Budget Cuts in Theater

2014-03-04T02:06:19-05:00

As a soldier that is currently deployed to Afghanistan I
have seen vast cuts the Army has made in regards to the quality of
life while deployed. With the current
financial state of the government why do we still continue to pay Contractors
obscene amounts of money to do a job when you can have a Soldier trained to the
same job and afford that Soldier incentive pay.
It would cost the government a fraction of the cost. To me it makes sense, so what does the community
feel on this matter.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 4 at 2014 2:58 AM

2014-03-04T02:58:44-05:00

I agree. Eaxample 92G (Cooks). Not bashing the MOS but the Government could save millions if that MOS was actually used during deployment. Now with that being said, people might say that all we would eat is "T rations" or the food may suck. Yes, that may become true but the great leader's we have could surely figure out a plan to improve if indeed that does happen. The Quartermaster (forgot the actually name of the MOS) again could save the Government millions and millions but just putting Soldier's backing into doing laundry, cutting hair and alterations are just to name a few.

Response by SSG Robert Blum made Mar 4 at 2014 3:20 AM

2014-03-04T03:20:33-05:00

The problem is
political, high ranking public officials with vested interest in these
corporations that employ these contractors. They own stock, or hold executive
positions in some of these companies, and many of them are not willing to take
the hit to their bank accounts when these contracts could be filled by Soldiers
who make a set salary, less than half in most cases of what the civilians make.
Dyna Corp, Blackwater, KBR, Supreme, and
other contractors provide very few services that our men and women in uniform
can not provide. Six figures to manage fuel point operations is ridiculous. I
could send a group of privates, of no particular MOS, train them up, and provide
an NCO to supervise, for a fraction of the cost. Yes we would most likely face
longer deployments, that occur on a more frequent basis, but we could keep our
benefits, and our country would be in less debt. Its not just deployed, we
contract out everything, Building Homes on post (engineers), Law Enforcement
& Security (MP's), Bus drivers (anyone who attends a 40 hour course), Ammo
Supply points ( I don't know a supply specialist with some additional
training), ID cards (42A). The Army could support itself, and be better for
it.

Response by PFC Tobias Barbir made Mar 30 at 2016 5:13 PM

2016-03-30T17:13:18-04:00

I been in Theater from 2004 - 2012. I have worked in 6 Middle East countries and have experienced ALOT. My personal answer/opinion to this question would be this - As a soldier you swear oath to protect this country at War, as a contractor you sign a contract to agree to go to work doing all the things that soldiers would normally do (because) our military is stretched thin across the globe and there are not enough troops to fight the battles. Therefore you have to have support to fill in the cooks, mechanics, facility maintenance etc. If you offer a civilian normal wages you will never get them to work in a warzone. It has to be worth while, especially if the risk of death is higher. As a soldier you made the choice to serve your country (like I did before I got out) and be owned by Uncle Sam to do whatever Uncle Sam needs you to do, as a Contractor it is an open contract meaning you can resign at any moment and go home. So comparing Soldiers to Civilians based solely on pay I don't think is logical. At the end of the day you have a choice. Besides, the grass is not always greener on the other side! I miss being a soldier, money is not everything. Even with 15 years international experience I'm back in the US working a entry level job thanks to our awesome economy.