The problem with the idea that US military needs KBR is that it assumes no one else can do the job KBR does. That is not true. It would be more accurate to say that, by paying KBR a fortune to do these jobs badly, the military is wasting money that could be spent to hire and supervise better, more efficient managers who would then hire better, more efficient workers.

It would also be fair to say that KBR hindered the reconstruction of Iraq by hiring non-Iraqis who then took the money they received out of Iraq, instead of injecting it into the Iraqi economy.

The only way to trim this fiscal beast is for folks to STOP paying federal taxes! Starve the Beast!!

Peace.

Idiocy. What's wrong with MRE's that our troops ate in every war before? The only reason they set up these full scale cafeterias is because they designed a long term occupation, not a brief "liberation" they claimed like in 1991. The idea that the issue would become culinary, with soldiers adding 10 pounds average, in a war we entered illegally and should not even be there, ruining our reputation permanently throughout the world, is asinine. The world isn't even going to accept us back into the community of nations until Obama completes his promise to get our troops out NOW!

The first thing that comes to mind is that these services should be put up for bid. But I've seen the horrible outcomes that causes. These companies which bid against one another are all designed to skim a fat margin off the top and then make it up by mistreatment of workers.

When a company wins a bid to take over for a different contractor, then immediately everyone is fired and those deemed most important are hired back at lower wages while the rest are replaced by misfits. In just the last 10 years I've witnessed it at DoE and DoD sites.

The government uses these contractors to prevent waste, and they have historical experience in overpaid and underperforming federal employees driving that attitude. But the problem in that case is excessively strong unions and uninspired management.

The solution now is to go back to a federal model, where the armed forces and federal departments provide their own logistics, either free of unions or else with special unions which protect pay and benefits but do not protect individual members for being terminated for poor performance. Salaried people likewise need to face fair performance evaluations and high expectations.

The armed services are limited to a certain number of people. To maximize the number of these people who do actual "military" jobs, such as infantry, field artillery, etc., the DoD supplements this number with contractors. In other words, KBR helps DoD cheat, in a matter of speaking.

If military people did all these "other" jobs, we would need twice as many soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen to do them, and that would require approval from Congress. Instead, you make up the difference with contractors on an ad-hoc basis. The ad-hoc part is where one might think the savings would come from, that is, if the process weren't run by corrupt politicians. If the Obama administration manages to wring out the fat, we will get some idea how much the previous administration has been helping KBR and the rest steal from us.

"Cedergren's death is among 18 electrocution deaths — 16 U.S. service members and two military contractors — under review as part of a Department of Defense Inspector General inquiry. ... Maseth's death was initially considered accidental, but is now classified by Army investigators as "negligent homicide" caused by Houston-based contractor KBR Inc. and two of its supervisors. An Army investigator said the contractor failed to ensure that "qualified electricians and plumbers" did the work. The case is under legal review."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090203/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_contractors_electrocutions

hey, gotta save a buck.

is it true the marine corps hymn is being changed to "entry of the gladiators"?

or was it "darth vader's theme?"

And disassemble the military ......

We're only hastening our decline and bringing unnecessary suffering and poverty to our own people trying to maintain such a posture.

Despite all the naysayers, maybe, per Charlie Rangel, we DO need to reinstate the draft.

Sure, let's try to keep the bankrupt empire by instituting a draft. In the interests of fairness, how about we start with the wealthiest 5% of the population since they have received the most benefits from our wars. This has the added benefits of using the very people who are generally the most pro-war as cannon fodder.

The big problem is shown with the 10 pound gain by the average solder when they finish their tour.

One can argue that these solders wouldn't put up with KP and if they leave the army, you lose a lot of valuable people. I can understand this argument. Imagine if your job not only included what you're currently doing, but scrubbing the toilets and peeling potatoes. Maybe a volunteer force is different. Draftees can be forced to peel potatoes. They're leaving in 18 months and they'll never return. You can't have a volunteer force take the same attitude.

But then, there's that weight gain... What does it show you when your biggest problem in a war zone is getting fat? It says something about the contracts. Are we serving lobster tails and installing milkshake bars because the solders wouldn't fight unless they have it, or because serving lobster tails and installing milkshakes bar KBR's contract a whole lot bigger?

There are some contracting positions we shouldn't have: Anybody with a gun better be real military. Paying 100K+ to allow people to play solder isn't smart. The military resents it because it's their jobs that's being taken away. The solders resent it because they're forced to work with people getting 3 times their pay. There shouldn't be any jobs for Blackwater type outfits.

But what about being a janitor or cook? I certainly wouldn't think of my job as a profession to keep if I had to scrub the toilets every third day. Maybe there's a point in contracting out these positions. Yet, a civilian contract to serve Beef n' Mac every other week isn't quite as lucrative as a contract to serve all the goodies of home and then some. And, that points to the real problem.

Who is deciding how big these contracts should be? Or, on what level these contracts should be carried out at? Maybe you can't get recruits to volunteer for an outfit that is famous for its chipped beef on toast, but are we unable to find people to serve their country unless they are guaranteed access to an Xbox and fresh romaine lettuce?

This is the real issue with these external contracts. It isn't the outright banditry (although there was plenty of that in the first few years of Iraq). It's the fact that they get bigger and fancier. Not because they need to be, but because that's how you really make a nice profit.

I'm not too sure how to handle this, but there seems to be plenty of fat to cut -- both around the waist and in the contracts.