Privatized Intelligence Rings in AfPak: Good or Bad?

[huskerguy7]

Today, I read in the NY Times an article that attacked the use of private intelligence in AfPak. I was disappointed with the writing.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that we should completely privatize all of our intelligence. The CIA, DIA, NSA and all of the other agencies/departments do a good job at their work. However, in Afghanistan & Pakistan, things are much more complex. As a result, the DoD began contracting experienced former operatives to gather intelligence.

By now, everyone has figured out that the violence in Afghanistan stems partly from Pakistan. The US's operations in Pakistan are limited because it's a war zone. By using private firms to conduct intelligence in these areas, the US is able to gather some intelligence to combat its enemies in these areas. If these operatives would get caught or revealed, since they are not US operatives, they can be denied.

Thoughts?

 

[chrisdef]

Personally i think the while privatization of military is stupid.
While yes private companies have done alot of good things they have also done a fair bit of bad and usually arent held accountable.
While from a military standpoint it maybe good the money side of it is wrong i think too. Why is our (well probably the US's but we have intelligence privatized here too) tax money being used to profit a private company.
I have heard people say they can do things alot cheaper then the miltary but i dont understand that either, there is something wrong with the military if they cant do something as cheaply an efficiently as a private company especially when those private companies usually pay alot better.

 

[huskerguy7]

Personally i think the while privatization of military is stupid.
While yes private companies have done alot of good things they have also done a fair bit of bad and usually arent held accountable.
While from a military standpoint it maybe good the money side of it is wrong i think too. Why is our (well probably the US's but we have intelligence privatized here too) tax money being used to profit a private company.
I have heard people say they can do things alot cheaper then the miltary but i dont understand that either, there is something wrong with the military if they cant do something as cheaply an efficiently as a private company especially when those private companies usually pay alot better.

Well, I agree that some parts of PMCs need to be regulated and that there needs to be oversight.

The GAO has produced a report showing that PMCs are more cost efficient. The findings were inconclusive; in one case the PMC saved over $100 million USD and in another the military was just as efficient.

It is evident though that PMCs are better for more "short term" projects.

 

[chrisdef]

It is evident though that PMCs are better for more "short term" projects.

How? Can anyone explain that? Unless people are doing things completely wrong i cant understand how its better or cheaper. The only way it could be is if the military is alot more like the govt then i thought (which is sad, govts are the biggest money wasters going), where 50 people in a commitee need to agree to make one small decision.

 

[huskerguy7]

How? Can anyone explain that? Unless people are doing things completely wrong i cant understand how its better or cheaper. The only way it could be is if the military is alot more like the govt then i thought (which is sad, govts are the biggest money wasters going), where 50 people in a commitee need to agree to make one small decision.

I'll point out an example actually similar to the one that the GAO pointed out.

Say that you need 20 soldiers to provide security for your base. However, all of your soldiers are out fighting; you don't have any manpower. You have two options: You can hire a PMC or recruit and train 20 soldiers. Recruiting and training the soldiers is going to expensive: you have to buy them gear, get them trained, etc. However, the PMC will offer a better price because they have the equipment and have ex-military trained personal working for them. Thus, initially, the PMC will be cheaper, but once you get your 20 soldiers deployed, they will be cheaper.

Basically, PMCs are able to operate cheaper initially because they have the assets. Plus, they allow for plausible deniability.

 

[kato]

However, the PMC will offer a better price because they have the equipment and have ex-military trained personal working for them.

Actually, no. The PMC (if we're talking about US PMCs, not locals) charges an amount that's very similar to how much you'd spend on hiring and training own staff to do it - usually actually slightly higher.

Equipment and gear for guard personnel? Oh please, just raid a USNG depot. There's enough equipment and gear for millions stored.

PMCs are cheaper because the day you don't need them anymore you can dissolve the contract. They are an on-demand cost as opposed to a fixed cost you need to retain. No other reason.

If these operatives would get caught or revealed, since they are not US operatives, they can be denied.

Plausible deniability is a term invented by people who have never heard of psychological warfare, and hardly ever works in reality. You do not need evidence to shift blame to the USA - the very fact that the US Military operates based on PMCs is evidence in itself. And a "private agent" being caught hurts mutual relations in the same way an "official agent" would.

 

[chrisdef]

I'll point out an example actually similar to the one that the GAO pointed out.

Say that you need 20 soldiers to provide security for your base. However, all of your soldiers are out fighting; you don't have any manpower. You have two options: You can hire a PMC or recruit and train 20 soldiers. Recruiting and training the soldiers is going to expensive: you have to buy them gear, get them trained, etc. However, the PMC will offer a better price because they have the equipment and have ex-military trained personal working for them. Thus, initially, the PMC will be cheaper, but once you get your 20 soldiers deployed, they will be cheaper.

Basically, PMCs are able to operate cheaper initially because they have the assets. Plus, they allow for plausible deniability.

As has been said no that doesnt make sense.
The US has plenty of extra soldiers, it doesnt need to train anymore specially for the job, and you have thousands of tonnes of weapons.

All i can think of is the govt helping out there contactor buddies, like Cheny with Haliburton, and not looking as bad at home, because as far as i know there are 20,000 plus contractors in Iraq (plus howver many in Afghanistan) and i can see the US public not being too happy if they needed to be replaced with 20,000 plus extra US troops.

 

[huskerguy7]

U.S. GAO - Warfighter Support: A Cost Comparison of Using State Department Employees versus Contractors for Security Services in Iraq

That's a study conducted by the GAO discussing how hiring contractors is cheaper than recruiting and training guards for PSD.

Where would you rather have your soldiers go? On patrol through a village or guarding a base? Patrol would be the better decision, so hiring PMCs allows the "inefficient" but necessary tasks be taken care of. To say that the US manpower in Afghanistan and Iraq is unlimited is an incorrect statement.

Also, Kato, PMCs can do some things that US troops can't. For example, in the early days of Afghanistan, the US contracted PMCs to target Taliban/terrorist cells in Western Pakistan; US soldiers don't have the authorization to go there. As one PMC said (I am trying to quote him from memory so I may be wrong) "If we get caught or killed in Pakistan, nobody cares, but if a US soldiers gets caught, relations between the Pakistan and US get a little strained."

 

[chrisdef]

That's a study conducted by the GAO discussing how hiring contractors is cheaper than recruiting and training guards for PSD.

The study doesnt really explain anything. As i said why specifically would it cost more for soldiers to do it? They are doing the same job, so really the only reason is the military is inefficient. Really training doesnt come into it, they are going to be trained either way. The only figure that matters is day to day and that shouldnt cost anymore especially as the contractors are often paid twice as much and the company that employs them are there to (and do) make profits.

Where would you rather have your soldiers go? On patrol through a village or guarding a base? Patrol would be the better decision, so hiring PMCs allows the "inefficient" but necessary tasks be taken care of. To say that the US manpower in Afghanistan and Iraq is unlimited is an incorrect statement.

You simply have more soldiers, thats not complicated. That brings it back to my first point that the govt wants the troop number to look better then they would be if the contractors werent there.

Also, Kato, PMCs can do some things that US troops can't. For example, in the early days of Afghanistan, the US contracted PMCs to target Taliban/terrorist cells in Western Pakistan; US soldiers don't have the authorization to go there. As one PMC said (I am trying to quote him from memory so I may be wrong) "If we get caught or killed in Pakistan, nobody cares, but if a US soldiers gets caught, relations between the Pakistan and US get a little strained.

I really doubt that, got any reputable links giving information about contractors fighting in Pakistan? If they have ID they are traceable back to the US, if they dont they are basically terrorists.

 

[huskerguy7]

I really doubt that, got any reputable links giving information about contractors fighting in Pakistan? If they have ID they are traceable back to the US, if they dont they are basically terrorists.

From a report, I read a book titled Licensed to Kill by Robert Young Pelton. Thankfully, I still have my sticky notes in place. It's on page 60. The contractor stays anonymous.

 

[chrisdef]

From a report, I read a book titled Licensed to Kill by Robert Young Pelton. Thankfully, I still have my sticky notes in place. It's on page 60. The contractor stays anonymous.

Well if your right, thats just another case of the US doing whatever they want around the world whether it legal or not. Lovely.