BS: Is This A 'Private Sector' War ???

Subject: RE: BS: Is This A 'Private Sector' War ???
From: GUEST,Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 01:56 PM

The flip-side is that a lot of non-military personnel working for private contractors are in harm's way. They're not in danger on the level of the grunts on patrol, but if a rocket lands inside a hangar at a base, it doesn't care whether the helicopter mechanics are military or civilian. Of course, private employees can't be forced to work in a combat zone, but saying "No, I won't go," can doubtlessly have adverse effects upon one's career.

Subject: RE: BS: Is This A 'Private Sector' War ???
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:17 AM

All wars are private sector wars- who do you think gets rich on account of 'em?

Subject: RE: BS: Is This A 'Private Sector' War ???
From: gnu
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 05:20 PM

Here in Canuckland, we call that 45% "Weekend Warriors".

Subject: RE: BS: Is This A 'Private Sector' War ???
From: NH Dave
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 05:18 PM

While it is nice to note that contractors have taken over many of the support jobs in the area, what this means to the average soldier is that when s/he is assigned to the Great Sandbox h/she will now be filling combat slots rather than support slots, and their life expectancy become as lot less than it might have been when the military filled all of these roles.

Of course from a practical standpoint, this support work will be done with less care, and cost substantially more than if these positions were filled with miliraty people. At least this was my experience when my squadron contracted out building maintenance - cleaning, mopping, and polishing the floors. The cleaners only worked during the day shift, they did a poor job, and as contractors, they couldn't be fired.

When we had our lower rankers on this duty, it was frequently done during our third shife when we had to have a presence during this time, but did very little preoductive - in line with an individual's job description - work, and we could spare them to clean, mop, and buff floors. This also meant that if we were going to be inspected on a particular date, we could shift a few more people onto this detail and be sure that the squadron would be "standing tall" in the morning; and we would take care to keep it this way until teh inspectors left.

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Is This A 'Private Sector' War ???
From: LilyFestre
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 04:59 PM

I wonder how exhuasted their resources (as far as people go) really is. My girlfriend's father-in-law is retired career military with over 25 years of service. He has been retired for a few years now and he was called and asked to come back. He turned them down...but I find it curious that they would call someone who was retired...either the numbers or low or he has some kind of expertise that they need...either way...I found it odd.

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: Is This A 'Private Sector' War ???
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 04:58 PM

This seems a good thread in which to point out the Cost of War and a bit about getting our priorities back on track.

Also, one of my fav. bumper stickers seen recently: Bring back the draft...in the red states! (NOT, really anything I'd like to see happen, really!)

Subject: RE: BS: Is This A 'Private Sector' War ???
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 04:55 PM

We are all "citizen-soldiers," except for that small percentage who are non-citizens. Mr. Korb of the Center for American Progress (a somewhat left of center organization) has misused the term. In my 4 years on active duty and my 20+ years as an active reservist, I never heard that term used to distinguish between members of the Active and Reserve components of the military.

Subject: RE: BS: Is This A 'Private Sector' War ???
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 04:43 PM

Of course most of those 55% in the Regular Army are citizens, but the (admittedly ill-chosen) expression "citizen soldiers" refers to what are normally part-time soldiers, who normally serve only short stints.

Incidentally, someone above said the Reserves and National Guard are "young people". It ain't necessarily so. There's a lot of them who are long in the tooth, with graying hair, who have been in those organizations for many years. My ex-son-in-law Bob is one of those; I'd say he's got to be 45 anyway.

And then there are the officers who thought they had served their time and were out. An officer is on the hook for life, if he hasn't affirmatively resigned his commission, and there's a number of officers who thought the service was behind them 20 years ago who have been recalled.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Is This A 'Private Sector' War ???
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 04:33 PM

it is in the interests of the Bush administration, to maintain a poor segment of the population, as cannon fodder for the military. Its no accident that recruiters tend to go into slummy areas and pay all sorts of fees to sign up recruits.
It worth taking a look at the video game and movie industry as another part of the recruiting machine. The documentary Frontline, looked at movie industry connections and the military. There is actually a dept. in the military that vets movies and offers all sorts of deals and real explosives instead of special effects - as long as the movies fits within their message. Ie. A positive portrayal of the military and a recruitment tool. For instance Dr. Strangelove certainly didnt fit the bill but various films such as Pearl Harbor did.

in one film the military reviewer objected to a scene in which a US soldier in WWII removed gold fillings from a dead Japanese soldier, saying this would be unaceptable and is disrespectful etc. when in fact there is documentary footage of just such an incident.

Subject: RE: BS: Is This A 'Private Sector' War ???
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 04:28 PM

PoppaGator - Now I am really confused. If 45% are citizen soldiers, who are the other 55%???

Subject: RE: BS: Is This A 'Private Sector' War ???
From: Peace
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 03:52 PM

We are paying over $3.30 Canadian for the equivalent of an American gallon.

Subject: RE: BS: Is This A 'Private Sector' War ???
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 03:32 PM

Come on, where's my cheap gas and oil? Gas around here is over two dollars a gallon. Did someone lie to us?

Subject: RE: BS: Is This A 'Private Sector' War ???
From: Peace
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 02:51 PM

The price of gas ain't goin' up, but the cost to the consumer sure as hell is!

Subject: RE: BS: Is This A 'Private Sector' War ???
From: gnu
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 02:50 PM

PoppaGator said : "...of course, the corporate imperative to operate at a profit can only add to the taxpayers' costs."

You mean the price of gas might go up?

Subject: RE: BS: Is This A 'Private Sector' War ???
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 02:37 PM

well - part of the reason the National Guard recruitment is down 24% is that many young people *thought* they were exempt from active duty and especially combat duty if they joined National Guard rather then the "standard" military branches. (That has Never been true)

Subject: RE: BS: Is This A 'Private Sector' War ???
From: PoppaGator
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 02:28 PM

"Citizen soldiers" are young people with limited employment prospects who can't afford full-time college life and who enlisted for a second part-time income, and for eductional benefits, in exchange for one weekend per month plus two weeks each summer.

I can't imagine that many of them forsaw full-time active duty in a combat zone. They certainly didn't sign up to make their livings as mercenaries.

When I saw the title of this thread, my first thought was about how private corporations (e.g., Halliburton) have taken over many combat-support functions formerly provided by military personnel ~ quartermaster (supplies), mess (food service), motor pool (trucking/transporation) etc. This new practice certainly decreases the number of enlisted personnel required to conduct warfare; of course, the corporate imperative to operate at a profit can only add to the taxpayers' costs. Not to mention the potential for corruption and worse (e.g., failure to adequately protect the lives and limbs of soldiers in combat, which is likely to be "unacceptably" expensive).

Subject: BS: Is This A 'Private Sector' War ???
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 02:00 PM

From USA Today:

"In the first sustained test of the all-volunteer military created by the abolition of the draft in 1973, the Army has had to rely heavily on citizen soldiers, who make up 45% of US forces in Iraq. Now, that supply chain is showing signs of stress, and some experts say the current data suggest that the task of maintaining a full force in the Middle East will only get harder. "The longer this war goes on, the more difficult it's going to be to get more recruits," says Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress in Washington.

Five months into its recruiting year, the Army Reserve is 10% behind its goal and the National Guard is 24% off."

It is beginning to look as though not very many American citizens   actually support the so-called war on terrorism. Its easy to sit back in your armchair and lend your support to the neo-cons but not so easy to actively engage. Who really supports this war, anyway?

One thing for sure, its your tax dollars paying for the 45% of 'citizen soldiers' - whoever they are. Are 'citizen soldiers' another name for mercenaries? If so, is this how you want your tax dollars spent?

If GWB continues his aggression in the middle east - will the draft be re-instated? Will he now want to police Lebanon? Why encourage the withdrawl of Syrian troops from Lebanon when they were doing the policing? Does he want to replace them with U.S. troops? How does he plan to recruit the necessary forces?