6 ms·

Personally, I feel this military contracting is a disgrace and a threat to the democracy. Bring back the draft or don’t fight the war. Even in World War 2, Am

by poof131 10y ago

Personally, I feel this military contracting is a disgrace and a threat to the democracy. Bring back the draft or don’t fight the war. Even in World War 2, America’s paragon of a “justified” war, 61% of troops were drafted. [1] Not only does it create private military forces with significantly less allegiance to the country, it destroys the morale of active duty troops. When I was in Iraq, it seemed like there were more contractors than troops. Kenyan’s managed by dutch contractors provided internal security. Indian’s worked in the chow halls. Filipinos manned the commissaries. And on and on. The Special Forces soldiers I worked with had former SF soldiers helping with the training of Iraqi forces. They considered them lazy and unhelpful in general, taking none of the risk but getting paid $1k a day. Compare that to the actual soldiers making a few grand a month, and you get the sense your country doesn’t really give a shit about you and your just a dupe.[2] Get out as quick as you can and get paid 5-10x more for less risk. Throughout history, private military forces are the tool of tyrants. I don’t want this for America. War is a last resort. Either we go together or don’t go at all. Hopefully the latter, but contracting out the fight is stupid and lazy and destroys the fabric of our country by slowly eliminating our citizen military. Opposing the draft isn’t opposing war, it’s supporting war by contractor and making wars easier to wage by politicians who’ve never served, whose kids don’t serve, and who have no real skin in the game. Truly a sad state of affairs. [1] http://www.nationalww2museum.org/learn/education/for-students/ww2-history/ww2-by-the-numbers/us-military.html http://www.nationalww2museum.org/learn/education/for-student... [2] http://www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/payentitlements/military-pay-charts.html http://www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/payentitlements/military...

skybrian 10y ago
It makes sense that people who can say "no" to risks they don't like have to be paid more. That's the market price and people in the actual military who can't refuse (once they signed up) are grossly underpaid. How would taking away more people's freedom help? I'd rather see military pay go up to closer to market rates. If we ask people to take these risks they should be paid a lot more. You might even see more volunteers.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
Similarly, I feel that this educational contracting is a threat to democracy. Either employ forced labor to provide education or don't have public schools at all. I understand the concern that mercenaries may revolt against the real military, but is anyone really suggesting this is a danger to the US? I don't see anyone making that case. The article also brings up real issues that soldiers-for-hire are inadequately supervised. This is a valid concern, but again the response to that should be a measured cost/benefit analysis as to whether adequate supervision + contractors or employees is better. Teachers-for-hire are, in many cases, also not adequately supervised. That doesn't mean we should resort to forced labor to provide teaching, it just means we need a better supervisory apparatus.
- redstripe 10y ago
  It's not that mercenaries may revolt. It's that people are less likely to support war if it will affect them personally. The is a spectrum for military participation: conscription -> volunteer professional -> mercenery. With conscription people will be more vested because it can affect their families more personally even if they don't support a war. With a mercenary army not only is the death of strangers easier to ignore, but deaths are not always made public. Look how often we had stats about army deaths/injuries reported daily vs how often you heard about Blackwater deaths during the Iraq war/occupation.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    People are also less likely to support public education, road construction or cleaning up Flint's water if the result is that they will be victims of forced labor. If your goal is simply to bind an unpopular position to a policy you oppose as a political maneuver, that's fine. But lets clearly distinguish political strategy (sneaking your favored choices through democracy by removing preferred choices from the voters) from a normative argument (we should do X because...).
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
hayyyblayyy 10y ago
> Opposing the draft isn’t opposing war, it’s supporting war by contractor and making wars easier to wage by politicians who’ve never served, whose kids don’t serve, and who have no real skin in the game. Truly a sad state of affairs. Yeah, that's the sad state of affairs. Totally not supporting the enslaving of the population of a supposedly "free" country to force it to go off and die in some other country. I mean I know the Supreme Court conveniently decided that the 13th Amendment doesn't apply to the draft, but the language is pretty clear: > Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
witty_username 10y ago
> Throughout history, private military forces are the tool of tyrants. <evil person> drank water, so we shouldn't drink water.
someguydave 10y ago
"Compare that to the actual soldiers making a few grand a month, and you get the sense your country doesn’t really give a shit about you and your just a dupe." In a sense they are dupes. Plenty of people would be willing to pay money to be "employed" as "SF soldiers". How many military members carefully consider the foreign policies for which they are pledging their lives? If the soldiers think they are being improperly compensated then they should demand more pay or quit when their term is up. That's the whole concept behind the AVF right? If the US Government did not have a ready reserve of people willing to sacrifice themselves for its latest harebrained foreign policy perhaps it would more carefully consider its foreign adventures? Or perhaps in the near future USG will field its first all-contractor brigade?
maxxxxx 10y ago
I remember thinking that something is going wrong when the country geared up for the Iraq war in 2003. Some people had to risk their lives for low pay while others at home got another tax cut and were told to go shopping. There simply is no personal price to be paid by the elites when the country goes to war.
walshemj 10y ago
People don't join a professional army to be a cook - without the large number of cheap conscripts to fill a lot of the unskilled tail it makes sense to hire in non military contractors.

by poof131 10y ago

skybrian 10y ago

It makes sense that people who can say "no" to risks they don't like have to be paid more. That's the market price and people in the actual military who can't refuse (once they signed up) are grossly underpaid. How would taking away more people's freedom help? I'd rather see military pay go up to closer to market rates. If we ask people to take these risks they should be paid a lot more. You might even see more volunteers.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Similarly, I feel that this educational contracting is a threat to democracy. Either employ forced labor to provide education or don't have public schools at all. I understand the concern that mercenaries may revolt against the real military, but is anyone really suggesting this is a danger to the US? I don't see anyone making that case. The article also brings up real issues that soldiers-for-hire are inadequately supervised. This is a valid concern, but again the response to that should be a measured cost/benefit analysis as to whether adequate supervision + contractors or employees is better. Teachers-for-hire are, in many cases, also not adequately supervised. That doesn't mean we should resort to forced labor to provide teaching, it just means we need a better supervisory apparatus.

redstripe 10y ago
It's not that mercenaries may revolt. It's that people are less likely to support war if it will affect them personally. The is a spectrum for military participation: conscription -> volunteer professional -> mercenery. With conscription people will be more vested because it can affect their families more personally even if they don't support a war. With a mercenary army not only is the death of strangers easier to ignore, but deaths are not always made public. Look how often we had stats about army deaths/injuries reported daily vs how often you heard about Blackwater deaths during the Iraq war/occupation.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  People are also less likely to support public education, road construction or cleaning up Flint's water if the result is that they will be victims of forced labor. If your goal is simply to bind an unpopular position to a policy you oppose as a political maneuver, that's fine. But lets clearly distinguish political strategy (sneaking your favored choices through democracy by removing preferred choices from the voters) from a normative argument (we should do X because...).
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

hayyyblayyy 10y ago

> Opposing the draft isn’t opposing war, it’s supporting war by contractor and making wars easier to wage by politicians who’ve never served, whose kids don’t serve, and who have no real skin in the game. Truly a sad state of affairs. Yeah, that's the sad state of affairs. Totally not supporting the enslaving of the population of a supposedly "free" country to force it to go off and die in some other country. I mean I know the Supreme Court conveniently decided that the 13th Amendment doesn't apply to the draft, but the language is pretty clear: > Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

witty_username 10y ago

> Throughout history, private military forces are the tool of tyrants. <evil person> drank water, so we shouldn't drink water.

someguydave 10y ago

"Compare that to the actual soldiers making a few grand a month, and you get the sense your country doesn’t really give a shit about you and your just a dupe." In a sense they are dupes. Plenty of people would be willing to pay money to be "employed" as "SF soldiers". How many military members carefully consider the foreign policies for which they are pledging their lives? If the soldiers think they are being improperly compensated then they should demand more pay or quit when their term is up. That's the whole concept behind the AVF right? If the US Government did not have a ready reserve of people willing to sacrifice themselves for its latest harebrained foreign policy perhaps it would more carefully consider its foreign adventures? Or perhaps in the near future USG will field its first all-contractor brigade?

maxxxxx 10y ago

I remember thinking that something is going wrong when the country geared up for the Iraq war in 2003. Some people had to risk their lives for low pay while others at home got another tax cut and were told to go shopping. There simply is no personal price to be paid by the elites when the country goes to war.

walshemj 10y ago

People don't join a professional army to be a cook - without the large number of cheap conscripts to fill a lot of the unskilled tail it makes sense to hire in non military contractors.