Quote:A one off payment for contractors may seem cheap, but I think there is a danger involved for an army that cannot supply and feed itself, or even perform all combat missions.
I agree to a point..... if we contract with Joe's Food Service in peacetime to deliver food to Ft Riley, that's one thing. If we expect Joe's Food Service to get a ship into Bahrain in wartime with spare parts and food and bullets, that's another thing.
FM WarB Wrote:When the modern US army has contractors driving their artillery, like 18th century armies, it wiil have gone too far. As it is, I fear for the US contractor run supply lines.
This is something I can speak to with a bit of authority, and I can say confidently that the US military's supply lines are much better managed by contractors than by the military itself. Contractors are paid for performance. Military supply organizations are among the worst uses for professional soldiers I can imagine
KBR is feeding our troops in Iraq. Contractors' performance has not been exactly stellar in Iraq. I too had disdain for Remfs during my army time, but I need confincing that those soldiers (such as they were) were more expensive than KBR contractors.
The Blackwater security boys cost alot, not only money, but goodwill of the locals.
I may be defining mercenaries a bit more broadly than the intention of the thread starter, but I think its relevant.
Yes the Blackwater experience in Iraq comes the closest I think to being "mercenaries" & has not exactly been a huge success. Granted Iraq is / was such a complicated setting I don't think its' all Blackwater's fault.
I think there's still probably a role for mercenaries in the world, but not as part of anything that the US or NATO or etc are involved in. Too much liability for not enough return.