Fascinating PBS Frontline running this week about the use of private contractors in Iraq. Hallibutron's subsidiary alone supplies a whopping THIRTY BATTALIONS worth of support, at a cost of $12 billion so far. In total we have something like 150,000 contractors in country. Some of the more interesting problems explored include poor communications between the private contractors and the Army, and resentment amongst soldiers.

 

The full (60-minute) episode can be viewed online here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/view/

 

One thing about this that struck me is that we may be looking at the future of warfare, in a sense. Nobody wants to join the military so that they can clean latrines in a war zone for minimum wage and a few college subsidies. It may be that in the future all support work will be contracted out.

 

What I wondered is: Could this be a GOOD thing? Look at these advantages:

 

1) It's even more "voluntary". Many troops are from disadvantaged backgrounds and are there mainly for the long-term benefits. A private contractor, on the other hand, specifically signed up for the conflict, and can leave any time they want. They're most definitely doing what they WANT to do, right?

 

2) It puts our money where our mouth is. Troops are cheap. Contractors are not. In a sense, this approach more directly involves people in the process. "Want a free Iraq? It's gonna cost ya."

 

If they can work out the current problems, what's not to like?

Very interesting documentary. Outsourcing is an excellent idea and a very American idea as well. The documentary does, however, go through some of the downsides of outsroucing military operations to private firms, that of reduced coordination and accountability.