Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jakeXT

(10,575 posts)
Mon Sep 8, 2014, 04:33 PM Sep 2014

In place of 'boots on the ground,' US seeks contractors for Iraq

Wary of putting combat troops in Iraq, the U.S. government is gauging contractors’ interest in advising the Iraqi Defense Ministry and Counter Terrorism Service in a range of capacities, including force development, logistics and planning and operations.

The U.S. Army Contracting Command posted a notice last month seeking contractors willing to work on an initial 12-month contract, who should be “cognizant of the goals of reducing tensions between Arabs and Kurds, and Sunni and Shias.”

They would focus on administration, force development, procurement and acquisition, contracting, training management, public affairs, logistics, personnel management, professional development, communications, planning and operations, infrastructure management, intelligence and executive development, the notice stated.

Those services “fall within the existing mission” of the Office of Security Assistance-Iraq, “which is to help build institutional capacity of Iraq’s security ministries,” Defense Department spokesman Commander Bill Speaks said in an email.

http://www.stripes.com/news/in-place-of-boots-on-the-ground-us-seeks-contractors-for-iraq-1.301798

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
In place of 'boots on the ground,' US seeks contractors for Iraq (Original Post) jakeXT Sep 2014 OP
Mercenaries by any other name… Jackpine Radical Sep 2014 #1
Some other things atreides1 Sep 2014 #3
Recommended AuntPatsy Sep 2014 #4
Translation: US seeks middlemen to skim the 30% of the costs into their pockets arcane1 Sep 2014 #2
30% is way too low. elehhhhna Sep 2014 #7
We need a Constitutional Amendment preventing the use of mercenaries. [n/t] Maedhros Sep 2014 #5
Well just who signed off on this bit of crap Sopkoviak Sep 2014 #6
Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2014 #8

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
1. Mercenaries by any other name…
Mon Sep 8, 2014, 04:36 PM
Sep 2014

What's the difference between sending troops & sending mercenaries?

Simple. The mercs cost 3-4 times as much as troops per individual, & the profits go more directly into private hands.

atreides1

(16,079 posts)
3. Some other things
Mon Sep 8, 2014, 04:39 PM
Sep 2014

Mercenaries don't have to adhere to the laws of warfare, have no code of conduct to follow, and won't be punished for war crimes and atrocities that they will surely commit!

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
2. Translation: US seeks middlemen to skim the 30% of the costs into their pockets
Mon Sep 8, 2014, 04:37 PM
Sep 2014

War and diplomacy as a business enterprise. Worth every penny, I'm sure. Better than wasting that money at home, I suppose

 

Sopkoviak

(357 posts)
6. Well just who signed off on this bit of crap
Mon Sep 8, 2014, 05:06 PM
Sep 2014

I fully expect the Commander in Chief to rescind this atrocious decision and properly discipline the head of the Office of Security Assistance-Iraq.

Probably one of those Bush/Cheney "left behinds".

Response to jakeXT (Original post)

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»National Security & Defense»In place of 'boots on the...