Draft the Contractors

There are as many as 100,000 contractors in Iraq.  Here's a clip from Robert Greenwald that shows how some of our troops feel about that.

The siphoning of the national treasure from the commons to the corporate aristocracy is a reverse Robin Hood scandal that will wreak havoc for years to come.  In a death by a thousand cuts, our military is being broken -- not by its mission, not because our troops are substandard, but because our military's resources are being, frankly, legally stolen from the troops and given to war profiteers.

If we need more troops to stop the slide into chaos, then riddle me this, Batman:  Why not draft the contractors?

Getting rid of the contractors could eliminate abuses like this (from the above-linked story):

Not one of the five different US embassy sites he had worked on around the world compared to the mess he describes. Armenia, Bulgaria, Angola, Cameroon and Cambodia all had their share of dictators, violence and economic disruption, but the companies building the embassies were always fair and professional, he says. The Kuwait-based company building the $592-million Baghdad project is the exception. Brutal and inhumane, he says "I’ve never seen a project more fucked up. Every US labor law was broken."

Draft the contractors.  They actually volunteered to go to Iraq anyway and, hey, they are already there!  We'll save training and transportation costs, and the cost of maintenance will be in a free-fall as they receive the same compensation, equipment, and benefits as real soldiers.

Not to mention, the American taxpayer won't be on the hook for those outrageous CEO bonus plans.

•  Tip jar -- great idea!

  by LindaR on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 08:01:25 PM PDT

•  Wow. What a great idea.

  Deserves to be spread around - as an idea to knock people's thoughts around if not actually do.

  Thanks

  by Little on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 08:04:08 PM PDT

  •  Yes, I am trying to point out

    how the allocation of our resources is so warped.  It's causing a lot of the problems our troops are suffering from because the money isn't there to give them the support and medical care and pay they need and deserve.

    by LindaR on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 08:12:28 PM PDT

  •  It's not a good idea...

    These people are civilians. The diarist seems to be under the impression that many of them have military training. Not true.

    They have no training (including physical training), and are generally completely unprepared for the experience. They come back with the same PTSD as soldiers, but without any support or safety net at all.

    Makes no more sense to draft them than it does to draft you or me (well, at least me).

    by wandabee on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 08:22:41 PM PDT

    •  Oh, did I say I was trying to make sense?

      Ha.  This was supposed to be a darkly humorous, snarky, satiric suggestion.  I obviously need to go back to writer's school!

      by LindaR on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 08:25:47 PM PDT

      •  Sorry - I probably just need to go back

        to reader's school. It's been a long day. Actually I'm relieved to learn that I wasn't getting it (as opposed to you being serious).

        by wandabee on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 09:20:36 PM PDT

•  Let me say no ... perhaps NO!!!

  What we need is competent oversight, management, and accountability ...

  And, as you say, contractors have volunteered -- what about drafting chickenhawks (and perhaps Jenna or Barbara?)?

  by besieged by bush on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 08:05:55 PM PDT

  •  Perhaps I am confused

    but I was under the impression that the contractors have very little to no background or experience in the military. If that's true, why would suggest they pick the slack?

    Even in your links and quotes, you talk about labor.

    So, unless I am misreading, then my answer is no and what a brainless idea, at that.

    by Pager on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 08:08:09 PM PDT

    •  Good God, typo heaven

      Full sentence should be, "why would you suggest they pick up the slack?"

      by Pager on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 08:09:14 PM PDT

    •  Actually many are ex military, but

      my suggestion is in the spirit of A Modest Proposal.

      by LindaR on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 08:09:52 PM PDT

      •  Ahhh

        Okay, then I vote no. They are there to "rebuild" and yes, I think we all know how well that is going but still, maybe we could go with option B--as in leave immediately.

        by Pager on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 08:13:09 PM PDT

      •  A Modest Proposal, as in...

        Swift? In which case, who are the children that are to be eaten?

        by wandabee on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 08:15:11 PM PDT

        •  The contractors.

          Not the corporations, but the actual people doing the work.  Of course, it would be sweet to see some CEOs drafted too.

          by LindaR on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 08:17:17 PM PDT

          •  If you're serious, that is horrifying.

            These people are civilians. They are untrained for military service. It makes no more sense to draft any of them than it does to draft any of us.

            The CEO's, now those guys are the real profiteers. I say throw them to the lions, the sooner the better.

            by wandabee on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 09:18:09 PM PDT

      •  But look ...

        The cost issues that you raise are not with the contractors.

        And, there are some of the contractors who are ex-military who jumped ship to get top $ to be security guards.

        But, most of the contractors are cheaper for the taxpayer as contractors than as military personnel (benefits, otherwise).

        And, I wouldn't exactly start with a draft on them.

        But, how about drafting any executive / manager who found to have been involved in fraud on a defense program contract?

        by besieged by bush on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 08:15:52 PM PDT

•  Not One More Death, Contractor Or Not!

  by leonard145b on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 08:06:43 PM PDT

  •  I agree

    While the 100,000+ contractors (not including subs) would go a long way in helping out the troops:

    About 650 contractors have died in Iraq since 2003, according to Labor Department statistics.

    My jaw dropped when I read that.

    by Terre on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 08:32:28 PM PDT

•  Sure would save a few million$$$$$

  if we were paying Blackwater and Custer Battle mercs the going wages for US Army soldiers..... not to mention all the overhead expences we'd save...

  But you know it's a specious argument.... those guys wouldn't BE there if not paid big $$$$$$

  by xrepub on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 08:23:48 PM PDT

•  They didn't "volunteer"...

  ...they were hired.  Big difference.  But I suppose blaming the pawns has its fun for folks.

  by Jay Elias on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 08:24:54 PM PDT

  •  Depends which type of contractor

    but most of the armed western security over there wasn't "hired", they applied. This is a voluntary action.

    by Tirge Caps on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 12:26:04 AM PDT

•  Reconstruction? We should only pay them if ...

  they agree to relocate their executive offices to Fallujah.

  by Positronicus on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 08:30:55 PM PDT

•  What? Globalize the globalizers?

  Next you'll cut their medical benefits, pensions, and tax benefits, and have them take off their shoes before shopping at Wal-Mart! Let's not start down that slippery slope!

  by jfdunphy on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 10:52:53 PM PDT