Blackwater

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

FAA.....

NRC.....

Unfortunately neither the FAA nor the NRC are industries. In fact both are regulatory agencies, although the FAA ostensibly provides a service as well. How about one of our favorites - an industry surviving despite regulatory interference/restrictions/outright obstructions - the firearms manufacturers. (I can't really claim they're thriving but most of them stay in business, make a measureable profit, provide a service/product, and pay wages/taxes.) FWIW - Peregrino

[504PIR]

I have never worked for Blackwater, but I did work beside the CPA detail for several months. I have scrounged, traded equipment and known many of there employees. There are some guys who are outstanding people, there are others who are.....clowns......for lack of a better word.

In some ways it is like the military ie, there is that 10% that makes everybody else look bad. In contracting its more like 20-30%. Many companies ( BW being the highest profile, but lets include everybody,TC, MVM, Cochise to spread it around) have too many guys who come on and get a "big head" and think they are allot"higher speed" than they actually are. They see the money, the "guici kit" and get too cocky. Not always but they tend to be young, 1 enlistment troops or non mil service, former LEO (just an observation, not trying to piss anybody off).

I have told many,"just because you are doing a mission (PSD) that has been done by HSLD units....does NOT make you a HSLD mofo".

PMC s are not military units, are useful for some missions, not worth a shit for others. Articles like this are frankly horrible for this business and the war effort in general. In the almost 3 years I've been a contractor the best and most effective guys I have worked for are very quiet, low key professionals who do not let there egos get in the way. We always tried to get along with and support our local colation forces (trade info, coordinate and if there was an item they needed and we could get it - we did).

Maybe I've been lucky but I have got work with many professionals whom I was able to learn a great deal (funny how many of the really good ones were retired SF NCOs....) and accomplish the missions we were assigned.

IMHO we are all on the same team, there is no room for ass-clowns and they should always be removed ASAP.

Back to lurking.

[NousDefionsDoc]

I have met several that emulate Narcissus. These days, they use a mirror instead of a reflecting pool, but the net effect is the same...If you llook closely, you can see they have their Echoes as well.

[MRF54]

I am going to try and summarize some info:

The word "contractor" is very ambiguous. It would be similar to saying someone is in the Army.

A contractor could be an electrician, an analyst, a truck driver, a PSD member, an election observer, etc... So, please be cautious before making generalizations and finite statements about 'those contractors.' Some are just seeking the very best employment they can find while others are just lowly profiteers.

No, I am not a contractor but I spoke with one in the lobby of the HoLiDaY iNn ExPrEsS this morning.

There is a plethora of contract types, levels of employment, and contractors. This can be shown through the various prerequisites for a specific job, equipment, train-ups, duration of work, pay (day rates, per diem, etc.), in-theatre living conditions, and travel arrangements.

If a PMC is in the Govt Service Provider (GSP) realm they are regulated. There is normally a system (how well it works is a topic in itself) of specific requirements and prerequisites that must be met to deploy their people down range and stay on the contract and sometimes even eligibility to bid. Who is hired, what they are paid, length of deployment, individual equipment, contract specific equipment, and training, etc. are all monitored by the office issuing the contract. Most (emphasis on most!) GSP contracts are competitively put out for bid and watched for compliance. I do think there were some hiccups early on but a lot of that ignorance and friction has been significantly reduced.

What cannot be Federally regulated is the individuals attitude, morality, responsibility, and integrity. That has to be done prior to being hired and sent out to work a contract by either the PM or a team leader. However the sh!t filter for this has huge holes in it and sometimes getting the bodies to stay on the contract can override a sound decision. A contract candidate can have the background and all the technical skills but have the personality of a rattlesnake and still make it because they pass. A lot of these guys get sorted out down range, jump contracts, or sent home. A few companies did a great job back around OIF1 in picking up really competent great dudes. Unfortunately (I am making a generalization here) as the conflict(s) has continued the duds have managed to work their way into the system. And duds always protect duds...

Part of the problem is the psyche of some of these individuals and their employers. Contracting is not the 5.11 army. It is not some HSLD equivalent that pays big bucks. IT IS only security. PMC is not Delta Force but more like Delta Airlines... or as I like to say (back me up here TR) "Tip of the spoon!" Providing a service is providing a service, period. The corporate culture must drive this service mentality from the top down. If a company is solely about making money then it's people will only be interested in money. If the corporate culture is having commando fantasies then guess what? One bad apple and the whole bushel can be ruined.

Every company PMC-GSP out there, regardless of their culture, has patriots and privateers working in the field. At the end of the day the executives of those companies have to be able to look in the mirror and know w/o question that they provided the best service(s) they could for an honest and reasonable profit.

The economy of supply and demand - If there wasn't a need for them there wouldn't be so many PMC's, employing so many people, in so many different realms of services. How did this industry get so large so quick? Clinton's down sizing was a great start. How else could the Bush administration appropriately respond to the immediate demands/needs of the GWOT following 9/11? Plus we luckily have a VP who's intimate with the industry.

Do I think there are unpatriotic dishonorable PMC's out there? Absolutely!! I also think there will be a day of reckoning for some of them in the not to distant future.

Could the standards be higher? Yes, but that is difficult to change this late in the game. It is up to the PMC's to take individual responsibility and put the mission before business development. Unfortunately, I'm not an idealist and I know this is ludicrous. Money drives the train in most for profit business'. Things to watch for are corporate ego, predatory economics, hiring influence, and 'empire' building.

Oversight and accountability are key when spending those hard earned tax payer dollars with ANY vendor. I want my money's worth! I also want those that break and/or bend laws held accountable.

"Tip of the spoon" - you can't any more high speed than that!

[Solid]

I'm with RL on financial services being an example of a high-performing highly regulated industry. If you look at the major investment banks, even those that took huge hits in terms of one-off payments, reputation, and then corporate restructuring costs (ie: Merrill Lynch) are still turning over huge profits and at least one of those banks is represented in basically every large scale financial transaction in the world (taking the Bank of China public, for example).

There is a neat little relation between these investment banks and private military contractors (all of them, not just the guys with guns and mirrored oakleys). For one, both industries are entirely profit motivated, and have massive profit margins. While in both industries there certainly exist people who love banking or soldiering, or love their company or country, these companies exist to maximise profit.

Of course, this profit motive presents something of a problem when it comes to interacting with the USG. These guys aren't going to take pay cuts to protect their country. Furthermore, the companies have a giant incentive to find 'legal' ways of expanding their profit margins.

While the long-standing technical/logistical provision GSP realm is certainly regulated (the DOD has an entire office dedicated to it), many of these companies are still able to nab extra funding by fudging numbers, and I know of several projects which failed to deliver according to time tables. Of course, there are legitimate excuses for many of these problems- R&D costs, for example, are hard to ballpark, as are timeframes when operating in unstable AOs- but still, some companies push for the extra cash simply because they can.

For a 'tip of the spoon' contractor, especially those who are subcontracting to another contractor (like KBR), it seems that budget inflation is a little bit easier because these costs are simply pushed up the hill to the USG's doorstep. While I've seen the USG challenge these costs, in at least one case the challenge was shot down using the argument 'we're protecting lives here'.

To sum up my point- while the PMC/GSP arena is regulated, and grows increasingly so, the fact that these companies are profit motivated means that they will always be looking to find those 'legal' loopholes to profit maximize at the cost of the tax payers. With increased regulation, is seems possible that these companies will still be able to perform efficiently (based on the financial sector analogy). However, the somewhat chaotic nature of the Iraq AO means that for now, there are many more loopholes through which to profit max, and the USG may be fighting an uphill battle to close them up.

JMO,

Solid

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Unfortunately neither the FAA nor the NRC are industries. In fact both are regulatory agencies, although the FAA ostensibly provides a service as well. How about one of our favorites - an industry surviving despite regulatory interference/restrictions/outright obstructions - the firearms manufacturers. (I can't really claim they're thriving but most of them stay in business, make a measureable profit, provide a service/product, and pay wages/taxes.) FWIW - Peregrino

Thank you Captain Obvious. I thought one could surmise the industries just by knowing the regulatory branches. Both regulate the “industries” with a heavy hand and both do an impressive job.

I never mentioned the firearms industries as in manufacturers; the industry I have been making a point about if the is the billion dollar weapons training industry and the total lack of any regulation or national set of standards. There is also a total lack of any oversight concerning any of the private security firms currently out there and the training they perform. There is no standard to base any of their training, none.

TS

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by wolverine83

If you've nothing to add to the discussion do not post.

Team Sergeant

[Solid]

TS,
What do you think should be done about the private military industry? Will heavy regulation, in your eyes, be sufficient, or do you feel that fighting for pay fundementally damages unit integrity, versus fighting for your country? Do you feel that all of the private military providers (including logistical support guys from Lockheed, the KBR deployable base builders etc) should be incorporated into the military?

Should the military be trying harder than it is to retain/re-contract those soldiers who have left for PMCs?

I suppose all these questions revolve around the central question of whether PMCs should continue to exist in any way; if they should be seen as a test bed for improvements to the way the military is currently structured; or if they should simply be made entirely illegal?

Thank you very much,

Solid

[The Reaper]

Gotta say that MRF54 pretty much summed it up. If the corporate leadership are all about the profit and not about the mission, then people with similar mindsets will gravitate there. They will also not generally screen potential employees with problems in those areas out, as long as they have the other skills required. News flash: Many of the personnel who are seeking work as contractors are out there for a reason, whether it is physical, financial, mental, or ethical. Responsible leadership seeks to identify why applicants are there and eliminates those with more serious problems. More profit-oriented, ethically-challenged leadership will not, as long as the individual can meet the minimum standards for the job, and will work under the cost required to make money on the contract.

IMHO, anyone who's primary duty responsibility involves carrying a gun needs to be a uniformed service member. No issues with the DFAC, laundry, etc. being run by contractors. Shooters should be uniformed service members. If we do not have enough troops to fill all of the requirements, then we need to grow force structure. This is (again IMHO), where SecDef screwed the pooch. He was trying to downsize an already undersized ground force, ignored the warnings of those who knew better, and apparently, surrounded himself with yes-men. One thing this war has demonstrated is that we have too few troops in the ground services. If we have to raise military pay 30% or pay $50,000 bonuses to attract another 20,000 11B10s, so be it. To effectively fight the GWOT (and maintain the two MTW strategy) we need a 12-16 division force structure. You didn't see Kim or the Iranians getting all froggy after Desert Storm or OIF's initial stages. The fact that a bunch of street thugs have kept the majority of the US military tied up for three years has caused others to wonder if the Alpha male has lost his fangs. Hiring armed contractors to perform combat (or near combat) functions has not helped.

PSDs are what opened the Pandora's box here. The identified requirement for PSDs exceeded the number of qualified personnel avaialble for that mission, especially when the majority of the units normally tasked for PSDs had other, higher priority missions. Maybe that deficiency should have been identified in planning and been addressed prior to hostilities.

Contractors on the tip of the spoon, GOOD. Contractors on the tip of the spear, BAD.

You violate ethics or standards in fulfilling your contracts, you should be put out of business. Your employees engage in criminal misconduct while deployed in your service, they should be held accountable and you should be investigated for your selection and vetting process that put them there.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Originally Posted by Solid

TS,
What do you think should be done about the private military industry? Will heavy regulation, in your eyes, be sufficient, or do you feel that fighting for pay fundementally damages unit integrity, versus fighting for your country?
Solid

Are you talking just about our military or are you also talking about outsourcing war? It makes a big difference. As far as the differentiation between fighting for one's country or fighting for bucks, when the shooting starts I know of no one, other than in the historic paintings, that says
"Raise the colors and follow me!". You are usually fighting for your life and that of your buddy(unit)-country and money have little to do with it at that point.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Solid

TS,
What do you think should be done about the private military industry? Will heavy regulation, in your eyes, be sufficient, or do you feel that fighting for pay fundementally damages unit integrity, versus fighting for your country? Do you feel that all of the private military providers (including logistical support guys from Lockheed, the KBR deployable base builders etc) should be incorporated into the military?

Should the military be trying harder than it is to retain/re-contract those soldiers who have left for PMCs?

I suppose all these questions revolve around the central question of whether PMCs should continue to exist in any way; if they should be seen as a test bed for improvements to the way the military is currently structured; or if they should simply be made entirely illegal?

Thank you very much,

Solid

Solid,

Do not attempt to convolute the discussion or play semantics with me.

I’m am conversing about one aspect of the GSP’s, and that is the boots on the ground, weapon carrying contractors, I am not referring to the cooks, truck drivers, aircraft mechanics or construction personnel. I also never mentioned that the industry needed or required “heavy” regulation, you a CNN reporter wannabe?

Think about this; what might happen when we replace the patriotic sentiment with six figure salaries? What happens when the “going gets tough” and the paid “security” contractors quit their posts? Are they “defending freedom”? Should we write in a “profit motive” line in our pledge of Allegiance? Is the next hollywood movie going to be a war flick titled “The Contractors”.

While I will say there are a handful of highly skilled, dedicated, contractors these are the minority. There was a time when the industry was self regulating and would not hire just anyone, or, hire those that have a hard time reading English from third world countries to carry weapons and defend American interests in hostile areas. And as an American tax payer I find this habit of hiring third world “soldiers” deplorable.

The “security” industry is out of control. There are no standards, they will hire just about anyone from any country to defend our interests abroad. That in its self is sad commentary; we hire others to fight our battles. Should we start standing down our MP units and reducing the numbers of combat soldiers? In my opinion we are setting a dangerous precedent.

And yes I do have a problem with training a Special Forces soldier at a cost of one million dollars, a security clearance that took six months to acquire, only to have them ETS and go to work for a security contractor for a six figure salary after their initial enlistment. We’re already taken steps to avoid this by waving a six figure re-enlistment bonus for senior SF soldiers. This may not be enough to stem the flow of highly qualified soldiers to the contractors.

TS

[JGarcia]

TR,

I would agree with you that if they are armed they should be a service member, but you also hit the nail on the head when you spoke about raising the money for your 11B's.

Most everyone I know that works for BW does it for the money. If the Army paid more money, I don't think I would have ever left active duty. Liquidating the entire debt of your family in less than one year is great. I think Soldiers, trigger pullers, should be paid much more. People, companies make boat loads of cash off of these wars. Meanwhile, Joe Snuffy the E3 suffering the consequencs and bearing the load is paid peanuts.

Mama wants a new house, kids need a good school, nice having no debt, good living conditions, and the food is better. Could the Army pay 100k for being stateside, and 200K for combat duty per annum, per Soldier? I guess it comes down to quality of life for Soldiers and their families. If the PMC's through their existence can get the military to take better care of its people, I think they've been useful, at least in that regard.

But to what end? The DoD, DoS, and OGA's pay these companies to perform, if they wanted to, they could dry up the well tomorrow, but they don't. I guess we have to ask why don't the Administrators of these Departments do away with them?

[Solid]

TS,
I was most certainly not trying to twist your words around, I just did not want to make assumptions about your position on specific questions.

So, I think most people here agree that the PSD- derived contractors are a bad idea. The very existence of the PSD-derived contractors (who I'm going to hereon refer to as PMCs) suggests that there are certain missions which the military cannot currently fulfill due to personnel shortages. Furthermore, that there are highly skilled people (using the SOF example) leaving the military for PSD positions even with incentives to stay could be seen to suggest that the military needs to change the way it does business. Is this accurate?

If so, what can the military do in the way of restructuring to prevent personnel losses to the PMC sector?

Thank you,

Solid

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by NG_M4_Shooter

TR,

I would agree with you that if they are armed they should be a service member, but you also hit the nail on the head when you spoke about raising the money for your 11B's.

Most everyone I know that works for BW does it for the money. If the Army paid more money, I don't think I would have ever left active duty. Liquidating the entire debt of your family in less than one year is great. I think Soldiers, trigger pullers, should be paid much more. People, companies make boat loads of cash off of these wars. Meanwhile, Joe Snuffy the E3 suffering the consequencs and bearing the load is paid peanuts.

Mama wants a new house, kids need a good school, nice having no debt, good living conditions, and the food is better. Could the Army pay 100k for being stateside, and 200K for combat duty per annum, per Soldier? I guess it comes down to quality of life for Soldiers and their families. If the PMC's through their existence can get the military to take better care of its people, I think they've been useful, at least in that regard.

But to what end? The DoD, DoS, and OGA's pay these companies to perform, if they wanted to, they could dry up the well tomorrow, but they don't. I guess we have to ask why don't the Administrators of these Departments do away with them?

I think the issue is that the nation does not want to pay top dollar for soldiers in peacetime, yet does not realize that you cannot create them overnight in wartime.

You can bet that the PSCs are being paid well over 200K per shooter they have on payroll, in some cases as much as 400K or more. Many of these soldiers could have been kept on AD for far less, especially when you cut out the PSC's markup on the contract.

I understand that there is a pay scale for everyone in DoD and a leg E5 71L makes the same base pay as an E5 18D, but maybe it is time to either relook the bonuses or somehow change the compensation structure (maybe SOCOM should control MILPAY, but then you would have all of the support troops demanding more bucks as well). This could also have the effect of fixing SF recruiting as well. If the 71L E5 made 28K per year and the 18D E5 made 85K per year, I could see where we would have a lot of people wanting to join, but would that attract the sort of people we want? That would reflect a market type value, where the risk takers have to be paid more. If the purpose of the money is to make Mama happy and to put the kids in good schools, that might make sense.

Clearly, most troops would prefer to be in an outfit where they can grow their hair any way they want, dress as they wish, drop the military courtesies, and not be subject to the UCMJ, while making 150K per year, but is that who we want to have representing the US overseas?

Agreed that combat duty is seriously undercompensated.

The situation needs to be fixed, as it is currently broken.

TR

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Solid

TS,
If so, what can the military do in the way of restructuring to prevent personnel losses to the PMC sector?
Solid

I would not attempt to guess what needs to be done at this point. I will also say that simply "restructuring" is not going to cure a problem that seems to be endemic here in America.

Patriotism is fast losing its appeal to profit motive. When the balance shifts we will lose the high moral ground we were accustomed to fight wars from.....