« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Gates: Military Contractors Luring Away Many Troops
During a time of significant military overstretch, private security companies hired by the Defense Department have been actively recruiting U.S. troops. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Senate Appropriations Committee that he's considering no-recruit clauses for future contracts in order to ensure retention doesn't suffer.
"My personal concern about some of these security contracts is that I worry that sometimes the salaries they are able to pay in fact lures some of our soldiers out of the service to go to work for them," he said.Gates said he was seeking legal advice on whether a "non-compete" clause could be put into security contracts that limits this problem.
Hard data measuring the direct effect contractor recruitment has on military retention is difficult, since retention rates don't factor in reasons for leaving. However, says contractor expert P.W. Singer of the Brookings Institution, there's a flurry of anecdotal evidence that contractor recruitment is intense. "Military folks talk about getting business cards handed to them while in Iraq," he says. Additionally, the impact of contractor recruitment can be seen in the recently-raised retention bonuses that the Defense Department has offered re-upping troops: "There are competing offers out there now."
The problem is particularly acute in specialty disciplines, like Special Operations and explosive ordnance disposal, which contractors consider particularly lucrative. (Blackwater is staffed by many veterans of the Special Operations community, and its founder, Erik Prince, is an ex-Navy SEAL.) A recent study Singer directed at Brookings on military readiness, titled "Bent But Not Broken," found that elite military units have had greater difficulty than the general services in meeting their enlisted-personnel goals. Clearly, not all of that can be attributed to contractor influence, but "it's a factor among other reasons," he says.
Comments (14)
Anon701 wrote on September 27, 2007 11:56 AM:Of course the private sector lores government employees away from their less than adequately paid positions: including military personell.
tccstend wrote on September 27, 2007 12:07 PM:Private security firms will always have their pick of the best from the large pool of trained, and experienced soldiers, as long as lucrative contracts exist.
Patriotism, cannot be called into question when a soldier leaves the military for private emloyment: especiallly when that 'private' corporation is contated by the same government, for the same mission.
A meager $20,000 re-enlistment bonus stretched over perhaps six years, is dismall compared to the potential earnings the same individual can earn with a private entity.
Seems to me...'Gates'...our government needs to either cease awarding such lucrative contracts to privateers, and/or PAY our soldiers what they truly deserve.
I'm confused. Isn't this exactly what was ordered for teachers by the Bush administration? Make 'em compete! Put em on notice!
So now his military is having to compete... From Reagan on down, they wanted to bust the chops of the troops on GI Bill benefits, medical benefits, housing benefits, etc., so they hired mercenaries. Ah the relative beauty of unintended consequences. Let competition reign supreme.
mnamna wrote on September 27, 2007 12:12 PM:"...elite military units have had greater difficulty than the general services in meeting their enlisted-personnel goals."
I would say that some part of this issue has to be that the standards for recruitment have been lowered significantly, but the requirements for actually making it into the elite forces cannot be lowered if you want them to remain 'elite.'
Comparing the two statisitcs (overall recruitment levels and overall elite force size) may be a good measuring stick to use to see the how much of a difference the lowering of standards has had on our ability to recruit overall.
If recruitment standards had not been lowered how far would we be falling behind at this point in terms of available forces?
mnamna wrote on September 27, 2007 12:13 PM:"...elite military units have had greater difficulty than the general services in meeting their enlisted-personnel goals."
I would say that some part of this issue has to be that the standards for recruitment have been lowered significantly, but the requirements for actually making it into the elite forces cannot be lowered if you want them to remain 'elite.'
Comparing the two statistics (overall recruitment levels and overall elite force size) may be a good measuring stick to use to see the how much of a difference the lowering of standards has had on our ability to recruit overall.
If recruitment standards had not been lowered how far would we be falling behind at this point in terms of available forces?
Josh notmarshall wrote on September 27, 2007 12:51 PM:The point which I believe most of us are missing is simply that in every industry whether it be private or institutionalized the work force will move to where it gets paid the most money. As someone responded earlier, I can not fault the military personnel for trying to make more money. This is why policy must dictate the guidelines. The problem lies with the fact that legally private contractors operate defferently than the military personnel in terms of who and what can be held accountable for any range of issues. Obviuosly the military could use the right-wing judicial arguement from the past 20 years and say that they need to pay their soldiers more just to be able to compete with private industry. I am much more comfortable, as someone coming from the military and contracting side of things, to be sympahetic to the issues facing the military than I am of a non-accountable mercenary force.
illlich wrote on September 27, 2007 1:11 PM:From TPM reader "CH", posted on the main TPM page: "...one of the factors that led to my leaving military service was that I could look up the chain and see the proverbial rats fleeing the ship. These were individuals with 12-16 years of service too!! They could retire at 20 years, but decided to leave and go private. My colleagues and I would often debate the merits of privatization back at that time as well. I worked in military intelligence, and I think this was one of the first areas to go private. It never made sense to us that the U.S. Government would pay a contractor 10 times (or more) what we were making to do the EXACT same thing and with no guarantees that the results would be on par with ours or better."
TheraP wrote on September 27, 2007 1:16 PM:This brings to mind two things, 1.) It seems completely in line with this administration's desire to both privatize everything (Social Security being the most obvious), AND find ways to give taxpayer money to private groups friendly to the GOP (a la "faith based initiatives"). And 2.) this is one of the big problems of unfettered capitalism: there is no patriotism when it comes to making money, otherwise Halliburton wouldn't have registered in the Cayman Islands and/or moved to Dubai. Capitalism at its basest is amoral, it's all about money, the bottom line, if they can get away with it, they will (it only takes a re-read of Sinclair's "The Jungle" to remind us). I'm not saying it HAS to be amoral, just that there should be regulations to keep it in line (even the most brutal of neo-cons won't push for child-labor laws to be repealed for example), but the GOP marches to a drumbeat of "de-regulation" which they cannot see is at odds with their (supposed) moral (and patriotic) stance.
This situation is like healthcare, where Medicare is supposed to "compete" with private insurers - but the private plans are subsidized! And therefore can provide more - with that subsidy!
The only reason mercenaries get paid more is because companies like Blackwater charge far more than the military does to do a job. Blackwater is subsidized by the govt. And thus they can pay more than the military. Not only that, since they use former special forces people, they get trained personnel, but have not had to pay for the training of these people. Whereas the military must pay to train them, only to lose them to the "competition" - which is nothing more than subsidized cronyism!!!
This is not an example of how private enterprise performs the same job better. It is an example of corporate welfare! And a waste of our taxpayer money! Not to speak of the creation of militias that operate outside the law!
Ann in AZ wrote on September 27, 2007 2:02 PM:All together now; one, two, three...DUHHHH...Geez!
JohnP wrote on September 27, 2007 4:26 PM:Why are these guys allowed out of the Army? I am seeing reports of people who have been out of active service for 10 years being called back up and we had an active duty soldier spend a week of his leave protesting the government's Stop Loss Policy in front of the Federal building.
OCPatriot wrote on September 27, 2007 4:43 PM:Hey, what a great idea! Industries use non-compete clauses all the time. Maybe Congress people should sign a non-compete when they take office, so they're not "lured" into the private sector to do jobs that our authorized representatives have been elected to do. After all, the knowledge you gain as a representative (Senator or Congress person) is valuable and, just as a company prohibits people from using that knowledge, so we need to stop the flight into lobbying positions.
illlich wrote on September 27, 2007 5:06 PM:I wonder if at some time in the future these mercenaries will be hired to fight some kind of battle against their former compatriots in the US Army. Could Blackwater be hired by anyone, including say, drug lords, or foreign governments? I know that the majority of their contracts are through the US military, but let's say a DEM president forbids that. . . where would they get their work?
al75 wrote on September 27, 2007 5:34 PM:We're seeing what I hope is the twilight of the privatize-everything, government-is-the-problem philosophy that Reagan rode to triumph: a direct threat to national security and the coherence of government by partisan-affiliated "contractors" who are subverting our military for monetary and political gain.
This goes on in many other domains -- but our armed services are being broken.
Here's a question: I've noticed that the special contract between Blackwater and the State Dept, which exempts BW alone from military oversight, has gone completely UNMENTIONED in the NY Times (though it ran in WaPo).
Why is this? Who set up this special relationship? Why isn't it beign discussed more widely?
Condi?
ALEX wrote on September 27, 2007 6:20 PM:We're seeing what I hope is the twilight of the privatize-everything, government-is-the-problem philosophy that Reagan rode to triumph: a direct threat to national security and the coherence of government by partisan-affiliated "contractors" who are subverting our military for monetary and political gain.
This goes on in many other domains -- but our armed services are being broken.
Here's a question: I've noticed that the special contract between Blackwater and the State Dept, which exempts BW alone from military oversight, has gone completely UNMENTIONED in the NY Times (though it ran in WaPo).
Why is this? Who set up this special relationship? Why isn't it beign discussed more widely?
Condi?
Dave wrote on September 28, 2007 4:19 PM:TheraP says: "Blackwater is subsidized by the govt. And thus they can pay more than the military."
Best. Comment. Ever.
I guess the military is funded by private charities or something.