So ... why don't we just pay U.S. soldiers twice as much?

Great Debates
1

Contractors in Iraq are getting paid–at minimum–twice as much as troops employed by the U.S. military.

Said contractors are, now, doing virtually the same work as what U.S. soldiers are doing now or have done in previous wars: security, supply convoys, food service, engineering, etc.

Said contractors are often ex-military

Said contractors are being paid by companies like KBR (Halliburton).

Said companies are being paid by the US govt. … but we have very little control over the conduct of their employees, and even less control over how (or if) the companies spend their money.

So since the salary for these contractors is already coming from the US govt. (govt. -> companies -> contractors), and the contractors are getting at least twice as much as regular soldiers in the military (and obviously think this is enough money to attract them to Iraq), why doesn’t the govt. just double the pay of soldiers in Iraq and thereby attract more soldiers? It won’t cost us any more–we’re already spending the money!

2

The number of soldiers in the military isn’t limited by their pay, it is limited by the budget. Increase the military personnel budget and there will be more soldiers at the same pay.

Soldiers also cost the government money for training, medical care, retirement, and other benefits. Plus the contractor pay comes from different pots of money, and so is easier to hide.

3

Well, this is the rub. I guess I’m just always surprised, again and again, that politicians would rather keep deceptive, shady, inefficient practices in place than be straight with people.

4

Its not that simple. Just throwing out some random numbers to illustrate the point. Say the Army is paying SGT Smith $30,000 to haul fuel. They pay Haliburton $80,000 per driver and H pays Mr Jones $60,000 for the same job. Why are they doing it? Well Sgt Smith’s housing must be provided for either by building housing and maintaining it or paying him a housing allowance. His medical needs must be met which means building and maintaining hospitals with doctors,nurses, equipment etc. SGT Smith’s family must be taken care of. That means building schools hiring teachers etc. When he retires then you have to pay his retirement. Having a soldier as an “employee” is more complicated and expensive than it is on the civilian side.

The other factor is the numbers needed. Lets say the Army needs 10,000 truck drivers (for the sake of arguement) during normal peacetime operations. Now lets say a conflict occurs and the need goes up to 30,000. The Army will only need the extra 20,000 drivers for the duration of the conflict, lets say a year. So the choice is to lock in 30,000 drivers to a 6 year enlistment or hire 20,000 contractors for the year you need them then get rid of them with no strings attached.

5

When did we change the word “mercenary” to “civilian contractor?”
Did that start with this war or have we been doing it for awhile?

And what was wrong with “mercenary?” Why castrate the word? Is it to generate more sympathy if mercenaries get killed?

6

Or, let people enlist for one-year terms. As we did in Vietnam.

7

I know you are trying to make a political point but I will answer like you are arguing fact.

If you mean mercenary in the first sense then yes they are mercenaries. So are most working people unless they work for motives other than money. I work to get paid so I guess thats me and most of us.

If you mean it in the second sense I am sure that you realize the work is used for hired soldiers. I would use that to describe the “security consulants” being used overseas but they are the vast minority. Most of the contractors are just that. They are builders, truck drivers, mechanics etc. I have worked with many civilian contractors and none of them are mercenaries. The last time I was at Fort Irwin (10 years) the whole base was run by Dynacorp. Are you saying the guy working in the library was a mercenary?

8

Actually, I think it was a bit of confusion on my part. “Security consultant” was the phrase I was thinking of. I remember reading about them and realizing they were just classic mercenaries with a more PC job description. I seem to have conflated “Securirty Consultants” with “Civilian Contractors” in the intervening months. Mea Culpa.

9

The number of people in uniform is limited by law. Cuurently we are over limit and working under emergency provisions.

Private security companies are the second largest contingent in Iraq now. There’re more private security employees than there are UK soldiers. The last estimate that I saw gave the number as 20,000. This number doesn’t count any Iraqis who’ve hired on, only foreigners.

These include former Executive Outcomes types from South Africa as well as former death squad members. There’s also a contingent from Argentina some of whom were associated w/ Pinochet.

10

I thought it was two years. That’s enough time for training and a single tour-of-duty.

11

Why? I thought the armed forces were having such terrible recruiting problems that pols are actually hinting at reviving the draft. But if we double the individual soldier’s pay, the added financial inducement might make military service a more attractive choice and make the draft unnecessary.

12

All of the services met their recruiting goals for 2004, except for the National Guard.

13

This is my point, exactly. I mean, it’s already working, in back-door fashion: The high pay (that flows from govt->companies like Halliburton->contractors/mercenaries) is attracting people to Halliburton, et al to do work that’s pretty much identical to that of a lot of bona fide military troops in Iraq. So why not cut out the middleman of Halliburton and its ilk, and put those 20,000 troops under direct military control? It would add accountability (not prevent abu ghraibs, but at least put the blame somewhere) and eliminate war profiteering.

Thanks for giving us the exact legal reason, Simon. (I’ve spent a little time recently on other boards … and, boy, is it refreshing to spend time on a board with competent, well-informed users.) So, presumably, Congress would need to change that limit, and change rates of military pay … which would be a huge hassle for them. Instead, they just wrote a blank check for $87 billion, which Bush was able to use immediately to hire mercenaries.

14

It would also cost more money than the contractors do. The government could get more soldiers at the same pay but doesn’t for that reason and for politics.

It may surprise you, but most soldiers aren’t in it for the pay.

15

Per loache’s point the overall cost of maintaining a solider (even at half the wages of a civilian doing the same thing) is likely to be greater in the long run, after the overall costs and long term obligations are taken into account.

IMO most people aren’t in the Army, just because they’re burning to defend democracy, it’s a career choice they weighed, and on average decided that a relatively low base pay was more than made up for by the benefits. If you offered soliders the opportunity to make 100% more, but lose every long and short term government benefit, I think you’d be surprised how many would stick with GI pay + benefits. Bring a civilian is expensive.

16

CBO has yet to get on this and find out what the actual costs are. I have doubts about things being quite as clean cut as can be prsented in a paragraph.

17

SimonX’s point is well-taken: we don’t really know the long-term costs, but adding military personnel is not cheap at all, especially if Uncle Sam is on the hook if they get shot up and have to visit VA hospitals for the rest of their life.

There’s a couple of other practical reasons why it would not be easy to add a lot of soldiers to the Army.

First, let’s say we double military pay to get more soldiers and fewer contractors on the battlefield of Iraq. So, what do we do after Iraq is over? Cut the pay of soldiers? That doesn’t strike me as a great idea.

Second, let’s say you’ve done your 20 in the military and want to help out over in Iraq somehow. Easy: send your resume over to Blackwater, and if they’re a bunch of punks and you hate working there, quit and send your resume to CACI or something. Does this experienced person want to re-join the military after he’s already retired? Well, if the pay is equal, maybe more would, but I think most contractors of this ilk like being able to walk away from a job if they don’t like it. They’ve already been told what to do for 20 years, why go back to that again?

On the other hand, let’s say you’re a lower-middle class truck driver from Kentucky. KBR offers you $60+ grand to drive trucks in Iraq. If you don’t like it, you quit and go home. Does this guy want to join the Army for one or two years, go through basic training, and have his life lorded over by domineering sergeants and wussy lieutenants for all that time for the same pay KBR would give him? I doubt it. Why would he?

18

My reasoning is very clear in my head. I hope it comes out that way.

There are several problems with giving out short-term enlistments to fill immediate needs. To keep this from getting bogged down in any discussion about Iraq I’ll keep it theoretical. The discussion about the ethics of hiring large ammounts of security consultants is a separate discussion. The military has become dependant on civilian contractors in general. There is a reason for it, whether you agree or not. Lets say the Army needs 10,000 truck drivers for normal peacetime operations. All of a sudden there is a problem in the Republic of Krasnovia and a large number of troops are needed for a year. The Army now needs 30,000 truck drivers starting next month and lasting 12 months. Your two choices are to recruit more truck drivers or hire contractors. If you hire contractors they will be there when you need them. If you wish to recruit soldiers for this short-term need it takes more time. First you would have to push through legislation authorizing the increase in strength. Then the order must go down to the recruiters. They have to recruit the troops. Many recruits have delayed entry, they don’t start basic until months after they sign up. It would take at least several months to recruit, train and deploy the new troops to fill your need. It doesn’t work if you need those troops now.

You may ask “why don’t we just have enough troops to cover any contingency?” We used to, it was called the Cold War. Once the Soviet Union collapsed it was hard to justify to the American people why we would need a large military. The generals knew that if there was a large conflict then the resources must come from somewhere so they planned on using contractors. During the Bush I and Clinton administration there were drastic cuts to the military due to the post Cold War draw-down. Bottom line: it saves money.

I know this is an over-simplifacation. Use of contractors predated the end of the Cold War but it is much greater now. For certain needs it makes sense to use contractors for all the reasons I stated earlier. There is a reason why the Pentagon is the largest office building in the world. Its filled with more number crunchers than strategists, they are trying to stretch that budget as much as they can.

19

The point that concerns me the most is the contractors we hire to carry weapons.

When it comes to contractors who drive trucks, fix air conditioners, what have you it is sufficient to examine the matter from a economic perspective as many of the other issues are well plumbed. Not that there aren’t grey areas re morals questions of the use of non-combatants in combat zones etc., but compared the moral and ethical concerns of the use of hired guns by the modern state, the grey areas hiring a trucking company are nearly insignificant. If it makes economic sense to use a contractor to drive trucks, then by all means (barring unusual circumstances) do so.

However the state funding of private armies is a practice that is fraught with a multitude of potentially disastrous pitfalls. Not the least of which is the largely unresolved issues of legal liabilities of individual hired guns, private security companies, the governments who employ them and the other private companies who hire their own army. Executive Outcomes was hired on several occasions to turn the tide of political events. EO accepted payment in the form of interests in mineral rights. The company turned into a well funded stateless army capable of taking on the armed forces of small countries, constrained only by the whims of market place forces.

Hooking these kinds of companies to the teat of the public largesse of the US is a grave concern.
Given human nature, it is just a matter of time before unsavory characters become involved in the expert trade in violence on an international level. These bad actors will make military violence an option not just for sovereign nations, but for individuals and large corporations.
In the case of several other industries, once they latched on to the teat of the US taxpayers they were loath to let go. These industries sought not only to maintain their access to US taxpayers’ money, they seek to increase their level of consumption. They go out of their way to drum up new business. This is bad enough for a country when the trade of these industries is material goods. But, when the trade of the industry is violence and war it’s hard to exaggerate how dire the potential consequences are.

The way that our system is set up now, lobbyists have a distinct advantage over the electorate in through a principle similar to the precise application of force. While the electorate has more weight to throw around, it is more diffuse than the precise tactics of professional lobbyists. One way this disparity can be noticed is through reference to an element of public choice theory called rational ignorance. While it’s well worth the investment of time and energy on the part of special interests to spend multi-millions of dollars to influence laws and policy. Yet, it’s not worth the effort of the average voter to do the same (not that the average voter even could).

Because violence, chaos, and human suffering are the conditions that allow private security companies to thrive, PSCs are one of the most dangerous kinds of industries to have suckling US tax money. I’m not saying that the industry is only bad or that it only can have bad results. I imagine that there is some possible way that having these companies could be beneficial to the US. What I am saying, -what I am sure of- is that due to the special nature and enormous consequences of military violence the issue demands a much, much higher level of due diligence on the part of the US electorate as well as our armed forces and government than the contracting of fuel deliveries and garbage disposal.

The largely undiscussed blossoming of private military companies as a result of Team Bush’s strategies for pursuing the GWOT is most definitely not a good thing. The many grave issues surrounding this sudden blossoming need to be openly and thoroughly discussed by the entire electorate. Until there is such a large scale discussion amongst us, the large scale funding of private security companies by US taxpayers is a very bad thing.

[soapbox]
IMHO, just as we don’t allow artificial persons the right to cast ballots, we shouldn’t allow artificial persons to lobby our legislators nor should they be allowed to contribute to election campaigns.
[/soapbox]