It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House Dems Want To Phase Out Armed Contractors

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
HuffPost


One morning, Uncle Sam woke up and his military had been privatized. There had been no national debate. No congressional action. No sweeping White House order. It just happened.

Today, the Pentagon employs more than 217,000 contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, doing the kind of work that enlisted military personnel would have performed in the past, according to a Congressional Research Service report.

Now, there's a move in Congress to change that. On Tuesday, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) introduced the Stop Outsourcing Security Act, which would make it the military's responsibility to use its own personnel to train troops and police, guard convoys, repair weapons, run military prisons and do military intelligence activity.

There are strategic reasons to move away from a reliance on contractors, says Schakowsky, a senior member of the intelligence committee. They damage the U.S. reputation with reckless behavior, are overly costly and hurt the morale of troops, who see private guards earning much more money than they do.


Open Congress: H.R.4102 - Stop Outsourcing Security Act


It's dangerous, Schakowsky says, when a nation has no apparent choice but to hire a paramilitary corporation to do its war-making.
If such a bill had been introduced just a few years ago, it would likely have easily passed.


Yeah wasn't the bill introduced in November 2007? What happened to the bill all that time?


As Schakowsky, seated in her office, lays out her plan for phasing out military reliance on contractors, her assistant gets a news alert on her BlackBerry reporting that Blackwater is close to getting a major contract to train soldiers in Afghanistan.

Schakowsky is appalled and momentarily speechless. "That is just so unthinkable," she says. "I really believe that were they an individual -- and nowadays you can call corporations individuals; they have the same rights, right? -- they'd get a dishonorable discharge for what they've done. How many people do they have to kill? How many missions do they have to screw up before we say, 'No, we're not going to do that'?"

Even if the bill is passed, it'll be a logistical nightmare to actually enforce it. I have my reservation regarding this. However I can say that I like the general idea of the bill.



posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
That's good. I am not completely against the idea of private defense contractors. I just think that the defense of the country should be hands in the military of the country, and, that while other people can lend a helping hands, I wouldn't like to see a bunch of blackwaters running around and running the world, etc. I'd rather it be our army, than, to let a bunch of mercenaries do whatever the heck they want without the authority of congress, or without limits.



posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   
I'm not against the use of contractors in supporting roles of the actual military, but contractors shouldn't be used to wage war, and they shouldn't be in charge of critical functions usually performed by the military or intelligence agencies. Quite frankly I think it should be illegal to use mercenaries to wage war.

I hope this bill gets somewhere, but I won't hold my breath.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by converge]



posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
I'm glad if there's actually something that all ATSers can agree with. It's a nice change of pace.

We'll see if the bill would actually pass, let see who will oppose it.




top topics
 
3

log in

join