To Support Our Patriots–Privatize the Military
It occurred to me in the last blog I put together, “Why So Few Choose to Serve,” that the government has a distinct advantage over American patriots, and because we have a Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps talking about why marines should be paid less. The reason for this is that the US government, and ultimately most world governments, have what is called a monopsony. A monopsony is where there is only one buyer in the market. American patriots want to serve their country–or in this situation, sell their labor. However, there is only one buyer of that labor, putting the Patriot at a distinct disadvantage. What is one simple way to reduce the problems caused by this? Bring more buyers into the market by privatizing the military.
Do I completely believe in privatization of the military? No, but for the sake of healthy debate, I’m going to argue that it is to the benefit of the American patriot to privatize the military because it will allow them to be properly compensated for their service.
I am going to start out with some very simple assumptions:
- The government is the only purchaser of a patriot’s labor.
- The only motivation for patriots to supply their labor is to serve their country. No other form of compensation, initially, affects their decision to serve.
- The wage provided by the government is unrelated to services provided or productivity of the patriot.
I have also chosen for the simplicity of this conversation to ignore the following:
- The efficiency benefits of a privatized military.
- The potential evils of allowing greed driven decisions to be attached to military power.
With these assumptions in place, we can look at the ways that the government takes advantage of the patriot. The first being wage. Wage is the collection of all financial benefits paid: paycheck, insurance, and retirement benefits. The Government, employing laborers who are only motivated by patriotism, can set the wage wherever they desire, which is why pay is considered to be so low. In a situation like this, the only factor driving the decision for what to pay a patriot would be a minimum livable wage. There are also pay raises to account for changes in family structure, but not because of a caring for the patriots’ families. It’s merely because, without these pay increases the patriots would no longer be able to supply their labor. If the military wanted you to have a family, they would have issued you one, hopefully in better condition than the gear I have already been issued.
The additional wage requirements for patriots with families,, and the cost of more mature patriots, is one of the many reasons that recruitment targets the younger patriots with the glitz and glamour of the job, not the wage, as in other civilian fields of employment. Young people join for the experience and the opportunities, not the financial return, or as it applied to me at seventeen years old, I wanted to blow shit up.
Now, with these wages intentionally kept low, this is a method of controlling enlistment numbers for more senior individuals–those with the additional responsibilities that a person gains while they get older and are no longer able to remain within the military because the cost to maintain their household requirements no longer matches with the pay and benefits they receive from the military. This leaves only those who are willing to sacrifice pay to continue to provide service to their country.
I was told by my Battalion Commander, “The Marine Corps gives you everything money can’t buy.” Fellow service members have also looked down upon me when I pointed out that one of the driving factors to remain within the military is my educational benefits. The culture of the military pushes out those mercenary thoughts, while promoting patriotic service for its own sake.
Why would a privatized military support the patriot? By providing the patriot, who is willing to supply their labor, regardless of wage, additional options as for whom to provide their labor. For example, Company A and Company B have both been contracted out to perform military operations to support America. The missions being equal, and the pay being the only difference, the patriot will have the option to choose the higher paying company.
Is this mentality mercenary, yes, but it is a means of compensating our patriots with more than a slap on the ass and a thank you for your service.
Now, the final question remains: Why do patriots deserve a higher pay? In the civilian market, a person is paid based upon the services they provide. A factory line worker is paid an hourly wage based upon their value to the company. If only ten widgets are created an hour by that worker, then their impact is ten widgets per hour. If a musician puts on a concert for twenty thousand people, their impact is the entertainment of twenty thousand people.
The patriot provides security, either through defensive or offensive operations, to three hundred and seventeen million people, producing a collective GDP of $16.8 trillion against violent threats. That responsibility is spread among the 2.3 million patriots who have decided to serve. That is the impact of the patriot’s service.
The American patriot is going to provide their service regardless of their pay, but with such a high level of impact, why not compensate them in a similar manner as we do so many others? By allowing the patriot the option to provide their patriotic service to the highest paying organization, we recognize their impact upon our nation.
Category: Defense cuts, Economy, Military issues, Pointless blather, Satire, Society
First, Article 1, Section 8, of the US Constitution determines that Congress should provide for the defense of the US, to include raising money and bringing up a military defense. So, instead of having a bunch of independent businesses determining their own rules, we’re going to have businesses contracted by the government with certain requirements. The government would still have a lot of pull. Second, with money involved in the same sense as it is in regular employment, loyalties will not necessarily be to the United States, or to the American people. A person making a car in a US factory isn’t doing so, “for the pride of the people of the United States.” This person is doing it to earn a paycheck, with the hopes that they’ll beat the other car companies, American and foreign. These different “military” companies would be competing for government contracts, so they may not be fully willing to work with competing companies in the same sense that one Army battalion would be willing to work with another Army battalion. These companies may work together to accomplish joint government missions, but they’ll have a side issue of protecting trade secrets that might affect how cooperative they’re willing to be with another Soldier of Fortune company. These guys would have a contract to serve the company, not necessarily the American people or the constitution. Even if there was a clause in their requiring their loyalty to the US, they are working for an employer that pays them… that’s competing against other Soldier of Fortune employers… or contracting agencies. If one of these companies gets powerful enough to challenge the other companies, and the US government, well, we could see where that leads to. There are examples where governments, during the ancient times, tried contracting their defense to outside sources… just to have these outside sources turn against them. You want an entity, that we elected, to have control of our defense, and not put that at the mercy of a commercial interest where the Soldier of fortune is the predominant form of defense, and his loyalty… Read more »
I certainly won’t disagree that their are evils associated with corporations. In fact I acknowledge those.
For a larger idea of what would define corporate loyalty, I would recommend a combination of regulation, and simple capitalism. If someone doesn’t get paid until the job is done that is pretty solid incentive to follow through.
But that wasn’t my argument, the argument is that the government takes advantage of its position, and that the American Patriots serve because they want to. They will serve regardless, why not create a situation where they can be paid what they are worth?
The other possibility is that military branches don’t have standardized pay, and are allowed to select their own pay. Allow branches and jobs to compete for the best candidates. Still all government, but with a bit of healthy competition that the patriot, who would serve regardless, is the beneficiary of.
Originally posted by Adam Fenner: If someone doesn’t get paid until the job is done that is pretty solid incentive to follow through. But that wasn’t my argument, I was addressing this: Originally posted by Adam Fenner: Do I completely believe in privatization of the military? No, but for the sake of healthy debate, I’m going to argue that it is to the benefit of the American patriot to privatize the military because it will allow them to be properly compensated for their service. The argument, in this statement, is the privatization of the US military in order to properly compensate them. Despite our advances in technology, and change in culture, we’re not that much different from our ancestors when it comes to human incentives. Something like this was already tried, in an ancient form, in the past. The ancient Romans, through trial and error, found that the best route to go was to have a professional military paid for by the government. This arrangement allowed for people to stay in long enough, under one employer, to gain experience, and to be loyal to an entity that represented the people. It also provided for a more effective form of defense. There are other examples of this happening after the Roman period. The follow on kingdoms eventually shifted from a military that’s based on some form of “privatization” to one where they had a permanent standing army paid for out of the government treasury. They could get continuous military experience working for one business/company; however, they’d be subjected to the same factors that their non fighting counterparts in the workforce would be subject to… layoffs, restructuring, changing corporate loyalties, etc. Worse yet, we’d have people like Dennis Chevalier and Paul Wickre, who might be able to serve when they otherwise wouldn’t. As for fair compensation of the troops, the free market does have an impact. Once the economy gets to a point to where it acts like an incentive to those currently serving, and with all other things being equal, service members will leave in droves for better pay and working… Read more »
All these governments found out that centralizing military service under the control of the government was the most beneficial to them. Which has positive benefits for all citizens. But when looking at it from every side it isn’t equally beneficial for all. There are definite drawbacks associated with a decentralized employment system for patriots. We could potentially operate under a labor union, which would mitigate many of the issues that you are talking about, while still allowing the free market to have an impact on wages. The important benefit of the union is that it offers the patriot bargaining power with their employer. This is compared to right now where our only bargaining power is walking away after our contract is up. Which some individuals are doing, but many are choosing not to. I have a buddy who was very happy he was able to reenlist when there were over 4000 applicants for only 400 or so positions. The military is downsizing and reducing positions available, while quite a few still want to work. The power again is on the side of the government, not the worker. There would absolutely be issues with layoffs, corporate loyalties, and restructuring. How are corporate loyalties any different than unit loyalties at the base level? And how are layoffs any different than forced retirement and the increase of standards while forcing out those who don’t meet them? The military performs these actions, just uses different methods to accomplish the same thing. And restructuring within a corporate side would be a much faster change, not bound by the same bureaucracy that ties up our present system. It would be in favor of efficiency or changing enemy threats. Every time I put my uniform on I am faced with the inability to restructure my environment to be better able to accomplish the mission for no other reason than these are the rules and we can’t change them. This is from all sides, logistics, personnel, and administration. I want to be more able to accomplish my mission, but the bureaucracy stands in my way. The wages of… Read more »
None of the ideas on this thread are equally beneficial for all. But, looking at it from a historic perspective, human political states in different locations in different times gravitated towards a standing army paid by the national treasury. History has proven over and over again that the arrangement that we have… the US government funding a standing military that answers to it… has proven to be the best solution. Let’s say that we do bring labor unions in with your scenario. We have “Soldier of Fortune” companies that are unionized, and some without. Like the corporations that we have today, we have unionized corporations that bring up labor costs. Not only that, not only do you have a company controlling a military force, you have a “labor” union controlling it. Many companies that have labor unions have a hard time competing against companies without a labor union. Based on the labor union description in the companies that we already have, we could see a labor union situation, among the “Soldier of Fortune,” where the focus is on “power” and “more money” rather than on better quality. There’s a reason to why we have states that are right to work, that reject unions. The same thing will happen if your scenario were to play out. In many instances, the union acts against the companies ability to remain competitive and afloat. For those that think that downsizing in the military is bad… it’s not better on the corporate side of the house. It’s like what I said earlier. These companies are constantly adjusting in size. This includes vicious downsizing at times. Instead of the government having the power in this case, now it’s the company having the power over the “soldier.” Just as people aren’t able to stick with a single company their entire carer, people won’t be able to stick with the same “Soldier of Fortune” company forever. They either have to start anew in a new company, or go into a different field. As for corporate loyalties versus unit loyalties. In a professional military, the loyalty is to the… Read more »
No situation will be beneficial for all. It is all about equalizing things as best as possible. In the end, whoever has the money has the power. The labor union concept isn’t perfect, but we are looking at things from our modern view of unions with 50 negative years of union experience behind us. Unions can drive up wages beyond their worth, while causing a spillover effect in the non-union sector reducing wage. But that isn’t always the case. In the case of the Threat Effect, which is often ignored the union affects wages in the non-union sector by its mere presence. Organizations improving their wages to keep unions out because it has been repeatedly proven that organizations that employ union workers do have lower profits than their non-union competitors, all else being equal. The thing about the military is that it isn’t a profit driven organization. It is a service provider, with an arbitrary definition of success. I am watching that transition now in the military, where I beg for 2 hours of MOS skill based training time, because I am so bogged down with mandated administrative requirements. Even overseas we don’t have a clearly defined goal with established benchmarks to establish success. When a business agreement is reached a clear cut end state is defined in the contract. This reduces confusion and costs. How different would Iraq have been if there was a goal less ambiguous than reduce insurgent activity and promote the peace? That is like telling IBM to sell some computers and help businesses be better. In the case of downsizing, the employer always has the upper hand, but unlike the present situation, if you wanted to remain in the military that option would exist. Company A reduces you may apply at Company B. It isn’t perfect, but it is better than the present scenario. Most people who have any loyalty to a corporation is directly related to their paycheck, although corporate culture does play a role. There is however, an inherent difference between the employees and the jobs in a PMC scenario. The employees are… Read more »
Yup, unions are imperfect, like most anything else people put together. Labor unions still have negative issues surrounding them. For example, teachers unions with regards to schools. The focus in some school districts, with teacher’s unions, is more on teacher’s benefits than it is on teaching kids. This example is repeated in other union work places. Unions still have the tendency to create and preserve the inefficiency that government work tends to create. Soldier of Fortune companies with unions won’t be immune to these effects… where many would fight for more profit and privilege over quality of work output. This may not be always the case, but the fact that there are the bad effects is a cause for concern… especially if it’s going to be implemented in an organization that we’re going to mainly rely on for national defense. Related to your statement about union wages reducing company profit… It has repeatedly been demonstrated that companies without unions pay less in labor expenses than companies that pay union expenses. An example of this is the foreign car companies operating in right to work states. They’re able to offer relatively cheaper cars partly because their wage expense is lower than that of their union company counterpart. Many companies, in right to work states, don’t need to raise wages to keep unions out. In the majority of the cases, companies that have unions tend to pay higher wage expenses than those without unions. This brings in another effect… outsourcing. Soldier of Fortune companies won’t be immune to this. So, what’s to stop a US based Soldier of Fortune company from outsourcing to another state… or another country… without unions? So now, we have the potential of foreign nationals fighting our wars, which puts us in a similar boat to where the Romans were toward the tail end of their existence as an organized political entity. An open environment, like a country where the PSYOP Objective (PO) is to reduce insurgent activity, isn’t the same thing as the floor of a manufacturing plant… where people have control of the majority of the… Read more »
Hey Adam, I appreciate the effort of your argument, however, you have epically failed in your understanding of the word “Patriot”. 10th generation has already served partner. Looking forward to the 11th in another 10 years.
I understand why this is such a compelling concept, but it is a very dangerous idea, and I hope I can do a good job of explaining why. The reason that a privatized military is dangerous has nothing to do with whether or not it will be an effective and quality force. It is a dangerous idea because such forces are for-profit entities, they are not answerable to Congress and therefore the American people, and they cannot be counted on in times of national emergency. The military services, on the other hand, serve the Constitution rather than profit, they do so at the pleasure of the president and according to laws established by Congress, and they are a force in readiness standing ready to defend the nation no matter what the money-making prospects (or odds.) Any private force is a for-profit entity, and therefore all of their actions and decisions are motivated by making money. Their officers will be loyal to a board of directors, a group of owners, or their stockholders. Decisions are made and missions accepted solely on this basis. None of the companies that participated in this conflict did so out of altruistic notions of national service. They did it because they thought they could make money (and most of them did). This has two major effects. First, in dire situations where the Nation’s safety or very existence is at stake the nation may not be able to count on them if there is no profit to be made. The second is probably the more dangerous effect. Since they have to make a profit, they will minimize cost wherever they can. The first method is to save money on training by hiring former military personnel who have already gone through the necessary training at taxpayer expense. The problem is that they are not really motivated to verify that former military personnel actually have the training they claim to have OR that they were not separated for cause. In addition, a great shooter does not always make a great planner or leader. So far we have restricted the… Read more »
If you want to get pay and benefits normalized for the military, force Congress to live on them.
A first and second year senator receives pay and benefits of an O-1, third and fourth O-2, and so on.
When they get out, since they won’t vote themselves out of their pention, let them “retire” like the military with the retirement pay of the “pay grade” they last held.
Oh, and make them use Tri-Care and/or the VA health care system. That would make things all-around better.
Exactly, why is it ok for them to tell us they aren’t paid what they are worth, then increase their own pay and benefits? Then tell us that we have to endure for the betterment of our country.
Amen!
That Adam, is what I will call (with a certain amount of affectionado) a trademark communist reply. Ever notice the words “For the collective” being bantered about? Just saying, bro. 😎
You have a profound argument. However, I would say that the idea you have has already been brought up in a different time. What you are describing is very similar to the idea of medieval and feudal house armies and banner men. Allow me to explain. Every holding would employ a number of individuals as a standing military force. Inland areas would have primarily ground forces while coastal and larger river trade areas would employ naval forces. The holding would train, equip, and utilize them for defense of their holding as well as disasters. In times of need, the King would contract with the holdings to organize the military forces into a King’s army. If the contract sucked, then none of the forces would rally. Mind you, the King also controlled a special holding of trained forces. The only addendum was if the kingdom was openly attacked. At that point, the holdings would immediately send their forces to defend the kingdom and negotiations would be opened after the threat was put down. However, the negotiations were usually good because the king didn’t want the forces withheld the next time the kingdom was attacked. To put this into terms of your argument, let us reconsider the way things were done in the past and bring them into the present. Each State would have a trained military force, much like the National Guard, but their full-time job would be a military force. In-land states would have an army and air force while coastal states would have a naval force. Washington, not being a true state, would keep a “Federal Force” of all four (like the king’s guard). In a time of conflict, the President would contract with the States for use of their military forces. If he didn’t offer sufficient compensation, then the States would tell him to go take a flying leap. If it was good for some, but not for others, then those States that liked the contract would offer their military forces. If the country came under attack, then the State that was being attacked would immediately respond. At… Read more »
I am always a huge fan of distribution of power, you are right though. The fed would never give up the military. The important thing would be ensuring whatever system in place gives everyone equal negotiating power.
Your idea of state powers felt like Game of Thrones, I like it.
Sorry, but that sounds way too much like the Articles of Confederation, which failed because it didn’t create a strong enough central government. It is possible to go overboard on state’s rights; while I agree that federal power is currently way past what it should reasonably be with entitlements especially, there are certain things only the federal government should be able to do. Raising a military is one of those. Putting large amounts of organized military force into the hands of regional authorities without a significant federal presence to keep them at bay upsets the checks and balances system and is asking for trouble (Our hypothetical holding scenario is different from the Second Amendment and the citizen’s militia because the holdings’ armies full-time job is to be a military force; if they have nothing to do otherwise and no one to control them at the federal level, there would probably be a lot of civil strife. Remember, those medieval holdings spent most of their time at war with each other). The bottom line is that I don’t want the states of our country to have large-scale full-time military forces. If we do that, there’s a fair chance we end up like the warring states of medieval China, with states using their military force to solve any dispute that arrises between them. It’s already happened many times in American history with different states’ national guard units, even with the federal government’s standing military. So, on consideration, no thanks.
Never said it was perfect, just that it was a good alternative at one time. They do use it in Game of Thrones because of the historical aspect of it.
At the same time, I’ve read some books from the 80s and 90s called BattleTech and they bring up a good point, too. Every country having a standing army to protect itself, but anything else is handled by country-paid mercenary units.
“You have a profound argument. However, I would say that the idea you have has already been brought up in a different time. What you are describing is very similar to the idea of medieval and feudal house armies and banner men.”
The mercenary companies of the 15-1600s immediately sprang to mind as I read the initial post.
A problem that would face the US government in using privatized forces would be qualitative versus quantitative – PMC Alpha might utilize stringent training standards so it’s “Soldiers” would be of higher quality than PMC Bravo, which uses a much lower standard. Does the US government spend the extra coin for the higher quality troops to ensure successful mission completion or go with the lowest bidder and gamble on mission failure?
The sci-fi book series “Hammer’s Slammers” by David Drake and the Van Falkenberg’s Legion series from Pournelle and Niven are both examples of how a privatized military might operate.
That would be the fun part. In the end you get what you pay for, mission would depend on cost and that conversation of quality vs quantity would have an effect. I don’t think this would ever happen but I do enjoy the conceptual idea of it all.
I will have to look that series up. Since I have been talking about it with the people on this board, and whoever else I bump into who will argue it with me I have had a few ideas for a fiction I may write myself.
I think the idealized forms of mercenary profiled in Hammer’s Slammers et al are a bit out of the question. The real issue it how reliable are hired troops?
I’m sure many readers have their own stories of encounters with PMCs in Iraq/Afghan. I know I do. The men and women whom I saw with the utmost discretion in combat were the uniformed services. Not to say that those folks did not serve.
On a more esoteric level I would add that cultures which relied on mercenaries were in their nedir. Romans. Byzantines. Not all is the Europe of the 100 years war. Just my opinion.
The idea is that the pool of potential employees aren’t greedy mercenaries, but the same people who currently serve. People motivated by patriotism. By privatizing, we allow the market to dictate wage as opposed to a single entity.
My argument consists of a single word. Accountability.
Case in point. Toyota.
GM.
Goldman Sachs.
Lehman Brothers.
Corporations have their inherent flaws, but the government hardly wears a halo. It is also less accountable in action than a corporation, which can simply fall apart or be bought out if it fails to perform. Things which governments are often immune to.
Operation Fast and Furious
Benghazi
NSA
IRS
No one organization is perfect.
Adam, if you haven’t already take a look at Executive Outcomes in Angola and Sierra Leone during the 90s.
You don’t read success stories very often.
It is all about execution, and the reason they are often viewed poorly is because they scare governments.
One of the pitfalls of privatization, aptly illustrated by EO, is what happens to the PMC once the hiring nation bows to international pressure. In both Angola and Sierra Leone EO had it’s contract with each state terminated prematurely due to pressure from the international community.
If the “Patriots PMC” was contracted for an operation and the operation goes south or becomes unpopular, what’s to stop the contracting entity – in this case the US government – from terminating the contract and leaving “Patriot’s PMC” twisting in the wind, in some foreign land with no hope of withdrawal?
You are right, that possibility always exists.
The only answer I can give is market pressure, a country that reneges on a contract that is partially completed will drastically reduce its ability to sign any more contracts afterward. No one will believe they will honor the agreement. That is the risk of entering into any contract.
The dangerous alternative would be the PMC offering their services to the other side to make up their costs. It isn’t pretty but it is a control that exists to keep both sides in check.
I would add that “privatization” isn’t necessary for a country to leave Soldiers twisting in the wind. Look at our own Department of Veteran’s Affairs…
Scary, rambling, self-serving s**t. There are some things only a government should do,
An interesting thought exercise but I’m not sold on the idea. If the government was the only one who could hire the services of the PMC, then they set wages, policies and procedures and now you’re back to square one.
And having a group of people providing for the nation’s defense whose loyalty is to a company and not the country? That could end very badly.
Not to try and oversimplify, but if it ever came to privatizing the military for better benefits without a flag; I would not have ever, in good conscience, considered joining the Army. I don’t feel that I am dumb for believing in the patriotism of serving in the Army, but I know that there is nothing patriotic about fighting for money only (despite how cool “The Wild Geese” makes it seem).
I don’t want to come off as preachy, but I would rather fight and die as an American Soldier than as a PMC. No offense to PMCs.
Think as illustrated by comments like PFDRBrandan’s, before making anything like this concept viable would work, there would have to be a substantial re-ordering of how militaries, especially commercial militaries are perceived – currently pay-for-play armies are viewed as a ‘lower form’ of life than the national military. Mercs are perceived as lower-rent than the selfless patriot who serves for love of country etc… until you address that, privatization would be doomed to failure.