Defense Contracting

[Laotzu]

This spun from a different debate, yet the topic is rather applicable.

Originally Posted by GeeBeehttp://images.absolutepunk.net/images/bttn/arrow.gif (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=71388182#post71388 182)
The fact that war profiteering exists tells me exactly what would happen if armies were privatized, which is precisely the point I was making about Blackwater. Why wait for your country to wage war on an oil rich nation, when you can just hire a private army to do it?


What do you think about Defense Contractors in general?

What about contractors in specific roles such as logistics, intelligence, and physical security?

What role do you feel third-nation contractors have?


This debate is often held as a sub-text to other debates, and rarely is flushed out in it's own topic of discussion.

[open mind]

i think defense contractors are generally parasites with no accountability.

[only the clouds]

I read a book recently by an Iraq vet named Paul Rieckhoff and he uses what I thought was a great metaphor in it. I can't remember the exact words so I'm paraphrasing:
"Hiring defense contractors to fight your war is like giving a babysitting job to the lowest bidder."

[open mind]

I read a book recently by an Iraq vet named Paul Rieckhoff and he uses what I thought was a great metaphor in it. I can't remember the exact words so I'm paraphrasing:
"Hiring defense contractors to fight your war is like giving a babysitting job to the lowest bidder."

that'd be true if contracting companies weren't profiting immensely from armed conflict.

[saysmydoctor]

Defense Department doesn't know what the fuck it's doing.

[Laotzu]

Hiring defense contractors to fight your war is like giving a babysitting job to the lowest bidder.

Speaking from my semi-limited perspective...

Well, there is a difference between the sort of contracts that are handed out. Some are "NO-BID" contracts for specialized or patented products that only one company has the capability to produce at the moment the contract is issued.

Others are limited bidding, with only companies that the government is sure can do that job. This is in order to ensure that war-time products that cannot have a lull in product quality/quantity are maintained. These still maintain the "lowest bidder" mantra that almost everything else does.

Other contracts are open season and any company can bid on them.

Once a demand is identified within the DoD, I'm not sure how they decide which category the contract will fall into, though. I can say that the number of "NO BID" contracts have been drastically reduced under Obama's Administration.


I've heard various conflicting reports regarding the amount of money companies make, though I'm told fairly consistently that on the MACROscopic scale (of Companies and Governments) the amount of profit derived from a contract for a company is generally about 10-15% of the overall contract worth, which is the "standard" profit-margins for most Wall-street types. ( I can't source this, as it comes to be by word-of-mouth, so take it for what it's worth.)

Regardless of the MACROscopic arguments, of which there are many for and against defense contractors...

What of the individual contract(ee?). The intelligence specialist who got sick of risking his neck out there for peanuts and decided to strike out and do what he loves to do and is good at, but do it for the government under a defense contract? Now instead of working under the poverty line, he is finally making the money commensurate to the effort and can afford things like...feeding a family.

Where am I going with that line of thought? Well, the people who are good at their military jobs, particualrly in areas like inteligence, find themselves being lured away by the smell of capitalizm, and a marketplace that appreciates them based on the skill they have and the quality of product they produce. After their military contracts are satisfied, I can't blame an individual for striking out to continue to serve his country in the same manner as before, but making more money while doing it.


Thoughts?

[Laotzu]

As an asside, Paul Rieckhoff is now the president of a lobbying organization, the IAVA...Not that I particularly mind the IAVA, just that he's an odd source to quote in a discussion of Government hand-outs to large organizations...

[rawspinner]

Season 7 of 24

[open mind]

Speaking from my semi-limited perspective...

Well, there is a difference between the sort of contracts that are handed out. Some are "NO-BID" contracts for specialized or patented products that only one company has the capability to produce at the moment the contract is issued.

Others are limited bidding, with only companies that the government is sure can do that job. This is in order to ensure that war-time products that cannot have a lull in product quality/quantity are maintained. These still maintain the "lowest bidder" mantra that almost everything else does.

Other contracts are open season and any company can bid on them.

Once a demand is identified within the DoD, I'm not sure how they decide which category the contract will fall into, though. I can say that the number of "NO BID" contracts have been drastically reduced under Obama's Administration.


I've heard various conflicting reports regarding the amount of money companies make, though I'm told fairly consistently that on the MACROscopic scale (of Companies and Governments) the amount of profit derived from a contract for a company is generally about 10-15% of the overall contract worth, which is the "standard" profit-margins for most Wall-street types. ( I can't source this, as it comes to be by word-of-mouth, so take it for what it's worth.)

Regardless of the MACROscopic arguments, of which there are many for and against defense contractors...

What of the individual contract(ee?). The intelligence specialist who got sick of risking his neck out there for peanuts and decided to strike out and do what he loves to do and is good at, but do it for the government under a defense contract? Now instead of working under the poverty line, he is finally making the money commensurate to the effort and can afford things like...feeding a family.

Where am I going with that line of thought? Well, the people who are good at their military jobs, particualrly in areas like inteligence, find themselves being lured away by the smell of capitalizm, and a marketplace that appreciates them based on the skill they have and the quality of product they produce. After their military contracts are satisfied, I can't blame an individual for striking out to continue to serve his country in the same manner as before, but making more money while doing it.


Thoughts?
i know there are/were some contracts that were set up so the government paid an extra 10 percent after costs of a finished job. basically allowing the companies to drag out jobs and inflate costs in order to make that 10 percent profit that much fatter.

it's a raw deal for the government as they sunk quite a bit of money training them yet have to pay a 100k extra a year to keep them on. perhaps it's just me but i don't see earning a 6 figure salary as serving the country as much as it's exploiting it.

[JordanBuell]

Season 7 of 24

haha sadly that all i thought of too

[rawspinner]

haha sadly that all i thought of too

Why sadly? Easily one of the best seasons of 24.

[saysmydoctor]

Defense Department doesn't know what the fuck it's doing.
I remember the switch from Defense Department managed housing to a private property management company. That sucked. Most unreceptive folks, even more unreceptive than DoD.