I think you’re right.

Re, all conctractors (especially ones for developmet), one problem in enforcing accountabiliry is the sub-contracting phase. From what I saw of Congressional hearings, that’s where the accountability breaks down. It’s such a maze, that’s it’s eeen hard to track down the owners and the nation of origin of some of these firms.

Congress has been remiss in addressing the problems with pertinent laws. The other impression I gelaned from the hearings was that the issues are so complex that many of our lawmakers are not fully grasping them.

Re BW, the proposal that they should be integrated into the military in some way has merit, IMO. Certainly, there should be better co-ordination than there is now.

I don’t understand. The taxpayer pays for contracting, under any circumstances. The difference is only in how the money is channeled.

The difference is the contractors are filling roles that government is not. If one wants government to fill those roles, then the resources an legislation must be accomplished to make that happen. This will likely cost more in the long-run because the government will maintain these capabilities regardless if it currently needs them or not. With contractors, one can hire the capability only for as long as it is needed.

But even so, there is a limit to what contractors can do since they are not official agents of the US government. The legal black-hole they are in is but one example.

2. Entropy- “If you don’t want contractors performing these functions, then the US taxpayer must make the resources available for government
to do it”

I don’t understand. The taxpayer pays for contracting, under any circumstances. The difference is only in how the money is channeled.

3. In some ways, at some times, contracting can be more efficient, I think. It’s more a question of applying strict standards and oversight.
It looks, sometimes, as if contractors are used precisely because they will not worry about the letter of military or State Dept regulations, and that’s the problem. They seem to get implicit, if not explicit, leeway for questionable actions

he taxpayer pays for contracting now.
It isn’t a question (necessarily) of a greater tax burden if contractors were’t used, the money would simply channeled differently.

As reported here yesterday, Iraq has withdrawn the license of the controversial security firm

Memo to the Iraqi government. You have to issue a license before you can withdraw it.

As to the firms being immunized from prosecution in Iraqi courts by US law, how does that work again?

It could be we’ve found an issue the Iraqi Parliament can all agree upon.

There are more than 180,000 private contractors, including mercenaries, in Iraq. Astoundingly, this is more than the number of U.S. troops and a consequence of the Bush administration’s drive to outsource government work, even war work.

The ratio grows even more when you consider that a minority of US troops in Iraq are actually combat troops. Most are, like the contractors, support. So what you have is perhaps 60-70k fighters and perhaps 4 times that in terms of support.

Of course, one should also note that the contractors are not there solely to support the military. In fact, the lack of capability among our other functions of government has necessitated a lot of the move to contracting in this war. If one wants to solve the contracting problem, one needs to define, mandate and resource those missions among State, Treasury, etc. In the course of nation-building, for example, State has few assets to protect its own sources, much less those of the weak and corrupt government we’re trying to support. So State must turn to contractors like Blackwater. It’s the same with many other non-military functions of our government. In fact, I would suggest a significant percentage, if not a majority, of such contractors support others besides the US military.

A great article on these issues (and more) was written by Gen. Chiarelli was just published in Military Review.

In short, the contracting problem goes way beyond the military and extends to the US government as a whole. If you don’t want contractors performing these functions, then the US taxpayer must make the resources available for government to do it.

For those contractors that support wholly military operations, certainly Bush as expanded their use during his term, but one might suggest that the process began under Clinton and a GOP congress as part of the post-cold war draw-down. At the same time as overall forces were being reduced, the mission set increased with a large, permanent presence in the Gulf, missions to the Balkans (twice), Somalia, etc. Even the darling of the left, Gen. Shinseki, was one of the biggest proponents of such “transformation” and modularization of the Army and contracting away many ancillary functions.

Personally, there is a happy medium here. “Contracting” has always been a part of warfare and it will always be so.

The military seems to have very small leverage over these PSD firms, and we saw with the fiasco of the US Government trying to investigate, charge, and prosecute a very questionable firm by the name of CusterBattles went. So it is a shell game of where the legal oversight is for these firms – it ain’t from: the military, contracts with either the US Government or one of its creatures (CPA), and the local nation. Who is accountable for them?

There are fine people working for these firms, but one also must remember that these firms are there to make money first and foremost. They can raise and wave the flag all they want, but it is all about the money. At times these PSD teams may protect their VIP very well, but at the expense of local opinion that feel PSD firms are too aggressive in their duties and cause harm to others. So again, who is accountable for their behavior in Iraq?