Reply #13: I just have to correct an impression that you have

[MADem]

Not just you, but a lot of folks on this board. This is tough info to take, but this is how the Pentagon thinks.

The military DOES NOT WANT the SUPPORT ELEMENTS to be military. The higher your ratio of tail to tooth, the higher your operating costs. If it doesn't put ordnance on target, they do not want a military person doing it. The days of mess cooks, wrench benders, truck drivers and so forth are fading. The military focus is on WARFIGHTING. It's all warrior, all the time. You will never get rid of some military support functions, but they have been working aggressively over the past 30 years to increase the civilian presence in the support arena, while reducing the military contribution. It just is NOT cost-effective to have a SOLDIER driving a truck. They want the soldier to be carrying a weapon and engaging in warfighting. That's "bang for the buck," as it were.

You hire these support people, and yes, they cost more in salary, but you save that money in training costs, in infrastructure and instructor costs to support said training, you eliminate age and physical readiness requirements, and you avoid having to put pension money aside. Once the conflict ends, you DUMP the asset--in fact, you don't even have to worry about dumping them, the contractor does it all for you--the contractor pays the guy, manages the employment, deals with the families, all that stuff--the military just throws cash at the contractor and the contractor decides how much he can keep and how much he has to pay to con people to do the job. It is actually CHEAPER to contract. Yes, most of the money that you spend goes to SALARY, but realistically, who the fuck would go over there for what we pay a servicemember? NO ONE....unless the economy gets way, way worse. It's why, whenever these contractors can get away with it, they hire Filipinos, Koreans, Indonesians, and in Cuba, Jamaicans....they work for less.

It's all about operating costs. I am not suggesting that I like this war, that I endorse what we are doing over there, but that is the way it is. That is the way we will be prosecuting wars for the forseeable future. Calling these guys profiteers is fine, if it makes you feel better, but a soldier will NOT be the first choice to drive those trucks so long as they can hire a civilian to do it. We still have some direct combat support units that will do it, but their numbers are growing smaller and smaller as the years pass. I see a day when CIVILIANS will be going into initial operations right behind the main forces with the water buffalos and gas trucks...and that will get interesting, in a sick way.

When I entered the military, civilians were relatively rare, even in stateside assignments. Nowadays, they outnumber the military in many commands. It's just the way it is. As I said, if it doesn't put ordnance on target, it's shit.

Like it or not, that's the way they see it.