plain, What a fucked-up deal. Hiring fucking civilians to protect our professional soldiers.
On Jul 27, 10:36 am, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > yeah, I'll bet some of those soldiers would love to be making > contractor wages > wb > > On Jul 27, 6:24 am, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/25/AR200... > > > *Military Weighs Private Security on Front Lines* > > Firm Could Have Broad Protection Authority in Afghanistan > > > By Walter Pincus > > Washington Post Staff Writer > > Sunday, July 26, 2009 > > > The U.S. military command is considering contracting a private firm to > > manage security on the front lines of the war in Afghanistan, even as > > Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates says that the Pentagon intends to cut back > > on the use of private security contractors. > > > On a Web site listing federal business opportunities, the Army this month > > published a > > notice<https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=623e06f2f116f482...>soliciting > > information from prospective contractors who would develop a > > security plan for 50 or more forward operating bases and smaller command > > outposts across Afghanistan. > > > Although the U.S. military has contracted out security services to protect > > individuals, military bases and other facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, > > this contract would award a commercial company unusually broad > > "theater-wide" authority to protect forward operating bases in a war zone. > > > "The contractor shall be responsible for providing security services, > > developing, implementing, adequately staffing, and managing a security > > program," the notice said, adding that the contractor would have to be > > available "24 hours a day, seven days a week." > > > The U.S. military currently has 72 contracts that provide 5,600 civilian > > guards, mostly local Afghans, at forward bases across Afghanistan, according > > to Lt. Cmdr. Christine M. Sidenstricker, chief of media operations for U.S. > > Forces-Afghanistan. The intent of the proposed contract is to bring all > > "disparate and subordinate contracts" under single, theater-wide management > > at a time when the U.S. forces are expanding, she said. > > > The Army has not issued a formal proposal for a contract, but the notice > > says that interested companies should reply by Wednesday and that a formal > > request for proposals should follow. The "anticipated award date" for a > > contract is Dec. 1, according to the notice. > > > The request for information comes as Gates is moving to put soldiers back in > > charge of security roles that contractors have filled in recent years. > > Drawing on its experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Defense Department > > recently organized a task force to measure the military's dependence on > > contractor support in training and security, with the goal of determining an > > appropriate mix. > > > Lawmakers, too, have raised concerns about the cost of contractors and about > > outsourcing what have traditionally been government roles. > > > The Commission on Wartime Contracting, a bipartisan congressional panel, > > noted in a recent > > report<http://www.wartimecontracting.gov/images/download/documents/reports/C...>that > > in previous wars, military police protected bases while other service > > members pursued the enemy. "Contractors are now literally in the center of > > the battlefield in unprecedented numbers," the commission said, creating "a > > need to define specific functions that are not appropriate for performance > > by contractors in a contingency operation." > > > Meanwhile, Sen. Claire > > McCaskill<http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m001170/>(D-Mo.), > > chairman of the Senate subcommittee on contracting oversight, said > > her panel had "revealed major concerns about the use of private security > > contractors in Afghanistan." She added that a hard look needs to be taken > > "at where we have gone wrong in the past, to ensure that the military does > > not repeat history." > > > Afghan forward operating bases are often considered dangerous posts. An > > American soldier was critically injured this month when insurgents attacked > > Forward Operating Base Salerno, near the eastern border town of Khost. Two > > U.S. troops died July 4 at Combat Outpost Zerok, also near the Pakistan > > border, in an insurgent assault. > > > In the worst attack on an outpost, roughly 200 insurgents broke through > > security walls last year at an outpost in Konar province and killed nine > > American soldiers. Sen. James > > Webb<http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/w000803/>(D-Va.), > > a member of the Armed Services Committee, recently asked the > > Pentagon's inspector general to investigate whether security at the post was > > adequate. > > > With Afghan army and police officers totaling roughly 160,000, and the > > number of U.S. service members in Afghanistan set to grow to 68,000 by > > year's end, the U.S. military is moving to protect the facilities where > > personnel will be based. But many experts say commanders do not have enough > > forces. > > > "We don't want to waste scarce Afghan army and police, so we must be > > creative," said Michael E. O'Hanlon, a senior fellow and military expert at > > the Brookings Institution. > > > But O'Hanlon also said he is concerned that if contractors were to take over > > security at forward operating bases, they would be the first to see hostile > > fire, and they -- not soldiers -- would have to decide whether to employ > > weapons against an enemy. > > > Instead of hiring a private firm, O'Hanlon said, the Americans and Afghans > > could create a local version of Iraq's Facilities Protection Service, the > > modestly trained but government-paid guard force that was pulled together to > > provide protection for government ministries in Baghdad and the oil fields. > > "We should create a different branch of the Afghan security forces that has > > minimal training," he said. > > > At a town hall meeting at Fort Drum, N.Y., on July 16, Gates said that the > > military had let contracting "grow without the kind of controls that we > > should" have had. The purpose, he said, was "to try and free up as many > > soldiers for actual combat duty, rather than having them do things that > > civilian contractors could do." > > > Contractors, Gates noted, have done a variety of jobs, including running > > dining facilities and doing laundry, cleaning chores and security work. "So, > > we're kind of going back through all of these roles, at this point, to > > figure out where military ought to be doing these things and where civilian > > contractors can be," he said. > > > __,_._,___- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
