One big similarity between Afghanistan and Iraq is the number of former military jobs and roles that have been contracted out. There is so much money and corporate reliance on us being at war, it would be hard not to become a Fox Mulder conspiracy theorist about whose interests we're serving over here. The base I am currently at is 60% contractor. Every day I write down a new contract company to look up and see what their deal is.
Here's a list:
> Fluor
> Exelis
> Triple Canopy
> MPRI
> AC First Defense
> Ecolog International
Fluor is the most prominent here. They run our billeting and dining facilities (DFAC). The really interesting thing is comparing the quality of work and the wage from when it was military run to now. First, the quality isn't that much different... however, when it was military run, you could do something about it. There was a chain of command and someone to talk to about any issues you have. Now, there are comment cards that are reviewed and taken into account about as much as any other company's comment cards. Next is the wage. Here's a list of wages for the military (made public as they are tax paid). This is just the wage. To see the total amount you can enter any rank into this calculator to get an estimate of what a service member would be making once the combat pay and housing allowance type benefits are added in. For a typical Army Specialist with 4 years of service deployed to Afghanistan to serve food in the DFAC the annual income would be around $36,000. The least we've been told a contractor over here makes is $80,000. Some troops in my unit met one contractor the other day who makes $700 a day - $235,000 a year. There isn't a single military pay grade that makes that much. This is for U.S. citizen contractors. For all I know, those from 3rd world nations are making much much less.
This probably isn't news to everyone, but it bothers me on two levels.
One - These jobs are paid for by our tax dollars. Sure it's an international effort, but since when has the U.S. had an equal share rather than the heavier burden? This is *not* cost saving or the most fiscally responsible method to conduct war or to develop infrastructure. I believe contracting is effective when used on small-scale operations or short-term conflicts because it avoids keeping someone on the books for 20 years and then paying for their retirement and health care. But when a war goes for more than a decade, those savings turn into a vacuum of billions upon billions of dollars. The math doesn't add up, not to mention the paperwork and redundant hoops we have to jump through that are only in place to create a metrix of data to support the contracts we've signed with these companies. We have to check in with our lodging office every month so they know we're still here. Our vehicles have to be re-dispatched every other week.
Two - With the economy and job rate in the U.S. currently circling the toilet bowl, why oh why are we paying to replace American Military jobs with companies who predominantly hire people from Albania, Congo, or any other U-Pick-a-Stan? I'd really like to find out whose cousin's brother's daughter's husband is in a our government contracting office and approves these deals. I wouldn't be surprised if they're all subsidiaries of the same top CEO. Perhaps Enron trying to recover lost ground? Ultimately it's not a Right vs. Left issue since it's been going on throughout multiple administrations. It's a money issue. And unfortunately we're the ones drawing the short straw *and* getting stuck with the bill.
One last note... if you've been reading the news and hearing about a draw down...
Bottom line - I know we have fully capable and willing Soldiers, Airmen, Marines, and Seamen to do the jobs over here, and do them well.
Here's a list:
> Fluor
> Exelis
> Triple Canopy
> MPRI
> AC First Defense
> Ecolog International
This probably isn't news to everyone, but it bothers me on two levels.
One - These jobs are paid for by our tax dollars. Sure it's an international effort, but since when has the U.S. had an equal share rather than the heavier burden? This is *not* cost saving or the most fiscally responsible method to conduct war or to develop infrastructure. I believe contracting is effective when used on small-scale operations or short-term conflicts because it avoids keeping someone on the books for 20 years and then paying for their retirement and health care. But when a war goes for more than a decade, those savings turn into a vacuum of billions upon billions of dollars. The math doesn't add up, not to mention the paperwork and redundant hoops we have to jump through that are only in place to create a metrix of data to support the contracts we've signed with these companies. We have to check in with our lodging office every month so they know we're still here. Our vehicles have to be re-dispatched every other week.
Two - With the economy and job rate in the U.S. currently circling the toilet bowl, why oh why are we paying to replace American Military jobs with companies who predominantly hire people from Albania, Congo, or any other U-Pick-a-Stan? I'd really like to find out whose cousin's brother's daughter's husband is in a our government contracting office and approves these deals. I wouldn't be surprised if they're all subsidiaries of the same top CEO. Perhaps Enron trying to recover lost ground? Ultimately it's not a Right vs. Left issue since it's been going on throughout multiple administrations. It's a money issue. And unfortunately we're the ones drawing the short straw *and* getting stuck with the bill.
One last note... if you've been reading the news and hearing about a draw down...
'Tide has turned' in Taliban zone amid U.S. troop drawdown
consider this conspiracy theory - sure we're pulling U.S. troops out, but the contractors we're paying for are flocking in by the "Benjamin Franklins." It's all about delivering a message effectively. No one is lying when they say we're reducing the number of U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan.Bottom line - I know we have fully capable and willing Soldiers, Airmen, Marines, and Seamen to do the jobs over here, and do them well.
I think Eisenhower warned us of this situation back in the day. Looks like his predictions and warnings have fallen on deaf ears.
ReplyDeleteThis is spot on, Kevin. Your blog has really good information that more people at home should be made aware of. Good reporting and testimony. Keep the posts coming! We miss you. Sarah
ReplyDeleteIm right there with you on this one. Let me throw in my theory on the whole situation. I have two points.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the "justification" for such high wages is the danger factor. That factor usually doubles the wage that the same job would pay in the states. A Soldier receives an extra $250 per month for hazardous duty. Last time I checked they weren't contracting out patrols, route clearance, etc.
Second, consider the quality of labor you are recieving. I am going to say that if your are making around 70k a year stateside you are most likely in a carreer, have a good job and wouldnt even consider being a contractor. The people in that demographic are also usually your more educated individuals. A vast majority of the individuals over here are no career having individuals making lower wages. Typically there is a reason for that. There are alway exceptions of course and this is not always the case. I would however enjoy the contractors that we interact with having the ability to at least understand english. When the phrase, "I'm here to pick up my laundry" confuses every individual in the laundry facility, we might have a problem.
That being said, great write up!
My brother, former military, works for a contractor in Colorado and he is CONSTANTLY complaining about the amount of $$ wasted by the company on ridiculous things, as well as how lazy some of his coworkers are. What you said is spot on. I hope the general public wakes up to this at some point and rallies against it. It's really sucha waste. :-(
ReplyDelete- Kristen Sheley