While there's more than a little truth to the points in the article, I have to attempt some clarification -- the reasons for contracts and contractors has less to do with "they're easier" and much more to do with the military enjoying fewer and fewer manpower and acquisition resources to get an ever-increasing number of missions done. We don't have the organic resources any longer but we haven't been relieved of the taskings -- so we contract out what we can no longer do. If there's any conspiracy, it's the continuous driving down of military end strength that forces us to pay civilian organizations to perform traditional military jobs, ostensibly freeing up soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to focus on war-fighting. The question should be, "Is it working?"
I liked the suggestion at the end of the article requiring the departing GO/FO to be help personally responsible for each and every contract initiated or renewed under his/her tenure. That's much better and hiring more GOs/FOs.
To me at least, whether it's more generals or more Congressional committees or watchdog groups or private contractors [budump-bump] is all sort of "six of one, half-dozen of another." GAO? Finance Corps? Congressional appointees? Independent auditers? All-the-above? Maybe retention practices of career Military with MBA's and the like need to be scrutinized? Are the best "business minds" too easily lured away from Military careers? It would seem in the interests of all the branches of our Military to have career personnel highly vested in protecting the Military from corrupt business practices.
Maj Kimballs' suggestion that Flag Rank Officers be held accountable for fiscal matters within their respective commands is a no-brainer. Flag Rank Officers and Senior Officers should all be held accountable for how well they manage all assets...Manpower, Material, and most importantly Financial Expenditures. Promotions and Advanced Assignments should be predicated solely on how well or how poorly they managed said assets, not politics or professional relationships. Sadly, the problem is not just a Defense Department issue...It transcends all Government Agencies and Departments. Nobody in Government seems to be held accountable for the fraud, waste, and abuse of taxpayer's hard earned dollars and trust. Thank You Maj Kimball for your timely comments and recommendations!
We don't have the organic resources any longer but we haven't been relieved of the taskings -- so we contract out what we can no longer do.
True, although part of this again falls back to senior uniformed and civilian leaders choosing the easier route of relying on contractors rather than making a strong case for maintaining the necessary force structure. See, for instance, GAO Report 03-695, which details how contractors were used in the Balkans to bypass Congressionally and DoD mandated force caps.
Again, it goes back to accountability - no senior leader is held accountable for their decisions in this area.
On the plus side, we can see a little light at the end of the accountability tunnel...SECDEF Gates' recent firing if the Air Force CofS and Secretary is a good sign.
The rule is simple: When any general officer leaves his/her position, they must undergo a mandatory audit of every single contract approved under their command. No longer do they get to hide behind the staff officers who cracked the whip and "got the general what he wanted." Now they have to be accountable for every cost plus, every no-bid, every sweetheart deal that got cooked up during their tenure. "I did it for the troops" will no longer be a good enough answer - that leader will have to stand behind their decisions. Field commanders already have UCMJ authority over their contractors - all this would do is firmly entwine the principles of fiscal and command responsibility. That shouldn't be too much to ask.
The entire acquisition system is rotten to the core. IMO, the best alternative is to exterpate the whole shebang, and set up a system similar to the one the British use. And, if youi're going to use "contractors" (personally, mercenary is the correct term) they have to be held accountable to the same rules/regulations our servicemen/women are held to (or at least were prior to this administration).
Could you talk a little more about how the Brit system is set up? I've never really heard much about it.
Ref "mercenary" vs. "contractor" - I must disagree. Per the OED, a mercenary is someone specifically hired to fight. Of the estimated 170K contractors in Iraq, only about 25-30K are private security types.
It is obvious that active duty officers don't have the experience to be auditors and managers of civilian projects. I suggest going to the Reserve Forces, especially retirees, to get the talent and experience. The data on their civilian experience exist. Promote those called up or who volunteer to a temporary rank sufficiently high to get the job done. We did this in WWII very effectively. The whole nation-building effort in Iraq and Afghanistan should have been run by these folks from the start. Give them the mission and the assets and let them go. The active component is trained to fight and win wars. The "civilian" Reservists can and will build nations.
