Troop cuts...it BURNS!

[candyman]

So I am sure many of you have heard of the troop cuts that are being debated. No matter what your view of the military is I wonder what you are thinking of them?

I am most likely being cut. This year they are cutting 40,000 troops NOT including the ones that leave as a result of normal circumstances. They haven't cut this hard since Vietnam...which means even fully qualified soldiers are being denied reenlistment or are being forced to change jobs IF they get a slot. Next year they are going to cut 50,000 more troops and maybe more and this might continue until 2017. This is really going to suck considering the wobbly job market is about to get punched with more than 90,000 troops in the next couple of years.

I am just wondering about your opinions here...from both vets and people that haven't served. Is this the right way to go about fixing our budget? Is out military, less then 1% of the population even in over-strength, that much of a burden/too large to keep around? I don't want a pity party I can live no matter what...but I would rather keep my job and continue to serve but it seems like many people are determined to shrink the military as much as they can...

[Class-Punk]

I think the peace corps should get paid and expanded, and a lot of the military could just switch over to that. It seems like a good foreign policy move, if you have a bad relationship with an unstable country, your on good terms with all the countries around it. I suppose though that there isn't money for that.

[candyman]

I think the peace corps should get paid and expanded, and a lot of the military could just switch over to that. It seems like a good foreign policy move, if you have a bad relationship with an unstable country, your on good terms with all the countries around it. I suppose though that there isn't money for that.

But its not really the troops that are taking all the money. There are far more civilian workers being paid alot by the military now than there ever was...jobs that lower paid soldiers already trained for the task could do. We already do humanitarian missions that the peace corps does...our recent one was much larger than they could handle because we have the personnel and the equipment.

I know there is money for stuff...the budget must have been put together by a compulsive spender though...

[Vater Araignee]

It is a six of one half dozen of the other catch 22 in either direction situation when taken exclusively on reduction.

Part of me is saying pull all our men and women out and let the fucking mercenaries get wiped out.

However there are many Green Faces warning that a FFOp is eminent and no matter how many get exposed, the public always demands war.

Of course posse comitatus is gone so you guys could be simply reassigned as an emergency policing force because of all the threats to turn blue helmets into colanders. Reports coming out of Fort Leonard Wood and St. Robert state since the passing of NDAA activity at the fort has skyrocketed including increased detention areas, increased numbers of MP trainees and foreigners in maroon and purple military uniforms as instructors.

I feel bad for you guys, you're shit on by most of the antiwar crowed who is to stupid to understand the training (and lying about the law) causes "Just following orders Sir.", you're going to be shit on by the by the Constitutionalists because of the training (and lying about the law) causing "Just following orders Sir." and you are shit on by the government with the training (and lying about the law) causing exactly what they want from a good little solder.

Every one should be thanking every ADSC and Vet for their service to the county and returning solders should get preferential treatment in the job market if they did not receive a OTH, BCD, or DD.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Vater Araignee

[Class-Punk]

But its not really the troops that are taking all the money. There are far more civilian workers being paid alot by the military now than there ever was...jobs that lower paid soldiers already trained for the task could do. We already do humanitarian missions that the peace corps does...our recent one was much larger than they could handle because we have the personnel and the equipment.

I know there is money for stuff...the budget must have been put together by a compulsive spender though...

I meant it seems there isn't money for that because of the national deficit; and every politician has their own ideas on what to spend money on.. while I'm personally just waiting for pot to be legalized.

I'm aware that the army is trained for humanitarian missions, from my perspective it seems like a military presence might not be wanted in every country; while it would also be unintelligent to have a bunch of unarmed people doing something humanitarian in a potentially dangerous place, so that's a dillema. It seems like this kind of work would be a good jobs and foreign policy move if the money was put up for it, but then there would be the question of optimizing it based on different skills needed.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Coffeenated

[Troy Spiral (13)]

So I am sure many of you have heard of the troop cuts that are being debated. No matter what your view of the military is I wonder what you are thinking of them?

I am most likely being cut. This year they are cutting 40,000 troops NOT including the ones that leave as a result of normal circumstances. They haven't cut this hard since Vietnam...which means even fully qualified soldiers are being denied reenlistment or are being forced to change jobs IF they get a slot. Next year they are going to cut 50,000 more troops and maybe more and this might continue until 2017. This is really going to suck considering the wobbly job market is about to get punched with more than 90,000 troops in the next couple of years.

I am just wondering about your opinions here...from both vets and people that haven't served. Is this the right way to go about fixing our budget? Is out military, less then 1% of the population even in over-strength, that much of a burden/too large to keep around? I don't want a pity party I can live no matter what...but I would rather keep my job and continue to serve but it seems like many people are determined to shrink the military as much as they can...

Seeing as i read a lot of news peroidicals and follow the news fairly regularly I'm suprized I don't have this clear in my mind, i'll have to do some reading.

But , I was under the impression that since bush the military has grown very large up to and post iraq 2.0 years, and a "cut" of 40,000 sounds like less than what it was increased over the last 8 years or so isnt it?

[candyman]

Seeing as i read a lot of news peroidicals and follow the news fairly regularly I'm suprized I don't have this clear in my mind, i'll have to do some reading.

But , I was under the impression that since bush the military has grown very large up to and post iraq 2.0 years, and a "cut" of 40,000 sounds like less than what it was increased over the last 8 years or so isnt it?

In total it is far more than 40,000 troops. And yes the Army has grown larger as it always does in war time. However, the issue many of us have is that it is just a sudden drop. There are people with multiple deployments that have given so much and they are just being dumped off. While it is their right to do this I fail to see how these extra troops are THAT much of a monetary burden. The war may be costing alot of money but the troops? Garrison is pretty cheap when you are not running all over the place and using ammo and ordering all the consumables that units need.

When something happens again, that is a WHEN not an IF, they will need to expand the military again which cost an insane amount. Training soldiers is very expensive. This "boom you are gone" way of doing things is...well damn even for the Army which is known for being a bit harsh if seems like its REALLY harsh. They are still getting jets, ships, and testing equipment which draws alot from the budget and to be honest if probably costs just as much as keeping all these troops would...but they get rid of personnel instead.

What sucks to us is that while layoffs in the last few years are common we have sat through budget cut after budget cut after budget cut. They have been hitting the military faster that it can keep up and we really have no voice in it.

And as far as the humanitarian missions we have that covered. They are done in unison with the host nation military and with the invitation of the government. While we may not be armed with more than a few M9's they protect us. A small group of people tried to protest when I was in the Dominican Republic...and their own countrymen shut them down, the civilian countrymen that is. We were building school and filling them with supplies, clinics were built in the worse off areas of the country, and we had clinics rotating around doing medical, dental, and veterinary work for free where we helped anyone we could. Even the group in Haiti did well...and for humanitarian missions the military is set up perfectly. We have everything we need to rebuild, medical personnel to cover any situation, and the means to rapidly deploy almost anywhere in the world. If my only job in the Army was humanitarian missions I would be perfectly happy with that...

[Soulrev]

Well, you can't be totally surprised. I knew as soon as Obama took office there were going to be troop cuts in the next 4 years. I figured it would start this year, and apparently I was correct. I just hope you've taken as many college courses while you've been in as you can. I've been hounding my wife about this for the past 4 years and she has done nothing. Now, if she does get barred from reenlistment this year, she's going to have to, like you said, either change her MOS, or get out. And if she has to get out now, well, I guess she can get her job back at Burger King...

Yeah it sucks, I know. And for those military who voted for Obama, you basically voted yourself out of a job. No offense. I doubt Obama will see many votes from Military this election, seeing how he has given us the lowest annual pay raises since Vietnam era, there were 2 occasions where we did not get paid on time, and now this.

[candyman]

Well, you can't be totally surprised. I knew as soon as Obama took office there were going to be troop cuts in the next 4 years. I figured it would start this year, and apparently I was correct. I just hope you've taken as many college courses while you've been in as you can. I've been hounding my wife about this for the past 4 years and she has done nothing. Now, if she does get barred from reenlistment this year, she's going to have to, like you said, either change her MOS, or get out. And if she has to get out now, well, I guess she can get her job back at Burger King...

Yeah it sucks, I know. And for those military who voted for Obama, you basically voted yourself out of a job. No offense. I doubt Obama will see many votes from Military this election, seeing how he has given us the lowest annual pay raises since Vietnam era, there were 2 occasions where we did not get paid on time, and now this.

Thanks for bringing up the Obama thing first...I didn't want to. There have been some "classes" on not blaming our glorious leaders for what is happening. While I don't put the full blame on any single person they must share it and Obama didn't help at all. Most of the higher functions of the military are STILL trying to fight this because they know how to make the budget work...you know with them actually being in the military and all...which kinda helps...

My buddy rushed the reenlistment office today and went from 91D here in a Signal BN to Fort Leonard Wood to be with the grunts...I am currently preparing for some world class ass kissing to try and stay in generators or move to prime power. Damn...Alaska is looking really nice right now compared to damn Fort "We are going to make you go to Airborne and Air Assault School" Campbell...

[Simon Bar Sinister]

the wars are ending - THANK (the) GOD (of your choice)!

[candyman]

the wars are ending - THANK (the) GOD (of your choice)!

Don't get me wrong we are probably more happy about that than people think. We just don't like it because it causes the government and probably others to look at us like extra crap that they have to get rid of. Not our equipment, not the large buildup of supporting contractors, not the extra infrastructure needed to keep up with a large and constant deployment of troops and equipment overseas...just the troops.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

With the more and more vague way that war is defined I think we are coming closer and closer to the "forever war", although far, far less people will die as a result of it (per capita) than any previous era in history (until the nukes finally come out). Mainly due to globalization but that's a 50 page discussion...

I'm big on military hardware and military history and long advocated a strong military. There has been someone in my family in every major war going back to 1812, but, I try not to have a knee-jerk reaction to cuts. A huge plank of Obama campaign was downsizing the military and he was voted in on that, people did vote for him it wasn't like it was some secret clandestine plan to screw over the military. It seems like if you don't automatically assume more military is better (at the expense of other things, the money isn't infinite) your somehow a jack off, which, believe it or not isn't true.

Its not the same at all , but the "cut and run" method we did in Vietnam is known as being a bad way to do it, even if the plan is to GTFO (eventually).

I really haven't done my homework enough on this particular set of cuts to know speak intelligently about it in terms of the details other than I have to assume there is an argument in favor of these actions otherwise they couldn't even start to do them, its always unwise to see everything in black & white, at least until we can clearly make both arguments on both sides and decide which one is stronger. Otherwise your just relying on your gut or , a little better, but still unwise , a few articles here and there and a "ideological argument".

added later: I'm just speaking in general here, candy i hope your not taking offense that wasnt really directed at you, you seem well informed.

[candyman]

With the more and more vague way that war is defined I think we are coming closer and closer to the "forever war", although far, far less people will die as a result of it (per capita) than any previous era in history (until the nukes finally come out). Mainly due to globalization but that's a 50 page discussion...

I'm big on military hardware and military history and long advocated a strong military. There has been someone in my family in every major war going back to 1812, but, I try not to have a knee-jerk reaction to cuts. A huge plank of Obama campaign was downsizing the military and he was voted in on that, people did vote for him it wasn't like it was some secret clandestine plan to screw over the military. It seems like if you don't automatically assume more military is better (at the expense of other things, the money isn't infinite) your somehow a jack off, which, believe it or not isn't true.

Its not the same at all , but the "cut and run" method we did in Vietnam is known as being a bad way to do it, even if the plan is to GTFO (eventually).

I really haven't done my homework enough on this particular set of cuts to know speak intelligently about it in terms of the details other than I have to assume there is an argument in favor of these actions otherwise they couldn't even start to do them, its always unwise to see everything in black & white, at least until we can clearly make both arguments on both sides and decide which one is stronger. Otherwise your just relying on your gut or , a little better, but still unwise , a few articles here and there and a "ideological argument".

added later: I'm just speaking in general here, candy i hope your not taking offense that wasnt really directed at you, you seem well informed.

No offense taken man. I do understand that people want to trim the military too.

However, even though I didn't vote for Obama I thought that at least his method of cutting would me a smarter one that Vietnam. Unfortunately it is exactly like Vietnam. In my case I have to tier scores on every exam, graduated distinguished honor graduate from my training, and have nothing negative on my record. I am barred from reenlistment despite all of that because they are using the same methods as they did after Vietnam. There is no discrimination between good soldier and bad soldier. They are cutting people according to rank...which means a shitty NCO might make it but a budding PFC will get cut. Even people with great service records that make the military run well are being cut. They simply opened up the flood gates and made reenlistment a "first come first serve" thing.

Like I said I support cuts in a way...that is well though out and precise cuts that are meant to make a leaner, meaner military. That is not what is happening...with how they are doing this it is clear that this is merely a numbers game meant to quickly mean a goal number so some suit can go "hey look what we did". Would precise cuts take longer? Yes most definitely. That would be better in the long run though because they way they are doing will lead to an over cut of the military leading to boosted enlistment in the future...which will cost alot. Once a soldier is trained their upkeep pay is not that much...but putting them through MEPS, travel, Basic, travel again, AIT, and then more travel tends to run the bills up a bit.

If they would wait for the dust to settle after the wars it would be better. Each MOS would be able to conduct some sort of count on their troops and could gather information from their service records. Bad soldiers would get cut, medical problems could be taken care of and discharged, people that want to retire and should retire would get the opportunity, and then the troops left would be tested in their MOS and the lowest scores would get cut. Either way you are going to hurt feelings but something like my way seems a bit more...practical...or at least would contain less jackassery...that is too a word!

[Troy Spiral (13)]

No offense taken man. I do understand that people want to trim the military too.

However, even though I didn't vote for Obama I thought that at least his method of cutting would me a smarter one that Vietnam. Unfortunately it is exactly like Vietnam. In my case I have to tier scores on every exam, graduated distinguished honor graduate from my training, and have nothing negative on my record. I am barred from reenlistment despite all of that because they are using the same methods as they did after Vietnam. There is no discrimination between good soldier and bad soldier. They are cutting people according to rank...which means a shitty NCO might make it but a budding PFC will get cut. Even people with great service records that make the military run well are being cut. They simply opened up the flood gates and made reenlistment a "first come first serve" thing.

Like I said I support cuts in a way...that is well though out and precise cuts that are meant to make a leaner, meaner military. That is not what is happening...with how they are doing this it is clear that this is merely a numbers game meant to quickly mean a goal number so some suit can go "hey look what we did". Would precise cuts take longer? Yes most definitely. That would be better in the long run though because they way they are doing will lead to an over cut of the military leading to boosted enlistment in the future...which will cost alot. Once a soldier is trained their upkeep pay is not that much...but putting them through MEPS, travel, Basic, travel again, AIT, and then more travel tends to run the bills up a bit.

If they would wait for the dust to settle after the wars it would be better. Each MOS would be able to conduct some sort of count on their troops and could gather information from their service records. Bad soldiers would get cut, medical problems could be taken care of and discharged, people that want to retire and should retire would get the opportunity, and then the troops left would be tested in their MOS and the lowest scores would get cut. Either way you are going to hurt feelings but something like my way seems a bit more...practical...or at least would contain less jackassery...that is too a word!

Jackassery is similar to Asshatery but with more spite and less thought.

As always I'm sure most of it is politically motivated (not that that's a bad thing necessarily, society doesn't function without politics but...) in this case I think its a "i promised to get the troops out and im going to be up for re election and they still aren't out" so, regardless of the tactical situation, we'll pull the plug asap before this becomes an issue when I'm up for re-election.

I was wondering honestly how he got this far along without having done it already when , when he ran it was "get em home now, downsize now!". What happened I think is that once he got in there, he realized that was a bad idea and that he might actually have to do the opposite to "do the right thing" and even increase the budget and our involvement in places /times, but now, its more about keeping his job , and how it will look if he didnt do what he ran on, than doing the right thing, from a practical/realisitc/fair standpoint.

[Fierce Critter]

Maybe I'm naive or missing something...

...but say a professional baseball league goes through about 500 bats a month. Now say you have a company that makes baseball bats, and requires 50 employees to kick out 500 bats a month.

Now suddenly, the league decides to halve itself and eliminate exactly half their teams. So the need for manufacturing 500 bats per month now drops to only needing 250 bats per month. You now have 25 employees working full-steam and 25 standing around twiddling their thumbs.

Doesn't it make sense to let half your workforce go?

Isn't that what's going on with the military? Or again, am I missing something?

[candyman]

Maybe I'm naive or missing something...

...but say a professional baseball league goes through about 500 bats a month. Now say you have a company that makes baseball bats, and requires 50 employees to kick out 500 bats a month.

Now suddenly, the league decides to halve itself and eliminate exactly half their teams. So the need for manufacturing 500 bats per month now drops to only needing 250 bats per month. You now have 25 employees working full-steam and 25 standing around twiddling their thumbs.

Doesn't it make sense to let half your workforce go?

Isn't that what's going on with the military? Or again, am I missing something?

You are missing something...something that started long before these wars.

The army and every other branch were all created to be self-reliable. You can't expect a mobile force to go out without any infrastructure. So, every position you can think of in the civilian world is in the army. Plumbers, carpenters, accountants, reporters, weathermen, garbage disposal, doctors, dentists, and so on and so forth. Once they are trained the cost of having them do their job as opposed to what it would be in the civilian world is far less. You don't pay them for overtime and they don't tack on any wages anywhere else. However, the civilian workforce has been growing even increasingly in our ranks...to a bad end.

They are phasing out many army jobs because the civilians do it...starting at 3 times the pay for an entry level position and that doesn't include overtime pay and other crap like that. All military construction used to be done by the corps of engineers no matter how small the task...we currently have 25 different contractors on this post alone. Many jobs have been cut down because the civilians have taken over...like mine where they cut out many of the shops leaving my to be a glorified oil changer.

Did I mention they get paid more that I do? Yes I did but I will say it again...at the last job fare my starting salary would be 4 times what the army pays me and on top of that I get overtime, paid vacations, housing payments, hotel arrangements in case of travel, fuel compensation, cell phone compensation...and that is the FUCKING STARTING SALARY! Not yelling at you...it just makes me mad every time I think about it.

There have always been arguments throughout history all over the world asking for a smaller military force...but it never happens or ends well. Even in the "bloated" state the entire damn military is still less than 1% and the government wants to tell us that we are the burden? No, its the wartime equipment and it is the people buying things for the military when they haven't the first clue as to how the military works and it is the civilian contractors doing OUR DAMN JOBS! It is the effect that soldiers call the $200 toilet seat...

And we don't make baseball bats. The military in general does far more than people realize but we don't jump around trying to take credit...that is not what we signed up for. Much of what we do would not be possible without the numbers that we have. In peace time we are just as active as we are in war time it just doesn't cost as much because relief items to help those in need are cheaper than guns and bombs. We are actually bound to the UN to provide monetary, medical, and personnel support when the "need" it.

In other words, While what they are trying to do might not be inherently wrong but...it is a giant dick move. We don't just sit on our asses in peace time and we don't just sit there sharpening our knifes waiting to kill people. There are much more pressing issues in this country if we want to get it back on its feet and there are MUCH better places to make budget cuts. And just picture the awesomeness of at least 200,000 jobless troops entering the workforce in the next few years! Hey, they could always keep the military budget in their pockets with a high paying civilian job!

[Soulrev]

Yes I forgot to mention that. What he said is true, they are getting rid of MOS's (Military Occupational Specialty) and replacing them for incompetent contractors. I would say independent contractors if that were the case, but these are incompetent. Mostly. It is also true that they get benefits that make working for the Postal service look like Burger King. In other words, unnecessary expenses. Somehow the government thinks it's a better idea to pay some civilian jack-off to do a soldier's job, and pay them more for it.

I say if they're going to do that, why even have military? Just let some corporation defend our country. It'll be fine I'm sure.

They are really messing with the military and it's funding and everything, and it's causing a lot of problems. For instance, out here at Fort Carson in Colorado, they spent a shitload of money for an automated gate system that doesn't even work. So before, (and still to this day until they get it to work), when you approach a gate at Fort Carson, there is an armed security guard and/or armed soldier there, doing a visual inspection of the car, checking ID's carefully, and performing random car searches.

With the automated system, you simply put one ID card (the driver's ID) into the scanner and it opens the gate and you go through. They also have cameras that are supposed to take a picture of you and they will already have a picture of you to make sure you are the one driving the car. Well that's all fine and dandy but what about the passengers? What if we have another fuck-ass Major who decides he hates America and wants to come on post with an arsenal and start shooting everyone? How the fuck is the automated system going to prevent that? It's not. It's a huge safety risk for everyone who lives on Fort Carson.

Back to my original point, Fort Carson spent millions on this system, and it's not even up and running yet. It's been installed for 6 months now. So there's one prime example of how shit is going wrong in the Military today. No, let's not cut all these unnecessary expenses for stupid shit, let's just cut the most important thing, our soldiers. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

It's like having a gun with no ammo.

PS - I hear ya on scrambling for reenlistment. My wife is currently scouring AKO looking for job openings in other units in America and overseas. Luckily she's a 92A and that job hasn't been outsourced, yet.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Soulrev

[candyman]

Yes I forgot to mention that. What he said is true, they are getting rid of MOS's (Military Occupational Specialty) and replacing them for incompetent contractors. I would say independent contractors if that were the case, but these are incompetent. Mostly. It is also true that they get benefits that make working for the Postal service look like Burger King. In other words, unnecessary expenses. Somehow the government thinks it's a better idea to pay some civilian jack-off to do a soldier's job, and pay them more for it.

I say if they're going to do that, why even have military? Just let some corporation defend our country. It'll be fine I'm sure.

They are really messing with the military and it's funding and everything, and it's causing a lot of problems. For instance, out here at Fort Carson in Colorado, they spent a shitload of money for an automated gate system that doesn't even work. So before, (and still to this day until they get it to work), when you approach a gate at Fort Carson, there is an armed security guard and/or armed soldier there, doing a visual inspection of the car, checking ID's carefully, and performing random car searches.

With the automated system, you simply put one ID card (the driver's ID) into the scanner and it opens the gate and you go through. They also have cameras that are supposed to take a picture of you and they will already have a picture of you to make sure you are the one driving the car. Well that's all fine and dandy but what about the passengers? What if we have another fuck-ass Major who decides he hates America and wants to come on post with an arsenal and start shooting everyone? How the fuck is the automated system going to prevent that? It's not. It's a huge safety risk for everyone who lives on Fort Carson.

Back to my original point, Fort Carson spent millions on this system, and it's not even up and running yet. It's been installed for 6 months now. So there's one prime example of how shit is going wrong in the Military today. No, let's not cut all these unnecessary expenses for stupid shit, let's just cut the most important thing, our soldiers. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

It's like having a gun with no ammo.

PS - I hear ya on scrambling for reenlistment. My wife is currently scouring AKO looking for job openings in other units in America and overseas. Luckily she's a 92A and that job hasn't been outsourced, yet.

Wow a 92A? Ours were told that they had to reenlist or get out. We are losing our ENTIRE section of 92 workers in the motorpool...which makes total sense to someone only seeing numbers.

Oh and the bar I go to all the time is FULL of contractors. Did you know they pay their bar tab with a government credit card because it is included in the expenses? Well, not exactly see they cheat around the system by saying the $80 is for food instead of a burger and shit tons of beer...and these are only the dudes that come down for 3 days max to check on the work.

My NCO's keep bitching about the new army making things stupid but you know I really don't care? I am not the person they should be blaming. I can't change things...they are the generation that has/had that ability. And if the new Army is that bad I fear the NEWER Army that is around the corner...so maybe it is best that I get out.

[Soulrev]

Yeah I was thinking about getting back in myself until these last few years. Watching it go from something I would like to be a part of to something I would like to run far away from.

Yeah her job is safe for now she's a part of 3/29 FA 4th ID so they have a fuckload of work for her to do. They have a lot of paladins that need parts. And apparently she has found other units on AKO that want her MOS but so far most of them suck. Like for instance, Fort Polk was one of them. Yeah. Like we want to go back to Louisiana anytime in our lifetimes. That's where I was stationed, fuck that haha.

[candyman]

I'm just trying to get out of GA and especially this unit. I guess we deploy to 'stan sometime but that will probably change.

I have been trying to get into 4ID for a while now. My buddy came from them and said that they treat their generator mechanics very well which would be a major improvement. I think he was with their field artillery...

[Fierce Critter]

Candyman:

While I admit I had a little trouble wading through your response to understand exactly what I'm missing, I think I got the gist of it after a few re-reads. I do sincerely appreciate your educating me.

If I understand you, what I'm missing is that civilian contractors are being given jobs that could (or should?) be done by military personnel.

What I'm a bit confused about is it seems you're saying that the civilian contractors get paid a lot more than you would for doing the same job. If I understood that right, that seems absurd - why would the government want to spend MORE on contractors than they would giving already employed servicemen the work?

I know I'm coming off as hopelessly naive with a question like that, and I do understand that the government is often classically guilty of poor management of personnel and money. But this seems like such a no-brainer that, again, I feel like I'm missing something.

[Soulrev]

Candyman:

While I admit I had a little trouble wading through your response to understand exactly what I'm missing, I think I got the gist of it after a few re-reads. I do sincerely appreciate your educating me.

If I understand you, what I'm missing is that civilian contractors are being given jobs that could (or should?) be done by military personnel.

What I'm a bit confused about is it seems you're saying that the civilian contractors get paid a lot more than you would for doing the same job. If I understood that right, that seems absurd - why would the government want to spend MORE on contractors than they would giving already employed servicemen the work?

I know I'm coming off as hopelessly naive with a question like that, and I do understand that the government is often classically guilty of poor management of personnel and money. But this seems like such a no-brainer that, again, I feel like I'm missing something.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense to us, either. I haven't put the pieces together yet myself. I think it has something to do with "bringing the troops home". Probably a political move so they can say "See, there's no more troops in Iraq! We just have civilian contractors there now, aren't we so good to our troops?" .. .. Or I could be wrong, as I said I've yet to figure this out.

The biggest problem aside from putting soldiers out of work, is the fact that the Military has been doing their thing for quite some time now. They know what they're doing, and they're good at it. Now you're theoretically replacing the old guy with years of experience with the proverbial new-jack who has no clue what's going on except for what they've been told. Then, you're trying to make the old guy work WITH the new guy, and it's just not working out. That's essentially what is happening here.

[candyman]

Candyman:

While I admit I had a little trouble wading through your response to understand exactly what I'm missing, I think I got the gist of it after a few re-reads. I do sincerely appreciate your educating me.

If I understand you, what I'm missing is that civilian contractors are being given jobs that could (or should?) be done by military personnel.

What I'm a bit confused about is it seems you're saying that the civilian contractors get paid a lot more than you would for doing the same job. If I understood that right, that seems absurd - why would the government want to spend MORE on contractors than they would giving already employed servicemen the work?

I know I'm coming off as hopelessly naive with a question like that, and I do understand that the government is often classically guilty of poor management of personnel and money. But this seems like such a no-brainer that, again, I feel like I'm missing something.

Nobody really understands why that is the really messed up part. It started a few years ago with just a few small contracts but it has snowballed into this huge thing. It used to be soldiers everywhere on post...at every job. Now I gotta go to this civilian lady to get my finances done even though there is an Army job specifically for finance...the same goes for on post dining and the mail and damn near everything else. There will always be a few jobs that must remain civilian or that require a civilian present but this is not right.

You are not naive and don't feel bad about it. You are not in the military so we understand that people outside of it, like you, don't really understand that well. So you can understand why we don't like suits making decisions for us...I would rather have a General and higher staff make decisions that affect us.

Damn...I forgot to mention that Obama needs this on his track record. I don't care how many jobs he "created" he still crushed about 90,000 jobs AT LEAST! And that is sending 90,000+ people out into a job market that isn't very stable at all...