Privatizing the U.S. Military

Discussion in 'The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr' started by 45Auto, Sep 26, 2011.

  1. 45Auto

    45Auto Well-Known Member

    Apr 9, 2008
    It’s old news that many things that were once done primarily by U.S. military personnel are now done by private for-profit contractors; from building bases to armed mercenaries. The question: Is this good or bad? Has it gone too far or not far enough?
  2. jack404

    jack404 Former Guest

    Jan 11, 2010
    I've work PMC a few times for a few folks , client mainly being US or UK government

    i've friends who have worked for lesser reputable groups too

    its good in a few ways bad in a few more but has the possibility of going very bad very fast, from my personal estimate , take that with a grain of salt ;)

    it could also solve a lot of problems the PC world dont like

    you wont have press riding along to make it look bad or twist it

    and the job's done

    less bad PR , more damage to the enemy via less interference from up high

    if its managed correctly

    in short, if well run along practical military style SOP's and training and can be controlled ( accountability, many are "off shore" and beyond it , including a former US based outfit of debatable qualities even though i personally like the top boss a lot , and i can say as i did a season for em that was 50% great, 30% SNAFU and 10% admin BS and 10% covering the SNAFU )

    but i'm a cranky fart ...

    if you cant control em them limit them hard

    if you can , grow them , they can do it cheaper , faster and with less politics if skilled operators are used

    but the side risk of that is a skill's drain from your military , i've seen a few SF operators mix with idiots failures and drops out (and a Thrown outs) all been lured by the big bucks
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2011

  3. A.Wildman

    A.Wildman New Member

    Aug 10, 2007
    YES !! it, "Has it gone too far"

    when i first joined the U.S.Navy, 1955ad, the Navy done nearly every thing that needed to be done in the Navy.
  4. carver

    carver Moderator Supporting Member

    IMO we need both. There are things that need doing that our Military just should not be a part of, and things that need doing that our Military should be a part of. If you pay a soldier, as we do, does that make him a mercenary? If not then at what dollar amount does a man go from being a soldier, to being a mercenary? As Jack stated, our biggest problem is the new media, again, that's my opinion.
  5. ofitg

    ofitg Active Member

    Feb 25, 2010
    I guess it depends on your vision of what our "military capability" is supposed to be used for.

    Should our people continue being the "muscle" for the UN and the "George Soros" types?

    Or should they be defending the sovereignty/security of the USA?
  6. jim brady

    jim brady Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2009
    Simla, Colorado
    It's gone WAY TOO FAR. Things like building roads and buildings on Military Bases? Why don't we let the Army Engineers do things like that on Army Bases or the Sea Bees do that on Marine and Navy Bases? After all, It's what they do, isn't it?

    Private Security at Base entrances? Why the heck do we need the Military Police then? You see it everywhere. In the meantime, our Engineers and MPs train on pretend exercises.

    This whole thing makes me sick. It is ALL about crooked politiicians and officials filling the trough so their croanies can slop from it. Just another way for them to stuff taxpayer dollars into their (or their friends/supporters) pockets.

    There are times when it might be to our advantage to hire foriegn persons or operators to conduct an operation or something like that from time-to-time, but as a rule, our military can do just about ANYTHING we need to get done.
  7. al45lc

    al45lc Active Member

    Mar 8, 2010
    colorful colorado
    With very few exceptions, the Feds (ANY branch of the Federal Govt.) cannot do what a private contractor can do as efficently or as well.
    Of course, we cannot have private armies, nor do I see the need for private security firms doing what our servicemen and women should do, but building roads and schools and such is a valid place for the private sector.
    The Seabees and Corps of Engineers have a fair reputation and history, but the expense to the people is out of hand, and they were never supposed to do civilian work.
  8. jim brady

    jim brady Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2009
    Simla, Colorado
    Al - the Army Engineers and the Navy Sea Bees have a "FAIR" history?? I am at the Polar oppositie of that opinion. I am in total disagreement with you here. There is no reason why the Department Of Defense should spend a nickel to a private contractor to build a chow hall or a road on a military installation.

    Let me perfectly clear - I am not calling for the Army or the Navy to go out into the community and build schools and houses. I am calling for them to do those things that they are trained to do on Federal Property. There is no reason on Earth the city, county or State should be involved in building, operating or maintaining an Army installation or a Naval Base.

    This is not an attack. Just a conclusion based on what you stated. You must be a private contractor. A fairer or more honorable line of work never existed, but the military's construction abilitity is every bit able to accomplish those tasks, while on a practical level, offering experiance and training at the same time.

    The government wastes enough money funding studies of the mateing habits of obscure insects, we don't need to waste more having our service folk sitting on their backsides watching a private contractor do the job that the serviveman was trained to do "Because there is a civilian entity available to provide the service". In my humble opinion, that is just non-sense.
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2011
  9. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Nov 19, 2008
    Akron, Ohio
    The oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States sworn by U.S. military personnel is key here in my opinion. Letting those not having sworn that oath, do the job of our military is a dangerous thing. We want the job done but we want it done consistent with our system of justice by those who answer to the government responsible for ensuring it.
  10. The Duke

    The Duke New Member

    Mar 11, 2006
    NW Louisiana
    Hummm...MPs used to man the checkpoints at Army facilities....AP's were on duty at Air Force Bases, and I guess SP or Marine MPs watched over the naval bases....NOT ANY MORE...

    Seems like the base/post checkpoints were contracted out to PRIVATE guard services for quite a few years...NOT ANY MORE....

    I read in the local paper that Barksdale AFB now has Government Guards under the Department of Defense now working the gates and other patrol duties...Hummm....Does it sound familiar???? More Federal employes on the payroll, same thing happended with the private contracted screeners at the airports...Now we got the Government TSA employees screening anyone desperate enough to fly these days...More and more federal GS salaries and retirements...We are broke folks. DUH!!! There are few jobs to be had in the private sector.....Seems like the only jobs available are with the gub'ment these days....:mad:
  11. ofitg

    ofitg Active Member

    Feb 25, 2010
    Well said!
  12. Bobitis

    Bobitis Guest

    And I would disagree with you Jim. Do we really need our military involved in the trades? How many plumbers/pipe fitters/carpenters/electricians etc. does the military need for new construction? Once the project is completed, what do we do with them?

    I work with government (state/county/city) every day as a supplier in the construction trade (plumbing). With NO exceptions, does any of them do new construction. They are maintenance only.

    Why should/would the military be any different?
  13. jim brady

    jim brady Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2009
    Simla, Colorado
    As far as the military being involved with the trades, the reason we have Army Engineers and Sea Bees is for them to be able to construct things in a war zone without having to send private civilians into war zones.

    Again, I do not call for, and would object to - military personnel being sent out into the private sector to build anything. The exception would be in response in a major desaster. Erecting buildings and making roads on MILITARY installations is a horse of a different color.

    I have been out of the construction trade for decades, and my older brother just retired from it. His company had lots of contracts for work on a major Army installion. I am of the opinion that it is wasteful to hire out work to civilian entities to perform work on Federal property when those resources are already in place and available.

    Duke - I am just speculating here, but I think that maybe those "Government Guards" are a part of "Homeland Security". That and the TSA are a major wheel in the hog wash/pork barrel projects that were shoved down our throats after 9/11.

    This thread could go on forever, so I'm jumping ship right here. Before I bail out, how about the controversy over Halliburton in the Gulf, or the mess we have just trying to get supplies and vehicles into the Operations Areas that are contracted out to private firms or foriegn governments? Let our military do that stuff. We managed to win a couple of World Wars that way.
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2011
  14. Bobitis

    Bobitis Guest

    Don't get me wrong Jim, I'm in no way berating the Corp of Engineers or the Seabees. In a battle situation, they would get my overwhelming support.

    If the military has the person power to tackle jobs on domestic soil, they should get the first nod. If not, what do you do? Take 3-4 times a long for a construction project?

    Please don't jump ship here as I value your insight.
  15. Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution says The Congress shall have power;

    "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

    Now, I'm no Constitutional scholar, but this says to me that the US Gov't is responsible for the US Military. On the other hand, I do realize that there are some things that the merc community needs to be used for. And, I think that the private sector can perform the most (if not all) of the same functions that the gov't can do for a lot less $. However, given the past performances of those left unchecked and without the ultimate accountability of the People, I have to come down with the Founding Fathers and want the Gov't to handle the Military.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Statement on the Readiness of our Military Sep 4, 2016
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Turkey military coup Jul 15, 2016
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Is this Dear Leaders ideal military? Jul 1, 2016
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Trump wants South Korea to pay us for the US Military presence Jan 10, 2016
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Own military grade weapons..... Dec 4, 2015