Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Legislation Introduced to Remove Private Military Contractors From Wars

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ensho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:26 AM
Original message
Legislation Introduced to Remove Private Military Contractors From Wars

http://www.progressinaction.com/afghanistan/legislation... /


The use of private contractors has surged under the Obama administration. Private military contractors now account for between 22% and 30% of the total U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Military contractors are often paid 4 to 5 times what the U.S. pays its own military, which dramatically increases the cost of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Removing military contractors from the wars would save needed monetary resources. The changes would also shift responsibility for the wars back to the military and ensure greater oversight over military operations.

U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson will introduce legislation that would de-fund private contractors who engage in illegal or unethical behavior like Blackwater. Contractors are already barred by DOD regulations from taking part in offensive operations, but regularly take part in offensive operations despite the ban. Contractors like Blackwater have been involved in several bloody acts of violence against civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. The use of private contractors has tarnished the image of the U.S. abroad and put our security goals in Iraq and Afghanistan at risk.

Also introduced by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and U.S. Representatives Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) was the Stop Outsourcing Security Act. The legislation would take inherently governmental functions away from private contractors and put them back into the hands of the military. It is believed by the lawmakers that carrying weapons on behalf of the U.S. government should be restricted to the U.S. military.
------------------


GOOD!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ensho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
1. I thought DUers would be happy about this news


I sure am.

do you think it will pass?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I don't think it has a chance in hell of passing
to take the contractors out means to re-instate the draft and the American public won't tolerate that; else it would have been done already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
That Is Quite Enough Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Good point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. No, it doesn't mean re-instating the draft. What it means is
DON'T GET INTO ANY FUCKING UNJUSTIFIED WARS.

If we are attacked by a foreign enemy, people WILL enlist. We go in, fight the war, and get out.

None of this 'forever war' crap.

We had PLENTY of enlistments and plenty of manpower to deal with Afghanistan - you know, the place the 9/11 attacks originated from. When we chose to go to war against a country that has NEVER attacked us, THAT is where we needed the mercenaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I agree with you. I just don't think it will happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heywood J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. How many troops are in Europe, Japan, and S. Korea?
How many posted to various bases at home? Compare that to the number of contractors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emsimon33 Donating Member (904 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
3. It's about time
If passed, this bill would curtail America's aggressive stance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Didnt in Vietnam. Used very few contractors
President Johnson just drafted the hundreds of thousands of men that he need to fight his war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
5. All those trained assassins in our midst...
spell nothing but trouble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
8. Armed or unarmed? Well-muddied to pander, there.
Because Bernie's conflating two issues.

If we're concerned with armed private contractors, that's one thing. Blackwater, for instance. But the armed ones do NOT represent 22-30% of U.S. Forces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
invictus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
10. Good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul 12th 2014, 05:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC