Posted on Aug 3, 2015
Should the military give contractors the boot? What about DA civilians?
10.5K
41
33
4
4
0
With the current force downsizing I see even less a use for contractors in positions Soldiers can and should fill. Cooks, MPs, Commo positions... They all need to be purged and filled with uniformed, MOS holding, service members. This would reduce cost, bull up the force and get rid of some dead weight. I bet everyone here can think of a few DA civilians that should never have had a job in the first place. No better time to cut sling load.
Let's hear your thoughts.
Let's hear your thoughts.
GS Civilians
Contractors
Downsizing
Business Funding
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 13
6
6
0
CSM (Join to see) - I have mixed opinions about this. First, in full disclosure, I work for a government contractor, so I am not unbiased.
When I was an active duty MP officer, I fought the idea of using contractors to provide security/law enforcement services on military installations. I wanted MPs, not contractors and not DA/DOD Police. The law was on my side in that use of contractors to provide security/law enforcement was unlawful. However, with the Military Police being subjected to never-ending deployments, something had to be done, so Congress passed a law that allowed for the use of contractors to perform security functions (not law enforcement) on military installations. It was not open-ended and was only good for a few years (three, as I recall, with the ability to get an extension, if necessary and approved by Congress).
Prior to this, when an active duty MP unit deployed, for example, if there were not enough remaining MPs on the installation to perform the missions, the Army had to bring in MPs form other installations or from the National Guard. For example, when my battalion at Fort Riley deployed to Desert Storm, a National Guard battalion was brought in to pick up the security/LE mission at Ft Riley. Also, when I was at the USAREUR Provost Marshal Office, we deployed 78% of the MPs in Europe to Hungary/Croatia and had to bring in several National Guard MP battalions to Europe to continue the security/LE mission. This system caused the deployment of double the units (double the cost, double the family separations, etc.).
With the advent of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the increased reliance of Reserve Component units, who, in many cases (MP units, for example), deployed as much as their active duty brothers, the Guard MP units were simply not available to replace deploying units. Hence, the change in the law to allow contractors to assume the security mission.
That was working very well until the Government Employees Union pitched a fit with Congress to do away with contractors and use only DA/DOD Police (at a much higher cost). It was all about picking up the positions and the union dues they generated, not about what was best for the government. Ask anybody who has lived this ... Most would much prefer to have a contractor over a government employee (easier to get rid of under-performing individuals).
While I agree with you in a period of stability (no deployments), the fact is that most of the missions continue at home base, even if the troops are gone. While the headcount in dining facilities may go down, many MP calls actually increase (prowlers, family issues, burglaries, juvenile incidents, etc.).
It is not cost-effective to maintain a very large military to fulfill the responsibilities of running a garrison when troops are deployed, nor of having twice the number needed if all are home.
Contrary to what you stated, it is clearly more cost-effective/less expensive to use contractors than active duty military personnel to accomplish many of the support tasks.
I would still rather have military personnel than civilians/contractors, but it is much more expensive to do so and would only result in much more severe budget issues.
When I was an active duty MP officer, I fought the idea of using contractors to provide security/law enforcement services on military installations. I wanted MPs, not contractors and not DA/DOD Police. The law was on my side in that use of contractors to provide security/law enforcement was unlawful. However, with the Military Police being subjected to never-ending deployments, something had to be done, so Congress passed a law that allowed for the use of contractors to perform security functions (not law enforcement) on military installations. It was not open-ended and was only good for a few years (three, as I recall, with the ability to get an extension, if necessary and approved by Congress).
Prior to this, when an active duty MP unit deployed, for example, if there were not enough remaining MPs on the installation to perform the missions, the Army had to bring in MPs form other installations or from the National Guard. For example, when my battalion at Fort Riley deployed to Desert Storm, a National Guard battalion was brought in to pick up the security/LE mission at Ft Riley. Also, when I was at the USAREUR Provost Marshal Office, we deployed 78% of the MPs in Europe to Hungary/Croatia and had to bring in several National Guard MP battalions to Europe to continue the security/LE mission. This system caused the deployment of double the units (double the cost, double the family separations, etc.).
With the advent of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the increased reliance of Reserve Component units, who, in many cases (MP units, for example), deployed as much as their active duty brothers, the Guard MP units were simply not available to replace deploying units. Hence, the change in the law to allow contractors to assume the security mission.
That was working very well until the Government Employees Union pitched a fit with Congress to do away with contractors and use only DA/DOD Police (at a much higher cost). It was all about picking up the positions and the union dues they generated, not about what was best for the government. Ask anybody who has lived this ... Most would much prefer to have a contractor over a government employee (easier to get rid of under-performing individuals).
While I agree with you in a period of stability (no deployments), the fact is that most of the missions continue at home base, even if the troops are gone. While the headcount in dining facilities may go down, many MP calls actually increase (prowlers, family issues, burglaries, juvenile incidents, etc.).
It is not cost-effective to maintain a very large military to fulfill the responsibilities of running a garrison when troops are deployed, nor of having twice the number needed if all are home.
Contrary to what you stated, it is clearly more cost-effective/less expensive to use contractors than active duty military personnel to accomplish many of the support tasks.
I would still rather have military personnel than civilians/contractors, but it is much more expensive to do so and would only result in much more severe budget issues.
(6)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
I absolutely appreciate all you said. My opinion comes completely from a stance to maintain readiness. I have no doubts the military will get hacked away. It is a historical trend we like to practice in this country. We learn lessons quickly, and then cast them aside and forget. I'd much rather see uniformed personnel, in any career field, then I would a civilian.
(2)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
CSM (Join to see) - I can't disagree with you in principle, however, the reality is that, in many MOS, having contractors perform some of the missions actually increases readiness. For example, if I had to provide all the gate guards in Korea, instead of using contractors, the only thing my brigade would do would be garrison law enforcement and installation security. There would be no one left to accomplish weapons training or training for the several other Military Police missions. While I certainly think MPs performing garrison law enforcement (LE) is the best OJT for performing LE missions when deployed, the fact is that there are several other missions where training is critical. Having contractors allows MPs to train, hence, enhance readiness. The same is true, to a greater or lesser degree, with other MOS's.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Many MOS's (maintenance especially) see a decrease in MOS proficiency when contrators are used in garrison. Yes the Soldiers will have more time to go to the field and learn about not killing themselves but they don't really learn how to be mechanics. Most 91Bs are parts changers. Many just change parts until it's fixed without even knowing why the part fixed it. Having the time to get dirty in the motor pool and allowing the Soldiers to do the work will better train them to perform their mission. Contracted mechanics overseas are a slap in the face to the Soldier. Earning 6 figures to do the same job the Soldier is supposed to do but since the contrator does it the Soldier has to do bs details and will not even get to do the job they voluteered to do. This further compounds the laziness and lack of motivation of todays PVT-SPC. I'm not saying that contractors don't have a place but rather they are over utilized in many logistics functions.
(0)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
SFC (Join to see) - I agree that some MOS's would benefit more without the use of contractors. Mechanics fit into that category when it comes to maintenance of tactical equipment. Use of contractors to maintain commercial equipment, however, seems to me to have no readiness impact. Just like MPs, who get training value by performing garrison law enforcement, mechanics get experience by working on vehicles. They must also stay proficient in other aspects of their missions, as well as the common tasks required of all soldiers (weapons quals, physical fitness, etc., etc...). There is a happy median when it comes to the use of contractors.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
I imagine all of those contract companies are all lobbying to cut the military so they can provide more of those extremely lucrative contracts for the jobs being cut. How much longer before they contract out drone pilots?
(4)
(0)
PO1 Brian Schletty
They already have....check the job boards for the big players. ISR Remote Pilot is usually how they are labeled. The pay is wretched though....
(0)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
PO1 Brian Schletty It may be wretched, but the console gamers living in their parents basement probably wouldn't mind.
(1)
(0)
SSG Ray Strenkowski
I think it's the opposite - Contractors want big military because that comes with big support.
You won't find a defense contractor lobbying to decrease military/DoD funding...
You won't find a defense contractor lobbying to decrease military/DoD funding...
(0)
(0)
PO1 Brian Schletty
I remember when salaries in the 'stan were pushing 200k, now they are more in line with Kuwait & Bahrain. Iraq is reporting some high salaries again this year, 400k +/-, for folks performing rehab missions on the bases we want to reopen.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Sounds good - but doesn't work out that way...
Soldiers PCS, Contractors and the companies they work for are local to the area... This provides continuity in areas like IT, where honestly you don't have many CCNP/CCIE types (as one example).
Using networks as the example, Military Enterprise Networks are becoming complex and it's awful hard to hold a SGT - MSG accountable for day to day O&M for a strategic network without those skill sets.
High turnover (less than 5 years) almost spells certain death for the health of an enterprise network and almost certainly means you will 1. not address all vulnerabilities 2. be too busy playing catch up (training new soldiers, or learning the network yourself) to improve/advance your network architecture. The soldiers who PCS into your unit are a mixed bag - you could get great soldiers will undeniable knowledge or not - Contracts are written with the required skills/certifications to fit the FTE.
I had some of the same feelings while I was in the military, it's sometimes hard to see both sides until you have a new perspective. Also, if they are maintaining those networks at home, what happens when they deploy - that's what we are trained for anyway, right?
Just my .02 cents...
Soldiers PCS, Contractors and the companies they work for are local to the area... This provides continuity in areas like IT, where honestly you don't have many CCNP/CCIE types (as one example).
Using networks as the example, Military Enterprise Networks are becoming complex and it's awful hard to hold a SGT - MSG accountable for day to day O&M for a strategic network without those skill sets.
High turnover (less than 5 years) almost spells certain death for the health of an enterprise network and almost certainly means you will 1. not address all vulnerabilities 2. be too busy playing catch up (training new soldiers, or learning the network yourself) to improve/advance your network architecture. The soldiers who PCS into your unit are a mixed bag - you could get great soldiers will undeniable knowledge or not - Contracts are written with the required skills/certifications to fit the FTE.
I had some of the same feelings while I was in the military, it's sometimes hard to see both sides until you have a new perspective. Also, if they are maintaining those networks at home, what happens when they deploy - that's what we are trained for anyway, right?
Just my .02 cents...
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google