14
12
2
Blackwater founder Erik Prince says contractors should lead the fight against the Islamic State...what say you, o wise RallyPoint members?
http://wapo.st/1vQWx55
http://wapo.st/1vQWx55
Posted in these groups: 
ISIS
ISIS
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 57
16
16
0
As a former Contractor......... NO WAY can they accomplish what the Real Military can. No Combat Support System, no Arty, no Tanks or Personnel Carriers (not enough Desert Transportation), no real Aviation assets, No FOB's......etc.......etc.....etc. There needs to be Real Boots on the Ground with Contractors performing special missions (PSD etc) that are supported by........wait for it........... Real Boots On The Ground!
(16)
(0)
MSgt Bill Eastburn
Stupid idea promoted by cowardly politicians. When deadly force is the last resort against our enemies, the United States of America doesn't call upon mercenaries. We have the best Armed Forces in the world. Give us a clear and legitimate mission (NOT nation-building with unwilling Muslims), empower our leaders, and get out of the way. Problem solved!
(10)
(0)
SFC Benjamin Varlese
I strongly disagree. Not only could they provide everything the military does in terms of hardware, logistics and personnel, almost certainly do it better, faster and cheaper. May I remind all present of Executive Outcomes, the first international private military company that the UN had disbanded because they were too powerful (overthrew two African nations in a few short years). But as I said earlier, not profitable and a poor investment because Iraq is full of Iraqis. [for the record, I too worked as a contractor]
(7)
(1)
SPC Christopher Rothwell
We should pull out of mid east let them regroup and then go in and take them all out
(1)
(0)
15
15
0
I'm actually kind of disgusted by the amount of demonizing and ignorant statement being made about contractors on this thread. The men of Blackwater are all prior service military or former law enforcement and the majority of you trash on them without thought. These men protected the Ambassador, embassy staff, visiting senators, congressmen, Secretaries/Directors, and even the VP and President, and risked their lives and would've (and have) sacrificed themselves to protect them, even the most vile like Hillary, Kerry and Pelosi. That is true professionalism.
Don't forget it was contractors that ran convoys to deliver food to your cushy chow halls so you could sit fat and happy having your "Surf & Turf" and a decent holiday meal on Thanksgiving, Easter and Christmas.
I would blame this mental midgetry on "the New Military" but I'm seeing a lot of this garbage from Senior NCO's and field grade officers who should know better but are too institutionalized to realize it. If this thread tanks my career then good riddance, I want no part of an organization that touts being a brotherhood, then craps all over good men because of ignorance, lack of understanding and plain fear.
I apologize for my lack of tact but this nonsense gets me a little agitated, especially coming from fellow service members
Don't forget it was contractors that ran convoys to deliver food to your cushy chow halls so you could sit fat and happy having your "Surf & Turf" and a decent holiday meal on Thanksgiving, Easter and Christmas.
I would blame this mental midgetry on "the New Military" but I'm seeing a lot of this garbage from Senior NCO's and field grade officers who should know better but are too institutionalized to realize it. If this thread tanks my career then good riddance, I want no part of an organization that touts being a brotherhood, then craps all over good men because of ignorance, lack of understanding and plain fear.
I apologize for my lack of tact but this nonsense gets me a little agitated, especially coming from fellow service members
(15)
(0)
SSG Jason Hopkins
funny how you guys miss a key point of the Geneva convention...must be a war between two sovereign states...last I heard ISIS, Al Qaeda, or any other terrorist entity is not a sovereign state.....I may just be a lowly former Inf NCO but i do know how to read.
(5)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
Seems like a moot point really. If ISIS were to take prisoners, whether they were US Armed Forces or Contractors, is anybody under the impression that they would abide by the Geneva Conventions?
(2)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
You can actually get around the "legality" by hiring contractors, then officially integrating them into your armed forces, similar to the Gurkhas or French Foreign Legion.
(0)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
SSG Jason Hopkins
Except if we put personnel on the ground to deal with this issue, we would be violating a sovereign states boarders with a de-facto military. That is an act of war, and the sovereign state would have a legal grievance. I doubt Al Asad is going to allow our boots on the ground. Lets say Mexico is fed up with the cartels operating int the US and they want to hire their contractors to deal with it without our permission. They come over hear to do it. That's legal isn't huh? Essentially that's what you are advocating.
LTC Paul Labrador
That's true. However, they become members of the French armed forces where an official uniform and are directly under the control of the french military. The contracting is set up in the US we are not directly under the control of the military. We have a certain set of requirements that are spelled out in contract vehicles such as the Performance Work Statements (PWS). A PWS is a blanket document spelling out the duties of the contract on how many personnel must be hired and what tasks must be adhered to. Another document is the Task Order, or TO this is a document that pays for a specific task to be done. Then there is the Enhanced Contractual Requirement, or ECR that basically is a mini PWS alots funds to hire additional personnel if needed to carry out a task.
As a contractor we don't work directly for a military commander as employees. Our contract spells out our tasks and the military commander or other designated government official may validate our performance as to meeting contractual criteria. However they do not have sole control to task at wuill without going through a company program manager that is assigned to carry out the contract.
If we were to embed a contractor force then that sort of negates the whole argument that our official military is no longer involved in the conflict. What would be the point of such actions other than having now a super soldier that is getting compensated well beyond the counter parts? If money is the reason SSG Hopkins want this because he does not get paid enough by Uncle Sam? Wouldn't the real answer be to train the force better and compensate appropriately without having to pay for overhead and other expenses?
Except if we put personnel on the ground to deal with this issue, we would be violating a sovereign states boarders with a de-facto military. That is an act of war, and the sovereign state would have a legal grievance. I doubt Al Asad is going to allow our boots on the ground. Lets say Mexico is fed up with the cartels operating int the US and they want to hire their contractors to deal with it without our permission. They come over hear to do it. That's legal isn't huh? Essentially that's what you are advocating.
LTC Paul Labrador
That's true. However, they become members of the French armed forces where an official uniform and are directly under the control of the french military. The contracting is set up in the US we are not directly under the control of the military. We have a certain set of requirements that are spelled out in contract vehicles such as the Performance Work Statements (PWS). A PWS is a blanket document spelling out the duties of the contract on how many personnel must be hired and what tasks must be adhered to. Another document is the Task Order, or TO this is a document that pays for a specific task to be done. Then there is the Enhanced Contractual Requirement, or ECR that basically is a mini PWS alots funds to hire additional personnel if needed to carry out a task.
As a contractor we don't work directly for a military commander as employees. Our contract spells out our tasks and the military commander or other designated government official may validate our performance as to meeting contractual criteria. However they do not have sole control to task at wuill without going through a company program manager that is assigned to carry out the contract.
If we were to embed a contractor force then that sort of negates the whole argument that our official military is no longer involved in the conflict. What would be the point of such actions other than having now a super soldier that is getting compensated well beyond the counter parts? If money is the reason SSG Hopkins want this because he does not get paid enough by Uncle Sam? Wouldn't the real answer be to train the force better and compensate appropriately without having to pay for overhead and other expenses?
(1)
(0)
9
9
0
US ground forces could and should do the job. But saddled with oppressive ROE, just in the last campaign, would place us right back into the sinking boat we just left. Perhaps the threat or eventual use of 'mercenary' forces who are under little or no ROE would set ISIS/ISIL on their heels.
In the context of cost and monies, our last foray was little more than a bloated goat. War profiteers abounded, fleecing the US of billions. The prospect of using a civilian military force, in the fiscal sense, may leave the coffers a bit fuller in the end. One commentator suggested the government of Iraq should foot the bill. WIth this I agree completely. Blackwater and it's cohorts should approach them with the offer.
In response to rebuilding the damaged infrastructure - it didn't accomplish much in the past so let's put that idea in the kit bag and pack it away.
In the context of cost and monies, our last foray was little more than a bloated goat. War profiteers abounded, fleecing the US of billions. The prospect of using a civilian military force, in the fiscal sense, may leave the coffers a bit fuller in the end. One commentator suggested the government of Iraq should foot the bill. WIth this I agree completely. Blackwater and it's cohorts should approach them with the offer.
In response to rebuilding the damaged infrastructure - it didn't accomplish much in the past so let's put that idea in the kit bag and pack it away.
(9)
(0)
LTC Jason Strickland
MSG Brian Allen, I agree that extremely restrictive ROE put US forces in a no-win situation.
(6)
(0)
1SG Harold Piet
I agree, ROE is crazy and what has caused us many losses, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan. And any nation we fight for should pay the entire cost out of there assets even if it takes them years and years of payments. or When we win, the territory becomes US territories.
(1)
(1)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google