Bribing Troops to Quit. Is Blackwater really "patriotic"?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'm all for paying our enlisted and commissioned soldiers MUCH more! I'd rather go over on government orders than on contractor papers every time! It's a shame that the money is so damn low in the military compared to the contractors who rake in astronomical figures for the same work...

If raising military pay is the solution, then BRING IT ON! ;)

Call me cynical, but I think the ONLY reason we have contractors is that it does congressmen no good to dole out the money to the government itself...the DOD isn't going to fund anyone's campaign for Senate next year, but private contractors will. It seems like nothing so much as a giant scam, because otherwise why WOULD it make sense to pay contractors way more to do something a government employee could do for a lot cheaper? And in the right context, it seems like nothing so much as war profiteering to me...and last I checked, that was still against the law.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,925
2,908
136
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'm all for paying our enlisted and commissioned soldiers MUCH more! I'd rather go over on government orders than on contractor papers every time! It's a shame that the money is so damn low in the military compared to the contractors who rake in astronomical figures for the same work...

If raising military pay is the solution, then BRING IT ON! ;)

Call me cynical, but I think the ONLY reason we have contractors is that it does congressmen no good to dole out the money to the government itself...the DOD isn't going to fund anyone's campaign for Senate next year, but private contractors will. It seems like nothing so much as a giant scam, because otherwise why WOULD it make sense to pay contractors way more to do something a government employee could do for a lot cheaper? And in the right context, it seems like nothing so much as war profiteering to me...and last I checked, that was still against the law.

I kind of agree with you there. Although, I would like to see a breakdown of how much it costs the government to pay a government employee, benefits, retirement, etc...compared to just throwing out x amount of money per contractor.

 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'm all for paying our enlisted and commissioned soldiers MUCH more! I'd rather go over on government orders than on contractor papers every time! It's a shame that the money is so damn low in the military compared to the contractors who rake in astronomical figures for the same work...

If raising military pay is the solution, then BRING IT ON! ;)

Call me cynical, but I think the ONLY reason we have contractors is that it does congressmen no good to dole out the money to the government itself...the DOD isn't going to fund anyone's campaign for Senate next year, but private contractors will. It seems like nothing so much as a giant scam, because otherwise why WOULD it make sense to pay contractors way more to do something a government employee could do for a lot cheaper? And in the right context, it seems like nothing so much as war profiteering to me...and last I checked, that was still against the law.

I kind of agree with you there. Although, I would like to see a breakdown of how much it costs the government to pay a government employee, benefits, retirement, etc...compared to just throwing out x amount of money per contractor.

May be the first time JD50 and I have agreed. JD50, they did the math and the cost per soldier is one-sixth of a contracter on average, as I read it.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,925
2,908
136
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'm all for paying our enlisted and commissioned soldiers MUCH more! I'd rather go over on government orders than on contractor papers every time! It's a shame that the money is so damn low in the military compared to the contractors who rake in astronomical figures for the same work...

If raising military pay is the solution, then BRING IT ON! ;)

Call me cynical, but I think the ONLY reason we have contractors is that it does congressmen no good to dole out the money to the government itself...the DOD isn't going to fund anyone's campaign for Senate next year, but private contractors will. It seems like nothing so much as a giant scam, because otherwise why WOULD it make sense to pay contractors way more to do something a government employee could do for a lot cheaper? And in the right context, it seems like nothing so much as war profiteering to me...and last I checked, that was still against the law.

I kind of agree with you there. Although, I would like to see a breakdown of how much it costs the government to pay a government employee, benefits, retirement, etc...compared to just throwing out x amount of money per contractor.

May be the first time JD50 and I have agreed. JD50, they did the math and the cost per soldier is one-sixth of a contracter on average, as I read it.

Really? That seems kind of low, after you factor in healthcare, retirement, etc... for a soldier compared to a contractor. But like others have said, if you raise the pay for the military, you might not need as many contractors. But then you still run into the problem of people being there just for the money. I guess we don't really have a choice right now though....besides not being there in the first place.
 

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'm all for paying our enlisted and commissioned soldiers MUCH more! I'd rather go over on government orders than on contractor papers every time! It's a shame that the money is so damn low in the military compared to the contractors who rake in astronomical figures for the same work...

If raising military pay is the solution, then BRING IT ON! ;)

Call me cynical, but I think the ONLY reason we have contractors is that it does congressmen no good to dole out the money to the government itself...the DOD isn't going to fund anyone's campaign for Senate next year, but private contractors will. It seems like nothing so much as a giant scam, because otherwise why WOULD it make sense to pay contractors way more to do something a government employee could do for a lot cheaper? And in the right context, it seems like nothing so much as war profiteering to me...and last I checked, that was still against the law.

I kind of agree with you there. Although, I would like to see a breakdown of how much it costs the government to pay a government employee, benefits, retirement, etc...compared to just throwing out x amount of money per contractor.


Well I'd be happy to tell you!

As in E-5 with 6 years in, my last benefits fact sheet (that all active duty folks are given annually) stated that ALL of my benefits amount to ~$43k. Now that doesn't include some of the extra pay folks receive when deployed like hazardous duty pay, and family separation allowance (each approximately $250/mo) but it should give you an idea of what an average enlisted guy costs the government under the worst terms. I say "worst" because I've spent my career thus far overseas where I'm entitled to a much larger housing allowance and significant cost of living allowances which are both included in the figure offered above. I should also mention that the healthcare of my family and I is also included in the benefits fact sheet.

So, in summary:

Me = $43k/ year
Contractor in same line of work = +$100k/year.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: JD50

Really? That seems kind of low, after you factor in healthcare, retirement, etc... for a soldier compared to a contractor. But like others have said, if you raise the pay for the military, you might not need as many contractors. But then you still run into the problem of people being there just for the money. I guess we don't really have a choice right now though....besides not being there in the first place.

I'm not sure they did it that way, calculating the total compensation including benefits - I'd expect them to, but they may not have.

Remember, you don't have to pay the military some inflated wage based on whatever the corrupt spending of tax money allows Blackwater to pay.

Instead, we need to block the paying of tax money to Blackwater in those amounts.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,925
2,908
136
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: JD50

Really? That seems kind of low, after you factor in healthcare, retirement, etc... for a soldier compared to a contractor. But like others have said, if you raise the pay for the military, you might not need as many contractors. But then you still run into the problem of people being there just for the money. I guess we don't really have a choice right now though....besides not being there in the first place.

I'm not sure they did it that way, calculating the total compensation including benefits - I'd expect them to, but they may not have.

Remember, you don't have to pay the military some inflated wage based on whatever the corrupt spending of tax money allows Blackwater to pay.

Instead, we need to block the paying of tax money to Blackwater in those amounts.

Economically speaking, its probably much cheaper to pay some contractors 200k a year for a few years of work over in Iraq than it would be to pay an army grunt whatever they are making once you factor in benefits and salary for a full career and throughout retirement. I'm not saying thats right, just saying which is probably more cost effective.

Now of course I'd rather see our service men and women get paid more then that money go to contractors, but it probably makes sense what they are doing economically. Well, I could be wrong, I really have no idea, just making a guess here.

 

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: JD50

Really? That seems kind of low, after you factor in healthcare, retirement, etc... for a soldier compared to a contractor. But like others have said, if you raise the pay for the military, you might not need as many contractors. But then you still run into the problem of people being there just for the money. I guess we don't really have a choice right now though....besides not being there in the first place.

I'm not sure they did it that way, calculating the total compensation including benefits - I'd expect them to, but they may not have.

Remember, you don't have to pay the military some inflated wage based on whatever the corrupt spending of tax money allows Blackwater to pay.

Instead, we need to block the paying of tax money to Blackwater in those amounts.

Economically speaking, its probably much cheaper to pay some contractors 200k a year for a few years of work over in Iraq than it would be to pay an army grunt whatever they are making once you factor in benefits and salary for a full career and throughout retirement. I'm not saying thats right, just saying which is probably more cost effective.

Now of course I'd rather see our service men and women get paid more then that money go to contractors, but it probably makes sense what they are doing economically. Well, I could be wrong, I really have no idea, just making a guess here.

JD, if a contractor is making 2-5 times as much as his enlisted/commissioned counterpart for ~4 years of service then that sort of means he's being paid for those 4 years as much as the enlisted guy is throughout his entire career. How is that economical? :confused:
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
I wish there was a way to determine the impact this has had on SOF retention figures.

Are we having a difficult time filling our SOF slots? Expanding or SOF units? Retaining our SOF Sr. NCO's?

Has anyone seen any real empirical data on this question?
 

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I wish there was a way to determine the impact this has had on SOF retention figures.

Are we having a difficult time filling our SOF slots? Expanding or SOF units? Retaining our SOF Sr. NCO's?

Has anyone seen any real empirical data on this question?

I'd be really surprised if this had much influence on the retention of SOF SCNO's as they'd be so close to retirement.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I wish there was a way to determine the impact this has had on SOF retention figures.

Are we having a difficult time filling our SOF slots? Expanding or SOF units? Retaining our SOF Sr. NCO's?

Has anyone seen any real empirical data on this question?

I'd be really surprised if this had much influence on the retention of SOF SCNO's as they'd be so close to retirement.
I agree that the E7/8/9's will usually stay in until they're ready to retire... So I guess what I was thinking about were the general recruiting and retention stats for SOF personnel.
 

teclis1023

Golden Member
Jan 19, 2007
1,452
0
71
Our military troops are over worked and underpaid. They're being sent out on 3 and 4 tours and being denied fair time at home with their families (according to what I've read). Is it patriotic of our country to treat our own soldiers like that?

I don't blame soldiers who decide not to re-enlist and instead chase careers earning 5-6 times that which they had originally been paid.

I don't buy this argument about patriotism in the first place. I'm not a big fan of BlackWater, but with that being said, our troops are fighting an unnecessary war with a country that didn't openly oppose us in the first place. I am supportive of military action when it's necessary and productive, but I haven't been convinced that this war has been either of the two.

I don't believe that it's patriotic to send troops into a country without a damned good reason to do so.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
This complaint is nothing but FUD.

If you have valuable job skills and your *contract* is up, companies etc will offer incentives to sign up with them. It's always worked that way. The military itself does it with enlistement bonuses (and those are aimed at inexperienced people). Pretty sure they do it with re-enlistment bonuses.

Dumb complaint.

Fern
 

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
This complaint is nothing but FUD.

If you have valuable job skills and your *contract* is up, companies etc will offer incentives to sign up with them. It's always worked that way. The military itself does it with enlistement bonuses (and those are aimed at inexperienced people). Pretty sure they do it with re-enlistment bonuses.

Dumb complaint.

Fern

EDIT: wrong thread :)
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
This outsourcing really took off in the 80's under Reagan. The idea was to contract out as much work as possible. And the reason is not what you think, it was based on a basic hostility to the federal worker. They kept salaries low and did everything they could to irritate federal employees into quitting. At the same time contracting out everything possible to cost plus contractors.
It's very simple actually, Republicans hate the federal govt and are trying to kill it.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: marincounty

-snip-

It's very simple actually, Republicans hate the federal govt and are trying to kill it.

I don't wanna kill it, but I would like to wound the Fsck out of it.

Fern
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: marincounty

-snip-

It's very simple actually, Republicans hate the federal govt and are trying to kill it.

I don't wanna kill it, but I would like to wound the Fsck out of it.

Fern

It's not that simple; complications include two motives for it, one the profit to be had from 'privatizing', and the second reducing the federal government's (and hence the public's) ability to have much say about what the most powerful private interests in the nation can do, setting up some rivalry of power.

Wanting to 'wound' it is largely foolish - avoid waste, but the government you do have, make it work, make it a respectable, fairly paid thing or it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Much like the difference between FEMA under Clinton and Bush.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Much like the difference between FEMA under Clinton and Bush.

Yeah, because we see how honest and forthright James Witt has proven to be. :roll:
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: marincounty

-snip-

It's very simple actually, Republicans hate the federal govt and are trying to kill it.

I don't wanna kill it, but I would like to wound the Fsck out of it.

Fern

No, you don't. You want to chop away the bits you don't like, and make the things you do like even bigger and more invasive...just like everyone else. The conservative "small government" philosophy is bullshit, it's just clever marketing for the same thing pretty much every political movement is trying to do. Because I can't help but wonder at the difference between how "small government" looks when it comes to social services and how it looks when we're talking about domestic surveillance. Jack Bauer is fine with conservatives as long as he doesn't work for the IRS.
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Originally posted by: Rainsford
No, you don't. You want to chop away the bits you don't like, and make the things you do like even bigger and more invasive...just like everyone else. The conservative "small government" philosophy is bullshit, it's just clever marketing for the same thing pretty much every political movement is trying to do. Because I can't help but wonder at the difference between how "small government" looks when it comes to social services and how it looks when we're talking about domestic surveillance. Jack Bauer is fine with conservatives as long as he doesn't work for the IRS.

You don't think there are conservatives who want smaller government? That tells me you don't really understand a lot. Say it aint so...
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: techs
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10...ing_troops_to_quit.htm

BRIBING TROOPS TO QUIT
By RALPH PETERS

October 6, 2007 -- THE problems with military outsourcing go far beyond last month's massacre of civilians by Blackwater USA's hired guns: Wartime profiteers are bleeding our military.
Astonishingly, contractors are free to approach those in uniform, offer them generous salaries to leave their service in wartime, then profit from the skills your tax dollars taught them.

This isn't just about Navy SEALS or other special operators. In intelligence, for example, we train young soldiers for complex missions and expensively process their security clearances - then contractors bribe them to leave the military, raking in big bucks from your investment in their new employee.

Maybe we could look the other way in peacetime. But we're fighting multiple wars. Would we have allowed contractors to hire away some of the most highly skilled men and women in uniform during World War II? (Of course, most lawmakers really were patriots then . . .)

It's fundamentally wrong to let contractors go head-hunting among our troops in wartime. Those in government who've elevated outsourcing to a state religion pretend it helps our war effort - with the whopper that outsourcing military functions saves taxpayer dollars.

Exactly how does that one work? You get stuck with the training and security-clearance costs; the soldier lured to the private sector gets his salary doubled or tripled - then the contractor adds in a markup for his multiple layers of overhead costs and a generous profit margin, and bills the taxpayers. How is that cheaper than having soldiers do the job?

The scam-artists tell us that using contractors saves money in the long run, since their employees don't get military health care and retirement benefits. But the numbers just don't add up.

Contractors are looting our military - while wrapping themselves in the flag.


Thankfully, the finest soldiers and Marines aren't in it for the money. But we're still losing personnel with vital in-demand skills.

Here's how one disgusted special-ops veteran puts it:

"I got tired of old SF buddies handing me their business cards as I exited the dining facility in Iraq [and] asking me to come over and work for them. I'll go teach high school English in the inner city first."

In a follow-up message, this veteran - who's sticking by the colors - wrote:

"The saddest thing I see in those 'flesh peddlers' is the part of the conversation when they admit that they really miss the unit and the people in it. A true warrior isn't in it for the money, but, rather, for those things that money can never buy: mutual respect, camaraderie and the self-worth that comes with it.

"Every one of my contractor 'buddies' eventually breaks down and admits these things to me. Unfortunately, they can also pick up on a malcontent quickly, therefore acquiring the 'easy sale.' "

The disgraceful cycle works like this: Contractors hire away military talent. The military finds itself short of skilled workers, so contractors get more contracts. With more money, they hire away more uniformed talent.

Here's what we need to do to right a wrong that borders on treason:

* Congress must defy its campaign contributors and criminalize attempts to hire those in uniform away from their service during periods of war and conflict.

* If a service member put in a full 20 years or more and retired, he or she should be free to take a job with any law-abiding firm. But any soldier short of 20 who accepts specialized training and a security clearance at government expense should have to wait two years after his or her discharge before moving to a related private-sector position.

* Defense contractors who hire young veterans with advanced skills or security clearances should have to reimburse the government 50 percent of their training and background investigation costs.

The current system is intolerable. The problem, of course, is Congress. Although the Hill is half-way to approving stateside prosecutions for criminal conduct by government contractors abroad, your representatives only did so because they were caught out by the Blackwater scandal.

The truth is that most members of Congress, Republican or Democrat, will favor a contractor who pays in campaign contributions over soldiers who pay with their lives.

We saw classic congressional behavior last week, when Blackwater founder Erik Prince testified on the Hill and set a new standard for smugness. A solid Republican phalanx defended a major contributor. The Dems, who failed to do their homework on the issues, looked stupidly partisan themselves - just harassing a GOP donor.

And Prince got away with his shameless claims that he and his trigger-happy thugs are true-blue patriots. If so, why hire talent away from our military in wartime? Why give heavy weapons to under-supervised "malcontents," endangering our battlefield progress?

And if the independently wealthy Prince is so patriotic, why not provide Blackwater's services to the government on a no-profit basis?

Well, Blackwater ain't no red-white-and-blue charity, and Prince isn't one of FDR'S dollar-a-year men. The company lacked serious credentials when it landed its first security contract - and one suspects it would never have been hired if not for Prince's campaign contributions and political connections.

People like Erik Prince aren't patriots. They're vampires sucking the blood of our troops - war profiteers growing rich while soldiers die.

As I warned in these pages several years ago, we didn't just outsource services in Iraq. We outsourced our nation's honor.

Ralph Peters is a retired military officer and the author of "Wars Of Blood and Faith."





First I must point out that this is from the OPINION page of a RUPERT MURDOCH newspaper.
And I may not agree with the title of the piece, nor the blatantly anti-Blackwater opinions of the author.
But, I agree with the general points made in it. Blackwater IS NOT the patritotic outfit they claim to be. Blackwater is engaging in damaging actions against the US military in Iraq. Blackwater is getting the benefit of a huge US subsidy in the form of the training of its employees.
To me, it is OUTRAGEOUS that a US soldier should be accosted coming out of a mess facility in IRAQ and being enticed to leave the US military in a time of war, IN THE COUNTRY THE WAR IS BEING FOUGHT IN.

I couldn't agree with you more.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Craig234
Much like the difference between FEMA under Clinton and Bush.

Yeah, because we see how honest and forthright James Witt has proven to be. :roll:

Pabster, that's statement without evidence #1,578 this month from you, approximately.

Did or did not he run FEMA a lot better than it's run under Bush?

Don't respond with your ideological cult talking point, use the facts.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Craig234
Much like the difference between FEMA under Clinton and Bush.

Yeah, because we see how honest and forthright James Witt has proven to be. :roll:

Pabster, that's statement without evidence #1,578 this month from you, approximately.

Did or did not he run FEMA a lot better than it's run under Bush?

Don't respond with your ideological cult talking point, use the facts.

How to compare fairly?

The scope of NO was unprecidented.

But Witt unarguably had better credentials/experience than the Brownie guy.

Fern