U.S. Cannot Manage Contractors In Wars, Officials Testify on Hill

[flashl]

Source: Washington Post

Problem Is Linked to Lack of Trained Service Personnel

With even more U.S. contractors now in Iraq and Afghanistan than U.S. military personnel, government officials told Congress yesterday that the Bush administration is not prepared to manage the contractors' critical involvement in the American war effort.

At the end of last September, there were "over 196,000 contractor personnel working for the Defense Department in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Jack Bell, deputy undersecretary of defense for logistics and materiel readiness.

Contractors "have become part of our total force, a concept that DoD must manage on an integrated basis with our military forces," he also said in prepared testimony for a hearing yesterday of the Senate homeland security subcommittee. "Frankly," he continued, "we were not adequately prepared to address" what he termed "this unprecedented scale of our dependence on contractors."

Stuart W. Bowen Jr., special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, and William M. Solis, director of defense capabilities and management for the Government Accountability Office, testified that not enough trained service personnel are available to handle outsourcing to contractors in the wars.

Washington Post

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012403384.html

---

We are 'expecting' a DoD that loses a trillion dollars to manage contracts? The DoD is primarily contractors managing contractors.

[anamandujano]

1. If one country is destroying another, then that country

should not be eligible to "repair" the damage. It just seems like the ultimate conflict of interest.

[flashl]

2. B/4 going into Iraq, the international community warned the U.S. ...

if you break it, you fix it.

[indepat]

3. Sheesh, who woulda thunk it?

[gratuitous]

4. Isn't this nice?

I remember the free and fair debate we had on this subject. We spend half a trillion dollars a year on defense, but we still don't have enough personnel and equipment to manage two little bullshit occupations. So naturally we have to turn to mercenaries to fill out our fighting forces. But "mercenary" is such an ugly term, with so many connotations; better to call them "contractors." Okay, so maybe there was a weensy bit of obfuscation.

Anyway, the whole idea of hiring private firms to handle our nation's defense chores was openly debated on the floor of both the House and the Senate, with both sides given an equal chance to thrash out this issue. And in the end, everyone decided that we should hire contractors, not be able to oversee them, and give them such nebulous duties and responsibilities that it became little more than a pass-through from the Treasury to some overstuffed pockets, which would in turn make campaign contributions to the legislators who were filling their wallets so generously.

You know, I'm almost sure I would have voted against that, and would expect my elected representatives to vote against that. But here we are, and there's apparently nothing to be done about the situation except to keep shoveling the money to the mercenaries. Sorry, "contractors."

[flashl]

6. And, then 'we' are not responsible for mercenaries er contractors

actions.

[gratuitous]

8. Well, we certainly hope not

But if some ignorant islamofascist on the other side of the world isn't quite capable of understanding the finer points of the Bush administration's foreign policy as it destroys his town or city, kills his family and neighbors, and impoverishes his society, it's pretty clear that he will hate us for our freedom should he ever decide he's had enough.

[sutz12]

5. Privatizing = Privateering nt

[jaybeat]

7. And who thought privatizing our military would be just ducky?

I suppose this would be another case of going to war with the Department of Defense you have as opposed to the one you'd like to have...


:puke: