US Military Can't Prosecute Contractors That Commit Crimes

Yes, please ignore my attempts to find truth from highly ignorant people. Only one view allowed per thread.

Why are we personally attacking people now? I thought we were talking about contractors.

[edit on 8-4-2007 by Johnmike]

Why did they outsource jobs?

It's no secret that our forces are strained...Iraq...Afghanistan...not to mention other global commitments...and a few units training at home before recycling back to the ME.

In short...personnel shortage would be one obvious reason.

THERE ARE FAR MORE EXPENSES INVOLVED THAN PERSONNEL. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPARE SALARIES WHILE COMPARING COST-EFFECTIVENESS./

FYI: external image


Johnmike, I'm sincerely having trouble understanding your point about salaries vs capitol costs etc, and how this relates to your argument.

Probably my shortcoming, but perhaps you could elucidate a bit...be gentle now.


Peace &
Good Fortune
OBE1

It's no secret that our forces are strained...Iraq...Afghanistan...not to mention other global commitments...and a few units training at home before recycling back to the ME.

They had planned to outsource prior to 9/11 and the Iraq invasion, so I don't think they were outsourcing because of a lack of troops. In fact, the opposite could be said where the outsourcing itself is causing a lack of troops.

Please read this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Interesting link elderban...thanks. Agreed, the genesis of outsourcing, or military privatization might legitimately be linked to the Rumsfeld Doctrine, and it pre-dates 911. It's also believed that the current administration already had their sights set on an invasion of Iraq about the same time, so it's not surprising that PMC's would have been included as an essential wing in a post invasion battle plan. I guess my comment was directed more to the surprising exponential growth of the PMC industry, since the invasion occurred. This would make sense in light of the apparent failure of the lighter, leaner, more mobile force championed by the Pentagon under Rumsfeld, to deal with the realities currently surrounding our ground forces...in-country now for over 4 years.

With enlistment levels declining since the outset of the war, guard units tapped, and military commitments elsewhere...where do we turn? However, placing private industry in a position to influence, and effect political objectives, operating outside the military chain-of-command, and with little or no regulatory oversight...seems to beg for problems that go beyond the recent allegations against Halliburton for war-profiteering.

While we have an administration that has shown itself to favor the opaque over the transparent...it's difficult not to interpret the current PMC 'Gold Rush', as a not-so covert attempt to further unpopular political, and military objectives, while conveniently circumventing congressional limits.

Extreme positions should be avoided either way. I recognize the value of PMC's, and agree with another poster on this thread...the PMC is here to stay. I just feel that it's time for congress to have a closer look.

I've read the concerns coming from the military itself...mostly with regard to the affect of PMC's on future enlistment quotas. Who knows, if one adheres to free market ideology...maybe in the long run, competition with controls will benefit everyone's game.


Peace &
Good Fortune
OBE1

[edit on 9-4-2007 by OBE1]