Essay 3

The Detrimental Effects of Using Private Military Contractors

                On March 31, 2004, in Fallujah, Iraq, the bodies of four Americans beaten and burned, with two of the bodies being suspended off of a bridge. This incident sparked a long and bloody campaign to pacify the city of Fallujah. This response would be expected of such an act toward U.S. soldiers, but this is  not the case. Those four men were private military contractors. Along with the short term negative effects of that incident, private military contractors have brought a longer lasting impact. The use of private military contractors has negatively affected the United States diplomatically, militarily, and fiscally.

                Using private military contractors affected the United States diplomatically by  turning the  Iraqi populace against the United States. Contractors performed actions that would enrage the poplace. They would drive counter flow of traffic, and force other vehicles off of the road(Fainaru 115; Rasor and Bauman 68). There are multiple instances of contractors firing on and even killing civilians (Fainaru 139). An unnamed Iraqi security official at the Ministry of the Interior sums up what negative connotations contractors bring other Americans:

They are part of the reason for all the hatred that is directed at Americans, because people don't know them as Blackwater, they know them only as Americans. Blackwater has no respect for the Iraqi people. They consider Iraqis like animals, although I actually think they have more respect for animals. We have seen what they do in the streets. When they're not shooting, they're throwing water bottles at people and calling them names. If you are terrifying a child or elderly woman, or you are killing an innocent civilian who is riding in his car, isn't that terrorism? (Fainaru 14)

One contractor even admitted he believes the actions of his company enrages the Iraqi populace (Rasor and Bauman 127).

                Even the United States military has suffered from the use of private military contractors. Troop morale was lowered due to the differences in pay and freedoms between the two groups (Singer 187). Gary Schaub Jr., a professor at the US Air Force War College, states, " a majority of officers… are uncomfortable with [contractor's] intrusion into the profession of arms, and are cognizant of their negative effects (Schaub)." Contractors also weaken the Armed Forces by maintaining and operating high tech equipment. These actions take the expertise out of the Armed Forces hands, and makes the Armed Forces reliant upon the contractors (Hedahl).  Contractors further weaken the military by enticing soldiers away with higher pay and benefits (Quirk). Soldiers were also demoralized by contractors' lack of accountability for their actions (Eviatar). Another way the Armed Forces were weakened was through contractors underperforming. These deficiencies ranged from to delivering the wrong supplies or not delivering supplies at all (Rasor and Bauman 66-67).

                Finally, the use of contractors has greatly affected  the Department of Defense budget.

Contractors are paid on a cost-plus contract system, which rewards high costs and punishes savings (Rasor and Bauman 142). This system has led to ballooning costs. Of these costs there is even a enormous waste attached to them. David Isenberg, author of Shadow Force: Private Security Contractors in Iraq and an expert on private military contractors states, "If the $31-billion estimate is correct, that would mean that 15 percent of the total $206 billion spent on contracts to date was wasted, and $60 billion would be 29 percent. No matter how you slice it or inflation adjust it, that's real money (Isenberg)."

                Just as the Fallujah incident brought consequences to the United States, future conflicts can only bring  more effects to the table. Based on private military contractors track record,  the effects they cause will further impair the United States. Overall, the use of contractors led to an angered Iraqi populace, a weakened military, and a vastly over extended budget.

Works Cited

Eviatar, Daphne. " My Own Private Military: Private Military Contractors Turn to David Hammond When                They Get in Trouble for Their Work in Iraq. And They Get in a Lot of Trouble." American Lawyer.        29. 7 (July 2007): 17(3). Student Resource Center - Gold.Web. 31 Aug 2011.

Fainaru, Steve. Big Boy Rules: America's Mercenaries Fighting in Iraq.Philadelpia: De Cape, 2008. Print.

Hedahl, Marcus. "Blood and Blackwaters: A Call to Arms for the Profession of Arms." Journal of Military                Ethics 8.1 (2009): 19-33. Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 Sept. 2011.

Quirk, Matthew. "PRIVATE MILITARY CONTRACTORS." Atlantic Monthly (10727825) 294.2 (2004): 39.       Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 28 Oct. 2011.

Rasor, Dina and Robert Bauman. Betraying Our Troops: The Destructive Results of Privatizing War. New                York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007. Print.

Singer, P.W. Corporate Warriors: The Rise of Privatized Military Industry. London: Cornell University,      2003. Print.

Isenberg, David." War and Private Contractors: Can't Live with Them, Can't Live Without Them.”               Huffington Post ( 2  Sept. 2011). Web.6 Sept. 2011.

storage

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/19402/private_military_contractors_come_with_strings_attached.html

Essay 3 prep work

What Do I Know:
Using contractors is bad for the US diplomatically, militarily, and fiscally.
What do I need to find out:
Quotations to support them.

Thesis Statement:

The use of private military contractors creates detrimental effects on the US diplomacy, military, and economy.

Topic Sentences:
Using private military contractors caused loss of face in foreign affairs.
Using private military contractors weakened US armed forces by drawing troops away and providing poor  support.
Using private military contractors increased defense spending enormous amounts.

Final Draft Essay 2

Russell Kimmel 

Dr. Ken Kerr

EN101-16

4 Oct. 2011         

Private Military Contractors Verses a Standard Unites States Army Unit

                In the face of economic crisis in the United States, one business sector has continued to waste taxpayer dollars. In the last ten years the United States has been at war, it has spent over 206 billion dollars on private military contractors. The estimated waste on these contracts is up to sixty billion dollars (Isenberg). In two specific cases, Kellog, Brown, and Root leased vehicles for five times the average price and lost two million dollars worth of supplies a week at the Theater Distribution Mission (Rasor and Bauman 17).  This money is being wasted when a standard United States Army unit could fulfill the same job more effectively. Standard Army units surpass private military contractors in accountability, equipment, and standards.

                First, private military contractors lack accountabilityfor their actions. The United States government generally has no idea what contractors are doing on a daily basis (Hammes). Even if officials know contractors are underperforming, it is extremely difficult to replace contractors due to convoluted contracting procedure (Rasor and Bauman 35). Meanwhile, in the realm of justice, contractors can go unpunished for even the most egregious crimes, such as the shooting of two Iraqi police officers (Fainaru 65).  This absence of consequences was due to contractors being unable to be charged under Iraqi law until 2010 (Lam).

                Furthermore, private military contractors lack proper equipment and vehicles. Contractors buy whatever equipment they can afford, whether it be top of the line or out of a trash heap (Rasor and Bauman 142).As a result, contractors use subpar vehicles to fulfill contracts. In one case, their contract paid for armored cars, but the contractors used soft skinned vehicles to make more profit ("Private"). In other instances, broken vehicles were purchased without so much as an inspection (Rasor and Bauman 16).

                Lastly, private military contractor's poor recruiting standards and unequal levels of trainingpropagate substandard performance. Companies such as Blackwater USA hire soldiers from countries with questionable human rights records (Scahill xxiii). Kellog, Brown, and Root hired foreign drivers, some of which had never driven large trucks before, to drive convoys in and out of Iraq (Rasor and Bauman 66). In regards to unequal training, contractors can have anywhere from Special Forces level training to no combat experience whatsoever (Singer 84:Fainaru 49). Geoff Clark, security manager for shipping contractor Agility, says in a comment about the training and conduct of  warehouse guards in Umm Qasr that, " you've got some who are very professional, and others I wouldn't let protect a cup of piss" (qtd. in Fainaru 142).

                Whereas private military contractors lack accountability, United States Army units have a strict accountability structure, both in oversight and in a justice system. Soldiers report up the chain of command, with the officer above them directly responsible for their actions (Holbrook). This structure leads towards efficiency and high performance. In addition, Soldiers are accountable to their own dedicated justice system, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Eviatar). If soldiers commit a crime, they are charged and punished within the system (UMCJ). This accountability lends the Army credibility and responsibility.

                In contrast to contractors poor equipment, Army units have standardized equipment and vehicles. According to the official U.S. Army Fact Files, every piece of equipment must meet a minimum standard of quality. Soldiers can have confidence that their gear will perform to their expectations (U.S. Army). Soldiers also do not need to worry about having the right vehicle for the job, as they can be assigned anything from an armored Humvee to an Abrams main battle tank (Goarmy.com).

                Whereas contractors have haphazard recruiting, the United States army has very controlled recruiting and training standards. The Army will not take just anyone to be a soldier; the applicant must meet certain criteria such as physical fitness or intelligence (Powers). A recruit that falsifies his information to join can even be charged with a crime (UMCJ). As for training, all soldiers receive copious amounts of training before they are even given a specific job. Every soldier goes to Basic Combat Training, which lasts ten weeks, and then continues on to any number of Advanced Individual Training schools, where he will learn to fulfill his specific role in the Army (Goarmy.com). Furthermore soldiers can go onto even more training in their field courtesy of the Army (Goarmy.com).

                With such a poor economic situation in the United States, the government cannot afford to waste money on contractors. When contractors are paid to do a job, and the job could be done better by a unit already in the defense budget, money is being thrown away. The government should stop hiring subpar contractors when the United States Army can complete the same task with more accountability, better equipment, and superior training.

rough draft

Russell Kimmel 

Dr. Ken Kerr

EN101-16

DATE    

Private Military Contractors Verses a Standard Unites States Army Unit

                In the face of economic crisis in the United States, one business sector has continued to waste taxpayer dollars. In the last ten years the United States has been at war, it has spent over 206 billion dollars on private military contractors. The estimated waste on these contracts is up to sixty billion dollars (Isenberg). This money is being wasted when a standard United States Army unit  could fulfill the same job more effectively. Standard Army units surpass private military contractors in accountability, equipment, and standards.

                To begin, private military contractors lack accountability for their actions. The United States government generally has no idea what contractors are doing on a daily basis (Hammes). Even if officials know contractors are underperforming, it is extremely difficult to replace contractors due to convoluted contracting procedure (Rasor and Bauman 35). In the realm of justice, contractors can go unpunished for even the most egregious crimes, such as the shooting of two Iraqi police officers (Fainaru 65).  This lack of consequences was due to contractors being unable to be charged under Iraqi law until 2010 (Lam).

                Private military contractors lack proper equipment and vehicles. Contractors buy whatever equipment they can afford, whether it be top of the line or out of a trash heap (Rasor and Bauman 142). Contractors use subpar vehicles to fulfill contracts. In one case, their contract paid for armored cars, but the contractors used soft skinned vehicles to make more profit (Private Military Contractors in Iraq). In other instances broken vehicles were purchased without so much as an inspection (Rasor and Bauman 16).

                Private military contractor's poor recruiting standards and unequal levels of training propagates substandard performance. Companies such as Blackwater USA hire soldiers from countries with questionable human rights records (Scahill xxiii). Kalliburton Brown and Root hired foreign drivers ,some of which had never driven large trucks before, to drive convoys in and out of Iraq (Rasor and Bauman 66). In regards to unequal training, contractors can have anywhere from special forces level training to no combat experience whatsoever(Singer 84: Fainaru 49). Geoff Clark, security manager for shipping contractor Agility, says in a comment about the training and manner of  warehouse guards in Umm Qasr that, " you've got some who are very professional, and others I wouldn't let protect a cup of piss" (qtd. in Fainaru 142).

                While private military contractors lack accountability and quality, the United States Army excels in the areas of accountability, equipment, and standards.

                United States Army units have a strict accountability structure, both in oversight and in a justice system. Soldiers report up the chain of command, with the officer above them directly responsible for their actions ( Holbrook). This structure leads towards efficiency and high performance. Soldiers are accountable to their own dedicated justice system, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Eviatar). If soldiers commit a crime, they are charged and punished within the system (UMCJ). This accountability gives the Army credibility and responsibility.

                Army units have standardized equipment and vehicles. According to the official U.S. Army Fact Files, every piece of equipment must meet a minimum standard of quality. Soldiers can have confidence that their gear will perform to their expectations (Fact Files). Soldiers also do not need to worry about having the right vehicle for the job, as they can be assigned anything from an armored Humvee to an Abrams main battle tank (Army Careers & Jobs).

                The United States army has very controlled recruiting and training standards. The Army will not take just anyone to be a soldier; the applicant must meet certain criteria such as physical fitness or intelligence (Powers). A recruit that falsifies his information to join can even be charged with a crime (UMCJ). As for training, all soldiers receive copious amounts of training before they are even given a specific job. Every soldier goes to Basic Combat Training, which lasts ten weeks, then continue on to any number of Advanced Individual Training, where he will learn his specific role in the Army (Goarmy.com:Soldier life). Furthermore soldiers can go onto even more training in their field courtesy of the Army(Army.com:Benefits).

                With such poor a economic situation in the United States, the government cannot afford to waste money on contractors. When contractors are paid to do a job, and the job could be done better by a unit already in the defense budget, money is being thrown away. The government should stop hiring subpar contractors when the United States Army can complete the same task, with more accountability, better equipment, and superior training.

Thesis, development plan, and topic sentences.

THESIS: Standard Army units surpass private military contractors in accountability, equipment, and standards.


1.PMCs lack accountability in their performance and actions.
2.PMCs lack standardized equipment and proper vehicles.
3.PMCs have poor standards of recruitment and varied levels of training.
4.The Army has a strict command structure that provides oversight and accountability.
5.The Army has standard issue equipment and vehicles.
6.The Army carefully vets its recruits and all soldier have at least a basic level of training.