The loyalty thing might be an issue to you, but in general we hire our contractors in country, and the guys that work for those companies are gung-ho nationalists with a point to prove. No worries about wavering loyalty there. I'd be more concerned with them killing the right people than I would them turning on the country, which you could say is the current issue with more private contractors.
Last edited by EpicDude86; 11-23-09 at 04:22 PM.
With Blackwater and other contracters making up half our forces, they quit making profits when the wars stop; so now we've been in two wars headed for a decade with no end in sight.
I jumped the gun when I said 'always'. Sorry, what I should have said is that the use of private contractors as opposed to running things "in-house" saves money on training, operations costs, and administration of the contractors. I said before it doesn't justify their massive salaries, but clearly the private sector is more efficient than the government when it comes to running certain things. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have seen a change in the face of Private Contracting for sure and yeah they are paid a **** ton NOW, but what I'm trying to say is that private companies have the advantage of being (and really should be) cheaper than the government running things because these private companies prevent the government from having to create more bureaucracy and monitor more people and supplies.
And, I think Private Contracts (non-classified anyways) account for about 18% of the DoD's budget. I don't think that's counting other agencies' or branch's contracts as well. While that seems a sizeable chunk, more is (and or can be) getting done using a smaller chunk-o-change.
There's evidence supporting and negating my claims in here but at least it's the CBO. Not that it makes this data any more useful or less useful.
Matthew 10:34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Joe has a point in that, a contractor has no incentive to win a war, to see it end, and consequently may find ways to keep the conflict going. The other big point I see has not yet been addressed which is, who is accountable when a contractor kills civilians? So far, as seen in Iraq, no one is even legally able to prosecute contractors whose employees massacre civilians.
Also, about the overhead, seems to me that American tax dollars would be paying every penny of the maintenance of contractors, plus the profit. When the military is paid, there is no profit factored in. I assume a contractor force nets at least 40% profit?
The Problems with drafting that I would be wary of would be:
1) draft dodgers putting a strain on the Justice System (especially since nationalism has gone down and "dissent is patriotic" emotion has gone up)
2) Could find a large number of 'conscientious objectors' doing nothing combat related but still getting the base pay grade prior to going C.O.
Forcing people to do something is not always the best route, it's best to rely on the volunteers first, then those loyal to the money, and if you get down to having to use those who don't want to fight, you're doomed anyways.