No More "War, Inc." Style Armed Contractors!

@anniepa (27280)
United States
March 4, 2010 3:43pm CST
If you happened to see the movie "War, Inc." you know it was about the first war the United States had waged using entirely private corporations doing what our military had always done in the past. What's actually been happening in Afghanistan and Iraq with corporations like Blackwater is closer to that fictional account than most of us would like to think. According to the website of Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) today the Pentagon employs more than 217,000 contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, doing the kind of work that enlisted military personnel would have performed in the past, according to a Congressional Research Service report. Schakowsky has introduced the "Stop Outsourcing Security Act, which would make it the military's responsibility to use its own personnel to train troops and police, guard convoys, repair weapons, run military prisons and do military intelligence activity." The bill now has close to 20 co-sponsors but faces stiff opposition from lobbyists such as the International Peace Operations Association. What do you think? Should this "War, Inc." policy of hiring private companies to do what our troops always did and still should be doing be ended? Or do you think companies like Blackwater should continue to get rich from our wars and even literally get away with murder? Annie : http://www.janschakowsky.org/news/house-dems-want-phase-out-armed-contractors
1 person likes this
4 responses
@xfahctor (14126)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
4 Mar 10
You know what concerns me more than these groups being used on the battlefield? Them being used on home turf. Most people don;t think about this, but there are no laws that I am aware of that forbids the government from using private onctractirs to enforce federal law. If there is then someone please correct me. I would LOVE to see an amendment to posse comitatus that forbids the use of them for domestic federal enforcement andI think states should be passing similar amendments to forbid it with in their states as well. IPOA's own website is down (or gone) but all else I saw on them says this is a pretty scary organization.
2 people like this
• United States
4 Mar 10
that is a good idea X. We do need a law to protect us from having these contractors used on us. On a federal and state level. I will have to check into it.
1 person likes this
• United States
4 Mar 10
I agree with this one X. Militia type groups should be used domestically. Anyone who is not tied to the judicial system or the army should not have a say or legal use of force. Covert forces can be used if they and only if they are tied to the justice system. Then it becomes the responsibility of The Attorney General, and the Govenors of States. But this should be an exception not the rule.
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14126)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
4 Mar 10
Exactly. Pretty much every state constitution provides for a citizen militia in addition to each state having a state guard at it's disposal for extroidinary circumstances. If federal law enforcement agencies like the DEA or the FBI or any other cannot perform it's duties, then perhaps those agencies need to be looked at more to see why. The answer is definately not private contractors.
2 people like this
@jerzgirl (8170)
• Gloucester City, New Jersey
4 Mar 10
While I think there may on rare occasion be a need for the use of private security firms, the level to which they are used now is undermining the military's purpose and far more costly than using military personnel. They are literally mercenaries who don't feel the obligation to obey military orders or live up to military expectations. They are far too independent and beholden to their own corporate leaders.
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14126)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
4 Mar 10
I'm with you on this. I think though they may have provided some limited value in high combat areas, over all I think they have been far more of a liability and are a bit harder to control than our military.
3 people like this
@anniepa (27280)
• United States
5 Mar 10
I understand the troops aren't too happy with this arrangement either, which I sure can understand. These guys are being paid six figures for doing what our soldiers get peanuts for. Also, like you said, they're not beholden to the military, they do whatever they please apparently. Annie
@laglen (19779)
• United States
4 Mar 10
Annie, I agree but our military is too busy handing out supplies in Haiti. They are using our military for so many different things now. I agree that it is wrong to contract this out, do you realize what these killer for hires get paid? Well over 100k. But you have to figure what they are doing for that.... I would love to see our military people get paid like that...
@anniepa (27280)
• United States
5 Mar 10
They're definitely spread too thin but it could be said if we weren't involved in two wars we'd have more than enough troops to help out when they're needed following a disaster like the earthquake in Haiti. I'd also love to see our military paid like that! Annie
@hofferp (4737)
• United States
4 Mar 10
I disapprove of the use of contractors to do government-only jobs. Unfortunately, contractors are being used more and more to do what was once government-only functions, decisions-making, etc. What's happened is politicians want to be able to say we've decreased the size of government to their constituents; what they really mean is we've decreased the number of government employees. We haven't eliminated any of the functions, just the number of government employees. But now that work, that didn't go away, is being done by contractors at twice and some times triple the cost to the taxpayer. So if you want to downsize government, the people and the functions need to go...not just the people.
@anniepa (27280)
• United States
5 Mar 10
Let's hope this bill passes! Annie