On 8/29/06, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
me:
> > the Rumsfeld Doctrine meshes well with the whole idea of spinning off
> > as much of the traditional military as possible to the private sector
> > (the Cheney Doctrine?). Even soldiering has been partiallly
> > "privatized," with all of those private security forces. This also
> > fits with the notion of the all-volunteer army (which may be biting
> > the dust as we speak).
Yoshie:
> Yes. When corporations outsource to subcontractors, though, they can
> look forward to cost savings, by squeezing subcontractors who squeeze
> their workers, but when the state subcontracts military work to
> corporations, it may very well end up paying more for the same work,
> at least in the short term, though it can look forward to savings on
> pensions, health care, etc. in the long term.
they don't care about the long term, do they? it's more a matter of
cronyism, with each paying off the other.
True, but I'm wondering if pensions, disability, health care, etc.
after retirement might not be a significant cost for the military,
which might have been a factor for the Rumsfeld Doctrine.
Have I mentioned that my father-in-law was once a chaplain in the US
military (I forget how many years his stint lasted)? After pensions
from his church and the state began to kick in, his financial
circumstances significantly improved for the first time in his life.
:-> No separation of church and state in his wallet.
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
