Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are we really "Army Strong?"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Are we really "Army Strong?"

    Army slogans over time have changed from "Be all you can be" which was abolished for "An Army of One" and now it is "Army Strong." At the same time, jobs that were normally done by enlisted people have been outsourced to civilians and corporations like KBR. Not too many Americans get concern when a contractor get killed or maimed, so there is little political fallout to the 4 civilians who were hung from a bridge in Fallujah.

    There was a consideration to use civilians as medics with combat troops. The rational for all these moves is more troop at the tip of the spear.

    I have been to few facilities where KBR is NOT running the DFAC (Mess Hall for the rest). At those sites, we actually had Army cooks and the troops did KP on the duty rooster. What has the military done right in outsourcing and what are the faults?
    J. J. Ogershok, Jr.

  • #2
    I think allot of the outsourcing is both good and bad. It is good in having more troops in the combat role however it can end up costing the military infinately more for the support role.
    I think the Army has drastically lowered training standards that could be causing problems in the military today and "Army Strong" is not a true statement. For instance the issuing of "stress cards" in basic training makes me wonder wtf they are thinking. Basic training is supposed to help a soldier prepare for the eventuality of war you cannot pull out a stress card in combat.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by JOgershok View Post
      Army slogans over time have changed from "Be all you can be" which was abolished for "An Army of One" and now it is "Army Strong." At the same time, jobs that were normally done by enlisted people have been outsourced to civilians and corporations like KBR. Not too many Americans get concern when a contractor get killed or maimed, so there is little political fallout to the 4 civilians who were hung from a bridge in Fallujah.

      There was a consideration to use civilians as medics with combat troops. The rational for all these moves is more troop at the tip of the spear.

      I have been to few facilities where KBR is NOT running the DFAC (Mess Hall for the rest). At those sites, we actually had Army cooks and the troops did KP on the duty rooster. What has the military done right in outsourcing and what are the faults?
      They got the right idea, troops shouldn't have to do kp duty or any other menial tasks that takes them off their training. And no, there shouldn't be any civilian medics or any other civilian job where their duty requires them to be on the "frontline" although that line can get blurry (like for truck drivers in Iraq). Civilians working on base, even in war zones is fine tho imo, they have a relative measure of safety. About the PMCs, they're basically modern day mercs, they know what they're getting themselves into, a lot of them used to be ex-military/SOF guys. They're not your average civilians, though without the same level of support (like an ODA would have), they're much more at risk. Another problem is that they're not bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Which can create a lot of legal havoc with the US and in fact already has. I'm assuming these problems are currently being fixed. Still I think PMCs are very useful for our short term objectives. From what I've read, even though the government pays them many times more then the average soldier, in the long run Uncle Sam saves a lot money. i.e. no pension, benefits etc...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by AdvanXer View Post
        Another problem is that they're not bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Which can create a lot of legal havoc with the US and in fact already has. I'm assuming these problems are currently being fixed. Still I think PMCs are very useful for our short term objectives. From what I've read, even though the government pays them many times more then the average soldier, in the long run Uncle Sam saves a lot money. i.e. no pension, benefits etc...
        This was fixed last year through legislation. However, private security companies are not beneficial to the US Army on net and should not be used.
        "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

        Comment


        • #5
          Outsourcing quartermaster functions finds its roots at the beginnings of our Army, so it's really nothing new. Expeditionary capability needs to be maintained, and reliance should shifted for sustainment operations on local contractors.
          "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Shek View Post
            Outsourcing quartermaster functions finds its roots at the beginnings of our Army, so it's really nothing new. Expeditionary capability needs to be maintained, and reliance should shifted for sustainment operations on local contractors.
            What happens when the proverbial hits the fan?

            Most armies train all their recruits, and not just the combat arms, in rifle marksmanship, basic infantry skills like section attacks, fieldcraft, CBRN drills and so on, in the understanding that sometimes things go **** up and 'REMFs' (for want of a less derisive term) need to fight. Local contractors would obviously be targets, so can you say they would as survivable - or as loyal? - as a military's trained REMFs? Dangerous road to go down methinks, and I don't mean the fastfood outlets at Kandahar Airfield.
            HD Ready?

            Comment


            • #7
              ARMY - Be the Best (British Army logo).

              The British Military have be 'Contracting Out Jobs' for several years now, in order to reduce costs and also 'Free-Up' Units for deployments, i.e. The Armour Centre in Bovington and Lulworth, in Dorset, England, is the Centre of Excellence for Armoured Fighting Vehicle Training, it encompases Driving and Maintenance, Communications and Gunnery. The schools teach skills to new recruits after they have succesfully completed their 'Basic Training', they also teach the next teir up i.e. Driver/Mechanic, Gunner/ Mechanic and Control Signaller, they also train people to become Instructors', they teach people to become 'Schools Inst5ructors' (GOD), they also teach people to become 'Crew Commanders' and also Troop Leaders'. Also at the Armour Centre there is also an array of Armoured Vehicles, Transport Vehicles, Stores (Technical), Stores (Boots and Socks), Messes', Dinning Facilities, Administration; all the usual stuff you will find on a Military base. To look after all of these functions took an Armoured Regiment, plus the Three Schools were manned by Military Instructors. Back in the mid 90s' 90% of the tasks were outsourced to a 'Civilian Contractor'. This Contractor undertook ALL the Maintence of all the Armoured Vehicles, undertook 90% of the Teaching Roles at the Schools, all the catering, stores, Transport services etc. releasing an Armoured Unit back to the front or other roles. It seemed a little contraversial at the time but it works well. Bear in mind 99% of the people that work for the Contractor are ex-Tank Crews.

              Comment


              • #8
                I was airforce and an airforce contractor so as to the combat arms bit I can't really comment, I like contractors for alot of the state side stuff. These really not alot of reason to train 10 airmen to do backshop work to the component level. I was also somewhat irritated that I was getting paid less and had to answer to a sgt who cooked beans in the chow hall (do not whine at me about the condition of my uniform after having been inside of a 30+ year old airplane all night fixing things when I am picking up a meal on my way home from the flight line. I will probably go off on you and my shop cheif will laugh in your face when you whine to him about my being disrespectful.) contractors are fine for this. Contractors are also good for various maintence around base.

                I don't care for contractors in hands on areas of the airplane since it does weird things with QA and standards. I really really don't like it when contractors are in charge of an aircraft system at some locations and not at others, especially when its airmen who rarely touch that system in training and stateside who are responsible for operating it deployed this is stupid and causes tons of little problems. Its also very very very stupid to have mixed shops of contractors and enlisted personal, especially when the contractors are people who have very recently been enlisted personal in the shop. MSgt. Smith shouldn't retire this week collect his pension and be rob next week taking the pension and working next to the airmen he was supervising. There is at that point me as the airman looking at MSgt. Jones when he changes things listening to the contractor who isn't in my direct chain of command any longer but can pull strings because his contract makes him directly under the squadron commander.

                The contracts generally need to be better written ensuring that it can't be manipulated by either the service to make the contractors responsible for stuff they don't touch on the airplane. (IE electronic warfare personal for the airforce weren't responsible for outer aircraft panels and were definately not responsible for ensuring balance of control cables when installing hi band jaming systems on the A-10. We were very sure not to tie up wiring to the cables and ensure there was no chafing but we didn't do guidance and controls job and preflight for them, EW also would take off and install panels if crewcheifs were busy and or we'd be waiting around doing nothing while they removed or installed them. There wouldn't 3 airmen crewcheifs sitting around grabassing while ew personal unloaded tools and a tested installed systems however. On other contracts the reverse was true if the crew cheifs were busy fueling, changing bulbs, preflighting and so on the EW airman isn't going to wait around holdng things up untill the crew cheifs pull all the panels and gc removes the ILS indicator. I tend to be somewhat ugly about my safety wiring I simply am not good at making each twist the same size even when using safety wire pliers. I had it mentioned to me twice in two years as a contractor zero repurcussions because honestly it was fine for the job. Often times I was chewed out or written up for it by QA as an airman and on a couple of occasions I had a really stupid QA person grab hold of the wires on the back of the connectors and destroy a cannon plug which required me rewiring it. (on neither occasion did my ugly but ultimately functional saftey wire give or break). If airmen are going to get chewed out for ugly safety wire or excentric routing of cabling then contractors should to and they don't or didn't.


                Short version Contractors can work out if the contracts are well structured and everyone realizes they are working for the same goal and not being uptight asses. Contractors and squardon officers should not be flightline laywers when it comes to fine print detailing of contracts either. Neither side should allow itself to be abused by the other in little things. It is also terrible for moral to have a contractor getting paid 90K+ per year fir the same thing an airman is getting paid 20K or less. It is or can be really stupid if that contractor isn't held to the same standards in doing that same work as well.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Contracting services out reduces one huge wedge of money. Married Quarters' do not have to be provided, salaries are less for contractors', no Medical Care for Contractors', no single accommodation for contractors', no pensions etc.

                  The contract in Bovington (see #7 above) was monitored by a Military Team of 1 x Major = plus 3 x Warrant Officers' to ensure that they were meeting their 'Contractual Obligations', i.e. Training, Vehicle Maintenance etc. Where the Training was concerned on an adhoc basis the Warrant Officers used to turn up and 'Assess' the lessons that the Contractor was delivering. A monthly meeting was held and Contract Delivery was discussed, if the contractor did not meet the required standards, payment was witheld.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by HistoricalDavid View Post
                    What happens when the proverbial hits the fan?

                    Most armies train all their recruits, and not just the combat arms, in rifle marksmanship, basic infantry skills like section attacks, fieldcraft, CBRN drills and so on, in the understanding that sometimes things go **** up and 'REMFs' (for want of a less derisive term) need to fight. Local contractors would obviously be targets, so can you say they would as survivable - or as loyal? - as a military's trained REMFs? Dangerous road to go down methinks, and I don't mean the fastfood outlets at Kandahar Airfield.
                    They'd be more survivable than the third country nationals that have to ply supply routes bringing the same food to Army cooks. Also, in COIN campaigns, it's another thing to bring soldiers into contact with the local population as well as show that working with the Army provides a tangible benefit (and if the insurgents try to interdict this, they are preventing the population from earning a living). The Army only needs an expeditionary capability, which means keeping your uniformed CSS food service lean.
                    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JOgershok View Post
                      Army slogans over time have changed from "Be all you can be" which was abolished for "An Army of One" and now it is "Army Strong."
                      An interesting aside:

                      The reason the "Army of One" was rather hurridly changed to "Army Strong," is that the Army decided to dump their old ad agency. Unfortunately, the people that made the decision did not understand that the star-and-slogan logo was actually made up of two components: the star, owned by the Army, and the slogan, owned by the ad agency. When the contract expired, the Army was forced to discard tons of warehoused promotional items marked with the "Army of One" slogan.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Chaobam Armour View Post
                        Contracting services out reduces one huge wedge of money. Married Quarters' do not have to be provided, salaries are less for contractors', no Medical Care for Contractors', no single accommodation for contractors', no pensions etc.

                        The contract in Bovington (see #7 above) was monitored by a Military Team of 1 x Major = plus 3 x Warrant Officers' to ensure that they were meeting their 'Contractual Obligations', i.e. Training, Vehicle Maintenance etc. Where the Training was concerned on an adhoc basis the Warrant Officers used to turn up and 'Assess' the lessons that the Contractor was delivering. A monthly meeting was held and Contract Delivery was discussed, if the contractor did not meet the required standards, payment was witheld.
                        Salaries are not less they are just paid for out of the overall contract as is usually health and a 401K plan at least in the case of US contracts. Housing at least outside of conus and some places in europe is also part of the overall contract and is usually supplied by the military.

                        There may be some savings on some programs with contracting it out. I'm willing to believe this for alot of the backshop operations. I'm not willing to believe it for alot of the flightline support operations that take place overseas. In my experiance there are way to many by-lines built into the contracts that have large bonuses paid out to the contractor for various contingencies where they make large amounts of money off of these. I really disagree with the whole idea of things being done by a contractor in the US and having enlisted personal do it on deployment.

                        The other thing is that at least in my experiance, most of the contractors are either retired military personal and have allready gotten the pension and healthcare through that or are 1 and done former military personal who have gotten trained and are being offered rather alot of money by the contractor to fill slots near their former position in the military and the military can't match wha they'll be paid with a reenlistment bonus. Alot of capibility is also being lost as contractors fill these roles and the training programs for the enlisted personal is being shut down and as the trained personal either retire from the contractor or go on to bigger better things those contract prices will go way up because the companies training and labor costs just did as well or the military will have to rebuild those training programs at huge expense.

                        There is a time and a place for well ordered contracts. The us military hasn't really done a great job with this.
                        For base building and cooking sure. For backshop or depot level operations sure. For anything frontline no.
                        Last edited by Maxor; 19 Mar 09,, 04:48.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by AdvanXer View Post
                          Another problem is that they're not bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Which can create a lot of legal havoc with the US and in fact already has. I'm assuming these problems are currently being fixed. Still I think PMCs are very useful for our short term objectives. From what I've read, even though the government pays them many times more then the average soldier, in the long run Uncle Sam saves a lot money. i.e. no pension, benefits etc...
                          Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) says different.

                          However, the principle problem today is that US prosecutors have failed to use the laws already on the books to prosecute contractors. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is responsible for prosecuting private security contractors, civilian government employees, and US soldiers for violations of a range of federal statutes, including the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA), the Special Maritime Territorial Jurisdiction Act (SMTJ), and the War Crimes Act. But the Department has failed miserably in these areas. Its efforts are coordinated by two bodies. A task force based at the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia deals with cases of detainee abuse, including those resulting in death. The Domestic Security Section (DSS) of DOJ’s Criminal Division coordinates the prosecution of other cases involving contractors, such as unlawful shootings committed while protecting convoys. The first of these bodies recently stated that it had been referred 24 cases of alleged detainee abuse and that, of these, it had declined to exercise jurisdiction in 22. When I spoke with DSS representatives about the other set of cases, they acknowledged the lack of convictions but refused to provide even ballpark statistics on the allegations received. The lamentable bottom line is that the DOJ has achieved a conviction in only one case involving a contractor in Afghanistan or Iraq.
                          UN Special Rapporteur Issues Statement on Civilian Contractor Killings
                          J. J. Ogershok, Jr.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Contractors for all support

                            In an ideal world, I'd like a Soldier to do every job in battle and back home. But we don't have enough folks for that...so we contract it out.

                            Here's what I noticed with contractors (in combat):

                            1. Generally very reliable. Maintenance was normally quick and done right. Dare I say they did a better job than our unit's mechanics? Well, they did.

                            2. More responsible. If you think about it, Soldiers won't lose their job for poor performance. Contractors will. From my vantage point, they worked their ass off. Unlike many Soldiers.

                            3. More accessible. Getting something done or fixed in the Army is a pain...paperwork, long waits, personality conflicts, poor management, etc. I told the contractors when I needed something done and it happened. They worked late and didn't take long breaks.

                            Back home, it's a different story. I'd prefer to deal with Soldiers on-post.
                            America doesn't deserve its military

                            -Emma Sky

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Osage,

                              You make some interesting observations here.

                              Originally posted by osage18 View Post
                              1. Generally very reliable. Maintenance was normally quick and done right. Dare I say they did a better job than our unit's mechanics? Well, they did.

                              2. More responsible. If you think about it, Soldiers won't lose their job for poor performance. Contractors will. From my vantage point, they worked their ass off. Unlike many Soldiers.

                              3. More accessible. Getting something done or fixed in the Army is a pain...paperwork, long waits, personality conflicts, poor management, etc. I told the contractors when I needed something done and it happened. They worked late and didn't take long breaks.

                              Back home, it's a different story. I'd prefer to deal with Soldiers on-post.
                              During my eventful but short enlistment I noticed many changes beginning to take place. I could see that the changes in training were also leading to lax standards. I was one of the last cycles to complete basic where a drill could cuss you up one side and down another, and dare fall asleep in a class. You were going to get hit with something, just hope all the DI had was his hat, which they where by the way, deadly with. I could go on and on with what would be lawsuit material and horror stories today.

                              What doesn't kill you makes you tougher IMO.

                              My units had the best mechanics, the best cooks, all in all the best support personel I have ever seen. (of course expect nothing less from Ft Bragg) We where kick ass soldiers that would have been offended by DoD workers powdering our fannies and cleaning up or doing our job. However, just prior to my ETS I was beginning to see the changes. I had a Ranger buddy that retired about 9 years after I got out and told me that I had made the right decision to get out at the right time. He knew what my attitude was
                              and he knew that I probably would not have coped very well with what was happening. It wasn't easy for him either being an old school Ranger. Some just have higher levels on thier bullshit-o-meter that enable them to put up with more.

                              If I may ask, When did you go in and was it like what you describe then? if not, when did you notice changes?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X