Outsourcing Military Tasks
There has been much scrutiny in the press recently about the U.S. outsourcing military missions to private companies like Blackwater. P.W. Singer pointed out many problems with this trend in yesterday’s Washington Post. The most important from my point of view is the weak link between the American people and warmaking:
Since the end of the Vietnam War, the United States has sought to ensure that there’s a link between the public and the costs of war, so that good decisions will be made and an ethos of responsibility fostered. With about half our operation in Iraq in private hands, that link has been jeopardized.
Perhaps we live in a new world that I do not understand, but it seems to me that the past several hundred years of Western history have shown that a people at war can create a far more powerful political and military force than anything a cabinet can muster on its own. If the war in Iraq is so important, this country’s citizens should be more directly involved, for they are the real basis of American power. But they are also a brake on the reckless use of military force. They will only mobilize for compelling reasons. One of President Bush’s mistakes was to go to war with only enough public support to begin it. There is no such thing as war on the cheap. Private contractors are expensive in mere dollars, but they have helped the administration to avoid seeking a more solid domestic political foundation for the war—or accepting the consequences if it is unable to do so.
Framing his piece as an open memorandum to the secretaries of defense and state, Singer devotes most of his attention to how counterproductive private military forces are on the ground. This line of thought is more likely to gain an audience than the more immediate focus in the media on the accountability of men working for outfits like Blackwater. Yes, Congress needs to implement a legal framework for these men who stand outside both Iraqi law and the United States’ own Uniform Code of Military Justice, but a strong concern for the rule of law and human rights has not been this administrations’ strong suit.
We also need to hear more about the organizational culture of Blackwater. Since it hires men with prior military experience, this requirement includes learning more about the military cultures whence they came, especially since Blackwater hires people of diverse national backgrounds, including people with experience in outfits with less than stellar human rights records. The question of military culture brings me back to the initial point about the weak link between the American people and the violence being done in its name in Iraq. The U.S. Army and Marines have their own organizational cultures, but these include a strong link to values in American civilian society. Can we say the same thing about our hired guns?
Of course, the abuses at Abu Ghraib show that our own military culture has some problems, though I suspect that the atrocities committed there had much to do with the inexperience of National Guard troops, a different culture in the CIA, the use of civilian defense contractors, and some troubling signals being sent from the highest levels of our civilian government, not to mention unclear lines of command and accountability.
One thing I have noticed from day one of the war in Iraq has been the fact that both the government and the news media have treated it as a strictly spectator event for Americans.
The general public is not being asked to sacrifice anything. This concentrates the sacrifice in the hands of the families of our military almost exclusively. I think that is why a figure like Cindy Sheehan could attract such attention.
I think the use of contractors, not personnel oriented contractors like Blackwater, but also the outsourcing of laundry and mess hall services contribute to the disconnect between ordinary citizens and the war. During World War Two, people at home bonded over common sacrifices they made for the common good. I don’t even see people making much of an effort to take care of the families of our troops that are still here.
I’m not sure what kind of sacrifice could be asked of citizens now days that wouldn’t have negative ramifications on the nation’s economy. It’s not like growing a garden will put more or better food on the plates of our military. There are grassroots efforts that private citizens have undertaken to help out. Books for Soldiers (http://www.booksforsoldiers.com) comes to mind, but for every place like that where individuals can donate books, you get something like BooksAMillion.com’s clone (http://tinyurl.com/3xdkr2) where you can PURCHASE books and they will send them to Iraq for you.
The reaction to both 9/11 and the tsunami both freaked me out a little bit in the way people would go to a website, like the Red Cross page, and donate a few dollars and that was it. One of my best friend’s took 6 weeks off work to go down and help the Red Cross after Katrina. THAT is engagement. I know not everyone can do something like that, but we can certainly help support the people who do. We outsource our emotional investment in lots of things now, not just the war.
What isn’t outsourced anymore? The rebuilding of Iraq, the support system for the soldiers, and the security for diplomats. When people are doing things as a business they have a different attitude and a different goal than what an arm of the government would be doing.
I find the whole disconnect between the public and the war fascinating. It just seems so odd to me that when the war is brought up to them specifically people will speak out against it but unless it is thrown in their face they just don’t care.
No matter how many pictures or shown or how many stories are told people just seem not to care. Can you think of any other time in society where people just didn’t car if their nation was at war?
Kevin: What fascinates me is that logic would seem to indicate that MORE information about the war would result in more engagement. That logic is obviously wrong when applied to the USA right now.
When people had to wait days or weeks for good information about what was happening to their troops overseas, I suspect people hung on every bit of information they could glean. Now we seem to have gone too far the other way. We get so bombarded with information that the general public grows inured by it.
I don’t think that its an accident. If most news people saw was important and could be connected to something meaningful in their lives we would not see the apathy that is so rampant today.
The interesting thing not just the lack of involvement, but that the Bush administration did not even seek the involvement of the general public in the war. Everyone has been encouraged to continue with the consumerist lifestyle that existed in peacetime. During the other major wars in which the U.S. took part, even those who were not involved in the military were being expected to contribute to the larger society– even much of the anti-war movement during the Vietnam era perceived itself as a patriotic movement.
But with Iraq, the causae belli were disingenuous and so even from the beginning there were a sizable number of people who believed that our invasion was based on a lie, or who saw the invasion as a deliberate attempt to subvert the desire of both the UN Security Council and the US Senate to allow for UN arms inspectors to do their job.
The point was that public engagement requires that some trust exist between the public and the leadership and the administration never sought that trust in the first place– which may explain why it has called on mercenaries and not for public sacrifice.
I believe the reason why the government hasn’t tried to include the American people in the Iraq war to a certain degree is because there are many hidden reasons behind them going inside in the first place, because all the reasons that they gave us..nuclear weapons, hipocracy, dictatorship etc. were all unreasonable or simply not true. When a government isn’t honest, it won’t try to involve more, it will do the opposite. And i dont believe that our government was or still is honest with its people.
Doing a completely unrelated search, I stumbled on this post and would like to throw my horribly late two cents in.
One of the major reasons for the growth of private military organizations like Blackwater stems from the degradation of the Unites States Military and its personnel. Pay rates and ‘fringe benefits’ (housing, medical, etc) for military personnel have always been substandard. Citizens give much lip service about respecting soldiers, but the VA has always been underfunded and overextended. Congress routinely plays games with military funding. Private companies provide security for most military post’s gates because the military can’t staff the positions because you can’t raise a family on a private’s salary and Congress won’t raise the base pay. Congress will however pay to hire a private firm to provide Rent A Cops to check id’s at the gates.
The end result is a military that is too small to do what it is asked to do. This isn’t a new problem in US history. The reason the British were able to burn D.C. in the War of 1812 was the Army and Navy were reduced to an insignificant size in the preceding decade. The US got its ass handed to it in the opening days of the Korean War because when Truman and Congress ‘cut the fat’ after WWII, they cut through to the bone and the Army was unable to put sufficient, well trained forces into Korea in a timely fashion without stripping Europe bear.
If we want to stop using private contractors then we’re going to have to make the military into a place were people can have a career, not just a way to pay for college.
I agree that there is a discrepancy between our support the troops rhetoric and the reality. I pointed to this issue in post on Nov. 12th.
The issues to which you point help explain the manpower that is readily available to the likes of Blackwater, but it doesn’t explain why the government chooses to use the services of such companies.