Argument for military outsourcing?

Great Debates
1

Ok, so if Blackwater and other such firms pay their employees on average 9 times what the US army pay theirs, and still make a profit after that, then how exactly is this more cost-effective than the army or marines providing diplomatic security etc?

AP
On top of that,

So… has the Pentagon basically started a price war with itself with Blackwater as a proxy?

I put this in GQ in case there’s some kind of economic trickery I don’t understand that does make sense out of this. Barring that, mods feel free to move it wherever you like

ETA I’m well aware of the likely reasons but to clarify, am asking what the official justification for this practice is

2

(Caveat: I’m just googling this stuff and talking out of my hat. There are people here who could talk rings around me with what they know.)
Christian Science Monitor:

But that’s more of a guess than an estimate. I’m not sure if there is enough public information to give an answer worthy of GQ.

I assume that the US is outsourcing to minimize the political fallout and because there are only so many soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines in the military. The occupation of Iraq requires that there be a certain number of people in the country. It would take too long to recruit and train more soldiers (and there may not be enough qualified recruits.) It’s easier to hire private contractors.

Also, people don’t count the private employees when they talk about “bringing the boys home.” There are about 160,000 military personnel in Iraq and they have had to extend tours of duty. They number would more than double if they replaced the contractors. The US would be short on personnel everywhere else, and the antiwar movement would go nuts.

3

The argument that gets made, both for the military and for the civilian agencies, is that contractors do not represent a long-term commitment by the government. That removes costs such as health care and retirement from the picture, and so the on-going obligations are lower. The other argument, particularly for civilian agencies (including the civilian side of the military), is that it’s much harder to get rid of permanent employees than to hire contractors only as you need their expertise. At least that’s the argument. Although there is some truth to both of these arguments, in practice the skills that are needed to operate the federal agencies are typically needed all the time, so the government ends up keeping the contractors in place essentially permanently. By using contractors, administrations can claim they’ve cut the size of government (based on employees) without major cuts in services.

4

Contractors are doing jobs that MIGHT ordinarily be done by enlisted personnel, except that we are stretched so tightly by Iraq and Afghanistan that we don’t have any grunts to spare. Driving State Department folks around Baghdad COULD be the DSS’s job, but I don’t imagine there are enough of those guys to go around either.

Many security contractors were out of the active military well before they took their current jobs, but some have left the service recently. From what I understand, it’s a combination of frustration with the way the war is being fought (or misuse of their specialized skills- see below) and the desire to be paid a lot of money for a skill set that normally doesn’t earn you much.

I spoke to one SF guy who left the guard because they wanted him to go to Iraq and guard a driveway for 18 months. Special Forces sargent, a shitload of specialized training, counter-intel specialist, and they wanted to use him as a bullet magnet. When he protested that his MOS wasn’t exactly standing guard, he was told that “there are spaces to fill, and we will fill them with any warm body.” So he left.

Also, note that contractors also work for a number of private companies operating in Iraq with government contracts. Think Halliburton, KBR, etc. They employ a LOT of guys.

5

Please remember that you don’t just snap your fingers and hire a Marine at his base starting pay.
You have to send him through training and all kinds of other expenses, all of which costs big bucks.
We likely have a quarter million tied up per enlisted man by the time he’s actually ready to deploy.
With officers it can be several times that.

Look at option A: Pay several times as much to a contractor, but don’t pay training and don’t pay benefits
Option B: Wait months if not years, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, and then get the exact same guy from option A. With recruiting problems, it may simply not be possible to exercise Option B at all times.

6

[QUOTE=Mr. Slant]
Look at option A: Pay several times as much to a contractor, but don’t pay training and don’t pay benefits
Option B: Wait months if not years, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, and then get the exact same guy from option A. With recruiting problems, it may simply not be possible to exercise Option B at all times.
[/QUOTE]

Aren’t most armed security contractors former US military though? If so, the US pays for their training in any case.

7

When you talk about outsourcing Feds you rarely hear the argument that it is cost effective short term. Longer term (for the reasons Public Animal lists well) are where pro-outsourcing folks bring up costs. If that is the full extent of your question that is the answer - they don’t claim that it is cheaper NOW, just that is cheaper OVERALL to do it this way.

If you are asking beyond that how is it justified … usually Outsourcing is justified by saying:
We can’t quickly hire qualified Feds with the knowledge skills and abilities to do this job so we need to hire contractors to do this (this goes to EJGirls and Mr. Slant’s points which spell this out)
or
They may say we don’t have the Slots or budgetary HR bandwidth to hire folks to do this job - so they bring in Contractors to do that (cornflakes point)

8

Moved from General Questions to Great Debates.

Gfactor
General Questions Moderator

9

[QUOTE=Malodorous]
Aren’t most armed security contractors former US military though? If so, the US pays for their training in any case.
[/QUOTE]

That’s a valid point, but a side point from the perspective I’m looking at this from.
The fact that we paid for their training is now a sunken cost.
If we hire them as a subcontractor, we don’t have to pay training AGAIN.
If we go out and recruit a new soldier, we DO have to pay training.

10

[QUOTE=Mr. Slant]
Please remember that you don’t just snap your fingers and hire a Marine at his base starting pay.
You have to send him through training and all kinds of other expenses, all of which costs big bucks.
We likely have a quarter million tied up per enlisted man by the time he’s actually ready to deploy.
With officers it can be several times that.

Look at option A: Pay several times as much to a contractor, but don’t pay training and don’t pay benefits
Option B: Wait months if not years, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, and then get the exact same guy from option A. With recruiting problems, it may simply not be possible to exercise Option B at all times.
[/QUOTE]

Basically. Like in the original Medieval: Total War, mercenaries are a great investment in the short term because their fixed costs are comparatively low.

11

Personally, this is one case I am in favor of outsourcing. In fact, I think we should offshore the military operations in Iraq using those people that have come to consume jobs US jobs. We could return the troops to their homes and place them in the positions vacated by the people who are then sent to Iraq. Seems like a win-win to me.

12

[QUOTE=Mr. Slant]
That’s a valid point, but a side point from the perspective I’m looking at this from.
The fact that we paid for their training is now a sunken cost.
If we hire them as a subcontractor, we don’t have to pay training AGAIN.
If we go out and recruit a new soldier, we DO have to pay training.
[/QUOTE]

I suppose that’s true. But as someone mentioned earlier, it seems like it makes the US compete against itself (via Blackwater) for the pool of already trained soldiers. The best case scenario as far as the US’s bottom line would be for already trained soldiers to re-enlist with the US military. Then they don’t have to go to the expense of training a replacement. The fact that, for those soldiers who wish to continue in that line of work after their initial commitment is up, instead of re-enlisting can sign up with Blackwater for many times the pay, less risk (since I assume hired contractors aren’t given the very risky missions), less accountability and the option to quit without being charged with desertion if they get sick of getting shot at, makes me think that just about anyone who does want to continue soldiering in Iraq would try and join a Blackwater like firm before they signed up for a second time around (second tour?, that’s not right, whats the word I’m looking for?) with Uncle Sam.

Has anyone read the recent book on Blackwater? I’d be curious to know if it has any figures on the demographics of the people it employees as armed contractors. Given what I said above, I suspect its largely men who have just left the military and decided to sign up with Blackwater rather then re-enlist (or go back home).

13

[QUOTE=Malodorous]
The fact that, for those soldiers who wish to continue in that line of work after their initial commitment is up, instead of re-enlisting can sign up with Blackwater for many times the pay, less risk (since I assume hired contractors aren’t given the very risky missions), less accountability and the option to quit without being charged with desertion if they get sick of getting shot at, makes me think that just about anyone who does want to continue soldiering in Iraq would try and join a Blackwater like firm before they signed up for a second time around (second tour?, that’s not right, whats the word I’m looking for?) with Uncle Sam.

[/QUOTE]

Negative, on a couple of points.

First- the work these guys are doing is very risky. They get shot at all the time, and people try to blow them up as they drive by, or while they are stopped at intersections or obstacles. The fact they have to bunk in Baghdad is just icing on the cake (the “International Zone” isn’t exactly Bel Air).

Second- if someone wants to be a soldier, they re-enlist. These security contractors are not soldiers and are not fighting the enemy on behalf of the US government. Maybe if people stopped incorrectly labeling them as mercenaries, that perception would change.

Remember too that the better companies only want the best of the best. They won’t take just any yahoo who enlisted for 6 years. Often, even SWAT won’t get you in- they want former Rangers, SEALs, SF, Pararescue, Force Recon, etc- and they want experience. These are difficult jobs to get.

14

[QUOTE=jimmmy]
When you talk about outsourcing Feds you rarely hear the argument that it is cost effective short term. Longer term (for the reasons Public Animal lists well) are where pro-outsourcing folks bring up costs. If that is the full extent of your question that is the answer - they don’t claim that it is cheaper NOW, just that is cheaper OVERALL to do it this way.

If you are asking beyond that how is it justified … usually Outsourcing is justified by saying:
We can’t quickly hire qualified Feds with the knowledge skills and abilities to do this job so we need to hire contractors to do this (this goes to EJGirls and Mr. Slant’s points which spell this out)
or
They may say we don’t have the Slots or budgetary HR bandwidth to hire folks to do this job - so they bring in Contractors to do that (cornflakes point)
[/QUOTE]

The only point where Outsourcing is really profitable is where the Politico’s cronies get the Contract and make mega-bucks. It doesn’t help the Taxpayers in any way.

15

[QUOTE=Tibidabo ]
Ok, so if Blackwater and other such firms pay their employees on average 9 times what the US army pay theirs, and still make a profit after that, then how exactly is this more cost-effective than the army or marines providing diplomatic security etc? . . .

ETA I’m well aware of the likely reasons but to clarify, am asking what the official justification for this practice is
[/QUOTE]
I’m still not quite following what you mean by “this practice.” On one hand, I think you’re asking about the practice of hiring contracted security. On the other hand, you may be asking about the practice of setting up a revolving door between the military and contractors.

On the first question, the government realizes that we have an all-volunteer military and there are limits to what can reasonably be expected of volunteers. The military would want to retain a reasonable operations tempo: so a soldier knows that if he’s deployed for one year, he’ll be at home for x years. The fewer x is, the more dissatisfied soldiers you’ll have. The more jobs that can be converted to civilian or contractors, the less stress you’ll have on the whole force.

What is the dollar value of putting less stress on the force? It is a hell of a lot, actually. Retaining experienced soldiers makes sense because you don’t have to train them like a new recruit, but also, who do you think has to do the training? Also, you can’t just recruit a bunch of new soldiers when you need them. You need to give the additional troops a lot of stuff: uniforms, canteens, bayonets, boots… oh, and armored vehicles, new housing, more depots to repair broken stuff, etc. The Army is growing by 75,000 troops over the next three to five years, and that expansion is going to cost more than $75 billion.

So we expand the military and we’re going to have to maintain that investment for a number of years. After sinking that much money into the Army, we’re not just going to lay off 75,000 soldiers once we leave Iraq. A contract, on the other hand, can be ended as soon as we get out of Iraq. The follow-on or outyear costs to contracted security is probably zero. Uncle Sam doesn’t have to pay to maintain Blackwaters helicopters or armored vehicles when we don’t need them. We have to pay for maintaining Army helicopters and humvees whether we’re in a war or not.

On the second, if that’s what you meant about a policy of setting up a revolving door between the military and security contractors, that’s certainly not a devised policy: it’s economics. Troops are going to where they can maximize their profit for doing a roughly equivalent job, and the Pentagon is indeed worried about it.

16

I think that there is a political bonus to using contractors.

They have all volunteered to go to that particular area of conflict.
A soldier volunteers to join the army but may not be too happy about the fight he’s sent to.
If he is killed fighting in a war that he is personally against it is a lot more poigniant then a contractor getting killed in a conflict that he has gone out of his way to be in.

The minus side ,for the Brit.Army at least, is the number of Special Forces soldiers who after the time consuming selection process and the long and incredibly expensive training serve the bare minimum time that they can get away with before going for the Big Bucks as contractors.

Not only does this mean that the considerable investment made in them by the Army gets lost but the time and money has to be spent all over again on their replacements who may well do the same thing.

17

[QUOTE=EJsGirl]
First- the work these guys are doing is very risky. They get shot at all the time, and people try to blow them up as they drive by, or while they are stopped at intersections or obstacles. The fact they have to bunk in Baghdad is just icing on the cake (the “International Zone” isn’t exactly Bel Air).
[/quote]

I didn’t say it wasn’t risky, merely speculated that it was, on average, less risky then being a US solider. Both may get shot at at checkpoints, but a contractor probably isn’t going to be asked to be part of the first wave during the invasion of Iran, for a US soldier, thats a possibility. And of course, if they are asked to do something really dangerous, a contractor can say no and quit, a US soldier can’t.

The jobs are similar enough, though, so that I imagine at least some people who want to do one would also be interested in the other. Which is my point, the gov’t and military contractor companies compete with each other over at least some of the same people.

Maybe, though if there are 30,000 of them just in Iraq (and I assume decent numbers in Afganistan and the like as well), they can’t be that selective, especially since they’ve probably had to hire most of these people to meet the rise in demand over a fairly short period. But that’s why I was curious if anyone knew any of the demographics of who people hired by these companies actually were.

18

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
The only point where Outsourcing is really profitable is where the Politico’s cronies get the Contract and make mega-bucks. It doesn’t help the Taxpayers in any way.
[/QUOTE]

I am not in favor of it in general - I think there are Inherently governmental functions that government needs to do and that outsourcing them to save money (which it rarely does – especially short term - we all agree) is counter-productive. The TSA with screeners at Airports is an example where the job going to the lowest bidder who could most efficiently cut the most corners had the obvious (and eminently predictable) result. Government had to “re-insource” this function.

Still, Laundry facilities at VA hospitals, food service at the Naval Academy and landscaping services at some non secure federal facilities are all things I can buy were lines of business the government shouldn’t have ever been in anyway. I can buy that the guys performing these tasks never needed to be GS-X’s and that a local company paying prevailing area minimum wage to contractor employees to perform them probably is best for local laundry, food service and landscaping companies and taxpayers.

It should be rare and judicious and not ever (ever) politically motivated by ideology (e.g. a. all government is bad all private industry is efficient and good …or worse b. I am going to reduce “the size” of the federal government by X% and by “size” I only mean federal positions).

19

[QUOTE=Malodorous]

Maybe, though if there are 30,000 of them just in Iraq (and I assume decent numbers in Afganistan and the like as well), they can’t be that selective, especially since they’ve probably had to hire most of these people to meet the rise in demand over a fairly short period. But that’s why I was curious if anyone knew any of the demographics of who people hired by these companies actually were.
[/QUOTE]

I can’t speak to Blackwater’s hiring practices, but the company my brother works for is incredibly picky and their standards are very high. Other companies’ MMV.

20

[QUOTE=Malodorous]
Maybe, though if there are 30,000 of them just in Iraq (and I assume decent numbers in Afganistan and the like as well), they can’t be that selective
[/QUOTE]

Well, if you believe wikipedia US special operations command has about 44,000 commandos currently. If you factor in all the people who have served and are still fit & healthy, plus all the foreign equivalents, the recruiting pool is probably a fair size. However I think that 30,000 number almost inevitably covers the full spectrum from yahoos through to very professional, just like in the regular US Army, since any group of 30,000+ people will almost invariably contain examples of the full spectrum of humanity.