Why Not Privatize Our Entire Military Structure?

[KittyWampus]

For sake of argument, why should any of it be state-run?

Our State Dept. can just give the orders to whatever private company gets the contracts.

I don't know what percentage of military operations are now under private managment. But why not just go all the way?

If Privatization is the answer to everything, why would the military be any different?

[Demeter]

1. Gives A New Meaning To the Phrase "Hostile Takeover"

I can see it now--Wall St. cratered by competitive bidding wars.

[Missy M]

2. Perhaps the UAE Dubai could then purchase it.

[liberal N proud]

7. That was my thought when I read the headline.

[KittyWampus]

8. That was the topic that prompted my opening post.

[MemphisTiger]

3. I hate to say that this is one of the worst hypotheticals I've

ever heard.

[lectrobyte]

4. if you make war too profitable, then they will never stop doing it.

[harlinchi]

9. Oh it wouldn't be profitable!

Cheney asserted, post-Cold War, that saving could be realized by outsourcing some of the 'non-military' functions of the Army. He, of course, selected his future company, Halliburton, to fulfill the tasks of delivering the ammo, laundry, food, mail to the 'fightin' troops, the ones puttin' rounds downrange. The thing is, a SFC could order a SGT and his PFC's to take a deuce and a half, load it and deliver its load to a location with the expectation that the mission would get done, regardless of the circumstances. If, however, I'm a private citizen, employed by a Halliburton-type company, and I received the task (can't call it a mission, can you?) and hostile fire is either expected or actually being experienced then I'm gonna catch an immediate cold. The sun's gonna be in my eyes, My dog will have eaten my license, it'll be too rainy, my mother will be calling me or something; anything will serve to excuse me from the task. Ever wonder why our troops had so many ammo, food and other logistical problems?

Also, as a private citizen, I'd need a big raise. Security costs in Iraq eat up much of the so-called reconstruction dollars. Paying private citizens to do military-related jobs ain't cheap.

[lectrobyte]

14. Oh, it's profitable, Look at Halliburton stock over the last 5 years.

Or Boeing. Sure, the mission may not be accomplished, complete agreement with you there, but as long as the contracts are paid, do you think Cheney really cares?

[harlinchi]

15. My bad. You're right!

It would not make economic sense for the contracting authority, that is, us the US but that's a whole 'nother matter. I DID see their profit for the last year!

[lectrobyte]

17. Yeah, it's great for business, but bad for the country, and probably

the world, and probably long term, even for business. After all, we used to make stuff and enjoy a strong middle class in this country, now it's all imported, and lots of ghost towns with a Wal Mart out by the 4 lane.

[rucky]

12. The only way it's profitable now is because they're wasting taxpayer money

It's the ultimate form of Corporate Welfare.

Corporations would never fight wars if they had to pay for their own armies. It's strange just to talk about it, but that's how it went down in Feudal times - which is basically what they want to return to.

[librechik]

5. taxpayers have to pay for the profit companies must have on all production

and services--in a federalized situation, there is no profit motive. Also, you can't ORDER them to do something whether they like it or not, like soldiers. I remember hearing stories of contractors who simply refused to drive certain roads to supply our troops, while the military guys had to go in there and relieve those kids.

I think the military is one place that must have has little privatization as possible--that 4 trillion missing is all for private costs, not federal, mark my word.

[KittyWampus]

6. So it's a matter or reliability and quality control.

perhaps even cost effectiveness and then accountability?

[librechik]

22. exactly--

there are certain sensitive areas of society where the profit motive shouldn't hold sway in my opinion, and national defense is one of them. How is it good for the country to have the necessity for defending the country be supplied but by private companies ONLY AT A PROFIT? It's obvious we are paying much more for what we must have for security than we would if we weren't in thrall to the profit motive. If these people "believed" in national security as they say they do, they would be willing to volunteer everything we need for our defense, not hold it hostage until they get their huge profit margin.

Also, what would a company do if they were supplying our army with some crucial wartime item, and then our enemy asked them for the same item, only offered to pay them double if they would NOT supply us. A private company would naturally cross enemy lines and supply the enemy, at a profit. Our hypothetical "army supply company" would make the item for us anyway, at no profit becasue we pool our resources as citizens through taxes, and don't have to pay the profit too.

There are millions of ways to manipulate our efficiency and capability through this sort of thing.

Another example I like is health care. Since denying healthcare to a person is cruel and inhumane, it should be a matter of the common good to make sure everyone in our US community has health care. Since supplying such care at a profit is by definition manipulative and extortive, the profit motive should be banned from most health care options, and some kind of system where we pool resources, maybe even taxes, to make sure everyone can have health care is humane and Christian, not blackmailing folks who just want their kids to not be sick into paying endlessly inflated fees.

[yurbud]

10. I think they would like that, and for civil service too

Of course if we had a real war, we might find out the Enron Marines only existed on paper.

[napi21]

11. Actually, I think that's part of Rummy's plan.

I don't have the numbers, but I know there are many thousands of non-military personnel in Iraq right now, doing jobs that always belonged to the military. That's the way he's getting around the insufficient # of available troops.

[BrotherBuzz]

16. Indeed, and it's intended to get around more than insufficient troops

“Privatizing” war is not only the logical extension of the Bush administration's mania for contracting everything out to the private sector; it also shields the White House's activities from the U.S. Congress. Many complaint about the use of private contractors is their ability to fly under the radar to avoid accountability.

[mystikwarrior]

13. Already there?

Politicians control the military. Corporations control the politicians. Therefore, the military is already under the control of corporate America.
Not to mention the various private armies already running around under contract to various US government agencies. Heck, the Army can't even guard it's own Corps of Engineers in Iraq. We pay Erinys to do that, to the tune of $50 million a year. Erinys soldiers make $400 a day in Iraq, 4 times what we pay our own guys.

[WinkyDink]

18. Can you say "Feudalism"? I thought you could!

And Dubya is our Divine Right King!

[Raydawg1234]

19. The military industrial complex is already bad as it is.

But this is already hapening. companies like Haliburton are getting contracts for functions that used to be performed by the military. But with force reductions, the military cannot handle these roles. Like water management, and we all know what happened with that.



(p.s. check out my music at http://www.myspace.com/raykeys)

[EstimatedProphet]

20. Give it time-they will

[Coexist]

21. Actually - they have already privatized some parts of it ala Halliburton

I watched a two Generals discussing this - one was arguing for "Halliburton-type" bases where soldiers should not have to clean latrines and prepare food.

The other (which I ended up agreeing with) said that it was not good strategy, soldiers had traditionally done all of that, and if the base came under attack, the cook and latrine people became another soldier to pick up a weapon and join the fight - instead of being a civilian who required protection.

These private employees not only can't JOIN the fight, but they have the capability of becoming a liability.

[Yollam]

23. Since they are essentially glorified mercenaries already...

It would at least be good if those who are benefitting from our military adventures (Halliburton, Bechtel, ExxonMobil, etc.) were forced to pay for more of the costs...

But as is always the case with privatization, you would end up getting less done, and it would cost a lot more.