Why does the military hire private contractors to provide security at US bases?

Isn't this what the military does?





The U.S. Army is looking to private contractors to provide armed security guards to protect Forward Operating Bases in seven provinces in southern Afghanistan. In a recent study, Anthony H. Cordesman, an intelligence expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, described five of those provinces -- Helmand, Kandahar, Nimruz, Zabol and Uruzgan -- as among the most dangerous parts of Afghanistan.

The proposed contracts would be for a minimum of one year, beginning Jan. 1, but with options to continue for four years. The move to hire contractors to provide armed guards comes as the United States is deploying more American troops to Afghanistan and looking to double the size of the Afghan National Army from 80,000 to 162,000 over the next five years.

Ironically, a year ago, there was a crackdown on private security contractors in Afghanistan, including a U.S.-based company, because of complaints of fraud. At that time, however, the private guards were protecting U.S. Agency for International Development employees and their contractors, not U.S. military bases.


In a Nov. 26 notice, the Army said the proposed guards would protect the entry control points of the bases to prevent "threats related to unauthorized personnel, contraband, and instruments of damage, destruction and information collection from entering the installation."

The hired guards would be required to carry out surveillance of the perimeter of the base from fixed positions to see whether someone is attempting to sneak inside. They are also to engage in counter-surveillance, watching to see whether someone is monitoring who enters and leaves the base. The contractor guards are also to be available to protect supply routes, facilities, convoys and property.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/07/AR2008120702676.html

"In December 2008, contractors represented 69% of DOD's workforce in Afghanistan, which apparently represented the highest recorded percentage of contractors used by DOD in any conflict in the history of the United States."...

It is already clear that corruption with respect to contracts in Afghanistan is a significant problem.

Earlier this week the Independent newspaper in Great Britain reported that a major investigation has been launched into contracts awarded by coalition forces in Afghanistan that are worth hundreds of millions of pounds. The probe into construction and logistics contracts of the ISAF has been ordered by Major General Nick Carter, commander of ISAF forces in the south of the country.

Reportedly a third of the costs of supplying the armed forces in Afghanistan is spent on paying protection, bribery and safe passage fees, and everybody is complicit. One wonders if this is the sort of standard operating procedure PMC trade groups have in mind when they talk about private contractors making the U.S. military the "best supported, supplied military in any military operation in history."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-isenberg/private-military-contract_b_494834.html



They are using these contractors to loot the nation!

ultimate goal of having only direct-combat troops in uniform, with enough DOD civilians to manage contractors who provide all non direct-combat military functions.

This is how they're trained. They're not trained to assess and analyze situations, obtain information from informants, etc. Many of them are young and have very little respect for women or people of other races/cultures.

When you're in the upper brass of the military and your life depends on it you don't want these guys watching your back. This is why they use private contractors.

political clout.

When a trooper dies, no public outcry and pressure on congressperson, senator, and president, just a simple military ceremony attended by grieving family and friends and perhaps some religious group protesting who knows what and a 21 round volley while Taps plays mournfully in the background.

Oh I forgot, a mother, wife, or daughter gets to keep the flag.

and Bill Clinton wouldn't change back, and instead, allowed FURTHER privatization of the military. In fact, it was Cheney's Halliburton/KBR that was in charge of logistics like refueling Cole when it was bombed.

Funny how corporate media never thought that was important to discuss.

in the late 60s & early seventies, several naval stations used renta cops for gate security. The feeding facilities used contractors to prepare serve the food and clean up afterwards.

use of private firms.

Not to mention, GHWB was a close advisor to Nixon, and no doubt continued pulling Ford's strings, too.

Every soldier in combat has roughly 5 people "behind the lines" supporting him. This is an attempt to reduce that ratio (or really, to keep it from growing). And the truth is, for every soldier "immediately behind the front line" the support staff isn't all that much smaller. It's a "back door draft" of sorts. It makes our commitment seem smaller than it is. There were almost always more mercenaries in Iraq than US soldiers, so it made our commitment seem smaller, even though many of the mercenaries were former soldiers.

When I was in the Army, it was a real cross-section of American young men. Troops cooked, ran the offices, stood guard duty ... we hardly ever saw private contractors.

A draft would fix so many problems.