VanceMack,
et al,
I thought that someone would have made a serious response by now. As none was forthcoming, I thought I would throw my two-cents into the game.
Any time the government engages contractors it costs more money. The plus side (fiscal payoff) is that the contractors typically are short term and the government doesnt have to pay for long term medical/health and retirement. Private soldiers typically get paid very well compared to the average fed soldier. Contracting agencies get paid major bank.
For the most part, this is generally true. But not at all unusual. In times of war, the US Government has often hired contractors. John Wayne portrayed many of the more famous examples, in the movies, from an Indian War Scout - to a commander in the The Flying Tigers. And yes, they all made more money than did normal military members.
Personally...I think we screwed up with both Afghanistan and Iraq. If we had been doing the job right there would have been no need for private military personnel.
Maybe, but more likely not.
Yes there were mistakes made, but the need for so many contractors was a "planned" consequence of the downsizing of the military after the fall of the former Soviet Union. Some people called it a "War Dividend and some called it a "eace Dividend." But at the end of the Cold War, the Congress ordered the down size. It affected each of the services slightly different; but, for the most part, each of the services opted to sacrifice the active duty, and reserve components that were not "combat arms" (or as they say, the war fighter). So, many of the of the Engineers, Intelligence, and Communications portions (just to mention a few) of the military disappeared; and those funded billets went to the combat arms.
In...out...stabilize...GONE. We should have set in place metrics and milestones and been out of there within 5 years of cease fire ops. Both countries should have been given time and training to elect a government and put in place a military foundation. Had they been properly incentivized they could have either done it easily or demonstrated they will never do it. Either way...5 and out. If they dont care enough about their country to take advantage of the opportunity for democracy...**** them...let them burn. I think they would have done it myself.
I agree. There should have been that quick in and out plan. But that again, was a decision made by the inept civilian leadership; a poorly executed National Security Decision Making Process, and (more importantly) a military leadership that saw an opportunity for careers to be made.
Oddly enough, I agree, in part, with your concepts, we should have let the Iraqi's decide their own destiny.
And if the new governments wanted to hire mercs...good on em...their dime.
As long as we understand that the general and special contractor (to include the Private Security Companies) were not mercenaries. Mercenaries are third party national that have not direct interest in the conflict. The American PSCs were nationals party to the conflict which ended in June 2005.
Most Respectfully,
R
