bonus to get out and take a crack at being a civilian, figured I might be better at it the second time around. Now I putter around Seattle and go to school until they either give me a degree or I find a decent job. At this rate it’ll probably be the degree.
@12 – As are mine, and provably so.
To answer your point, why did Maliki wait to get Parliamentary approval before entering into negotiations? Possibly to provide political cover, as he didn’t want US forces to remain?
Regarding Contractors…I enlisted during the Reagan Administration and was amazed at the work being contracted out at that time, after hearing the stories of all the additional menial labor I would be subjected to.
One of my best friends is a medic in Kuwait right now. They have had a rash of illnesses from the time she got off the plane. It’s mostly related to dehydration from diarrhea. The culprit? Their food services are provided by a group of Pakistanis that the Army hired to cook. Her commander ordered the medics onto MREs to keep them from getting sick and IT WORKED! I have to ask, what the fuck! Last time I checked, the Army had cooks, supply, even military police. Hell, when I was training at Ft. Lee, I hooked up with a Marine LCpl who was in the cooking school! So, why the fuck is the Army re-classing all of its support personnel into Infantry and paying far more than it should to hire non-Americans who don’t even know how to properly cook a hamburger? One guy in my unit, who was actually a bit of a cock-weasel, actually got a lawyer and got out. He signed up as a cook and the Army was going to force him to take a two-week 11B course to change him from a 92- to an 11-series. He argued that the Army was violating the contract he signed and his lawyer got a judge to agree. Hell, I was sent to 11-Bangbang class (two fucking weeks to become an Infantryman my ass) as a 92-Yankme. I grumbled as much as the Admin clerk who was forced to go to the same class. When I got to Kuwait, I talked to one of the guys working supply there (a civvie) and asked him how much he was making. Mind you, I was an E3 at the time and he was making three times more than me doing the job the Army taught me… and he was just a warehouseman. The E6 job was being paid the same as a fucking Captain! Yeah, I got a little butt-hurt over the flagrant waste of money, and still do. Why the fuck are we hiring civvies to do the same jobs that Marines do and pay them more to… Read more »
@16 – “Yeah, I got a little butt-hurt over the flagrant waste of money, and still do.”
I agree. Every time I went into the DFAC at Falcon, I saw an army of Indians/Pakistani’s/whatever serving and making chow, while the usually fat and sloppy 92Gs stood around and pretended to ‘supervise’.
The whole system of housing and paying those guys in theater has to be an enormous drain of money, when we could more easily take care of ourselves.
#14 What is a “baseline MP? You mean provisional MP?
15# “To answer your point, why did Maliki wait to get Parliamentary approval before entering into negotiations?” Because the Obama administartion insisted on it. They would not discuss an agreement until a formal request was made by the Iraq Parliament.
Follow up above. That was impossible to attain.
re #18,
Baseline is essentially garrison MP work, which in the Marine Corps is anything outside of either of the MP Battalions or (what was then) FSSG Dets. So I started at the gate and worked my way up through dispatch, patrol and then patrol supervisor.
There wasn’t a “Provisional” MP program but that’s not too unlike how I got into the field. As the new Lance Corporal coming into a small unit from an overseas posting I was volun-told to take the newly opened FAP slot to the Provost Marshal’s Office. I ended up really liking both the work and the people so I requested to stay on. That lasted until my unit got slotted for deployment. All of a sudden I was “critical” again. 🙂
#20 Okay, not as familiar with Marine organisation or MOS designations. There were certain Army units that were not MPs but became “provisional” or were doing saids tasks in Iraq and early in Guantanamo. I can think of such a guard unit or two off the top of my head.