Contractors Implicated in Prison Abuse Remain on the Job

[Gyro/T69]

if somebody has a positive reason why we should use them I wish they'd post it, 'casue I'm having no luck thinking of one.

Hmm, could it have anything to do with the fact we only have 10 standing divisions? What percentage of these divisions and support unit are deployed all round the world at any given time? Are all 10 maintained at full combat strength at all times, or are a percentage of each regiment rounded out by reservists? How many reservists can be pulled out of the economy with out causing problems for not only their families, but the country over a given amount of time.

If I remember right, after the fall of the eastern bloc, we were told we didn’t need a large standing military anymore, simply because the US would only have to fight in short duration limited wars. Guess that wasn’t the case. Now we have a manpower shortage, in my option and we have to hire contractors to fill in our needs.

The standing Army during the first Gulf War was made up of a larger number of full strength divisions; independent regiments and support units that it is now. All without a draft.

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
And who would you label as "enlightened left", because i would not label myself as enlightened.

Good point, neither would I.  Ill edit my post.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
Explain to me how this has anything to do with the fact that private contract prison gaurds that beat and torture prisoners are still on the job?

It doesn't.  It is an answer to Cap'n Apathy, who lamented, " why do we have private companies involved here? we shouldn't be sub-contracting our war."

and causing people to make naked pyramids is not beating and torture, it is humiliation.  There is a difference, although obviously both are wrong.

[capt. apathy]

Originally posted by Gyro/T69

If I remember right, after the fall of the eastern bloc, we were told we didn’t need a large standing military anymore, simply because the US would only have to fight in short duration limited wars. Guess that wasn’t the case.
 

thats still under some debate.  the majority still seems to believe that we didn't need to fight this one.  (not that our present administration was ever much into giving a damn what the majority of americans wanted anyway. )

[Toad]

For years and years and years the Government.... under both parties... maintained that we had the capability to fight two major wars simultaneously.

Is there anyone at all that still believes this fiction? They're still touting it about, AFAIK.

You have non-military subcontractors for this stuff because we, as a nation are unwilling to fund a standing army of sufficient size to do this sort of thing (fight a war and occupy the losing nation for a lengthy period) AND because we're willing to believe obvious BS spouted from the leadership of both parties.

I"ve been reading Ambrose's book on Eisenhower lately. Just amazing how huge an operation it was to win against Germany and then occupy/govern in the post-war period. It took ALL the Allied nations to get it done and the Germans basically did not resist after the cessation of hostilities.

Not the situation at all now, is it? Yet we think it can be done easily, quickly and with ~ 150,000 troops.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

[Rolex]

Good point, Toad. I think that the Beltway/Pentagon gang need to get out more.

I was quite disturbed the other day to read that President Bush reads no newspapers and watches no TV news, by choice. Everything he knows is fed through his staff so it is not 'filtered'.

I've always been a fairly realistic, middle-of-the-road kind of guy, but I find this to be unnatural and disturbing. I would prefer for the president of the U.S. to be aware of what some intelligent people are thinking, saying and writing from a variety of viewpoints.

[Gyro/T69]

thats still under some debate

I'd say the debate is over.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Using contractors to do things such as vehicle maintenance, prison guarding, asphalt repair, etc, frees up soldiers to drive humvees and carry weapons.

For half the money we can have twice the soldiers.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Sixpence
For half the money we can have twice the soldiers.

You ignore the political aspect of increasing the size of the military and the political process of creating a Defense budget, I think.

In short, it's far easier and politically "safer" for any Congressman to authorize a $100 billion to hire "contractors" than it is to vote to add an equal amount of new soldiers to the Army for half that price.

[ravells]

Spot on Toad.

Not to mention the shirking of responsibility when the contractors f**k up.

Ravs

[Toad]

That too.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.  

[txmx]

Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
Yes, but when your using them to fight wars, gaurd and interrogating prisoners of war, you risk violating international laws and human rights. Nothing wrong using independent contractors to do such things as you stated, but when they are beating unarmed civilians to death in prisons the governement might want to rethink its decisions. Which it is not going to do.

Did I miss something?
I dont remember hearing of anyone being beaten to death in Amwerican custody.

Hoods on there heads yes.
Paraded around neekid yes.

Humiliated yes.
But beated to death Nope.

[txmx]

Originally posted by Toad
For years and years and years the Government.... under both parties... maintained that we had the capability to fight two major wars simultaneously.

Is there anyone at all that still believes this fiction? They're still touting it about, AFAIK.

You have non-military subcontractors for this stuff because we, as a nation are unwilling to fund a standing army of sufficient size to do this sort of thing (fight a war and occupy the losing nation for a lengthy period) AND because we're willing to believe obvious BS spouted from the leadership of both parties.

I"ve been reading Ambrose's book on Eisenhower lately. Just amazing how huge an operation it was to win against Germany and then occupy/govern in the post-war period. It took ALL the Allied nations to get it done and the Germans basically did not resist after the cessation of hostilities.

Not the situation at all now, is it? Yet we think it can be done easily, quickly and with ~ 150,000 troops.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Toad you make alot of sense there!

[Otto]

That's some pretty clear thinking Toad.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Gyro/T69
The standing Army during the first Gulf War was made up of a larger number of full strength divisions; independent regiments and support units that it is now. All without a draft.

The difference this time out is the lack of any significant coalition forces. Wanna go it alone? Well... there ya have it. Sorta like a paid, private coalition.