3 ms·

As of 2016, there were 3 contractors for every 1 military personnel in Afghanistan, which is a titanic inversion from a few decades ago. Removing contractors wo

As of 2016, there were 3 contractors for every 1 military personnel in Afghanistan, which is a titanic inversion from a few decades ago. Removing contractors would limit the availability of our military to fight in other engagements. We also get less recruits these days, in poorer condition. The states where we normally recruit the most soldiers has also had the highest incidents of accidents incurred during basic training, due in part to steadily dropping physical fitness rates in trainees. We rely on contractors to buffer our ranks not just logistically but also politically. Due to a lack of reporting on contractors and their budgets, we don't know exactly how much we spend on our wars, nor how many people get killed (more contractors have died than U.S. personnel in past 2 wars). Our military may not be able to wage wars of tacit public approval without the use of contractors to hide the true cost. Of course we will always contract for things the military isn't specialized in, such as manufacturing. But this isn't about manufacturing, it's about a logistical supply chain and service industry, in addition to [what appears to be] an approaching mercenary army. Without these services, the military would probably take years to build up the same specialization, and would have to use less money than the contractors use, with more volunteers.

kakwa_ 8y ago
Indeed, there are more contractors than US personnel in Afghanistan and formerly Iraq. These are not only used in logistic and services but also as combatant troops. And this not always has been the case, during the first Golf War, the percentage of contractor was much lower at 10 to 20%. This is a recent evolution (around the 2000s). It also raises a number of questions like: * legal loopholes when atrocities are committed (one example is the Blackwater case in 2007) * the very damaging conflict of interests that arise from privatizing war (conflict of interests in a public contract for let say a bridge can cost money to the collectivity, a conflict of interest in for waging war can destabilize a region, kill a lot of people and damage a country reputation for decades). * This can be also be liked to the fact that contractors have an incentive to have their contract extended ie not ending a war quickly but pouring gas on the fire. In my opinion, privatizing wars is really dangerous. War is a kind of violence that only a state should be able wage and preferably with a lot of checks from outside (UN) and within (governments, public opinion, votes and laws).

kakwa_ 8y ago

Indeed, there are more contractors than US personnel in Afghanistan and formerly Iraq. These are not only used in logistic and services but also as combatant troops. And this not always has been the case, during the first Golf War, the percentage of contractor was much lower at 10 to 20%. This is a recent evolution (around the 2000s). It also raises a number of questions like: * legal loopholes when atrocities are committed (one example is the Blackwater case in 2007) * the very damaging conflict of interests that arise from privatizing war (conflict of interests in a public contract for let say a bridge can cost money to the collectivity, a conflict of interest in for waging war can destabilize a region, kill a lot of people and damage a country reputation for decades). * This can be also be liked to the fact that contractors have an incentive to have their contract extended ie not ending a war quickly but pouring gas on the fire. In my opinion, privatizing wars is really dangerous. War is a kind of violence that only a state should be able wage and preferably with a lot of checks from outside (UN) and within (governments, public opinion, votes and laws).