Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

U.S. eyes private guards for bases in Afghanistan

World Jul. 26, 2009 - 11:12AM JST ( 5 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

5 Comments

0

rajakumarJul. 26, 2009 - 10:29PM JST

Gates says Afghans needs jobs to upgrade their families via contracts.

Contract jobs in military and other jobs can create jobs and upgrade afghans. A richer afghanistan with many employed afghans , will solve many of their woes.
0

sharky1Jul. 26, 2009 - 11:30PM JST

It escapes me as to why we need armed guards to protect our military...Just seems moronic...
0

TheQuestionJul. 26, 2009 - 11:56PM JST

Gates says Afghans needs jobs to upgrade their families via contracts.

He probably means it that it will give them jobs in an indirect way (as to how I have no idea). Because we'll probably be using MPRI, Titan, or Xe (better known as Blackwater Worldwide) to protect the outposts.

It escapes me as to why we need armed guards to protect our military...Just seems moronic...

Not when they're guarding far flung outposts or bases stationed in hotspots. You have to figure that those military bases aren't always full of the strapping young men and women that make up the U.S army, but rather half empty as most are going to be out on patrol or running ops. Plus theres the fact that nine times out of ten the private contractors are better armed and armored than our troops, most are veterans themselves and have a lifetime of experience in the military, and they are motivated by something less elusive than honor or duty...ie cold hard U.S currency courtesy of Uncle Sam.

I've always been in favor of the use of private contractors. Less troops in harms way, the people who are in harms way are being paid quite well to be there, and the ground commanders don't need to naviagate a sea of red tape every time they need something done, they just send out their reserve of hired guns. Of course most of this is simple work ranging from patroling a part of a city to protecting a base, but hay, thats what they're paid to do.

I just hope the government and the media get over themselves and give the contract to Xe, by far the largest and most efficient business in their field...aside from AirScan but then they are aircraft and surveillance only.
0

sharky1Jul. 27, 2009 - 06:01AM JST

TheQuestion...what you say makes no sense at all...we are still putting people in harms way whether the military or a contractor. If the contractors are so much better equipped than our armed forces, then why not hire them to fight the war??? (mercenaries) Again...it is moronic to hire people to do the Job that our military could be, and should be capable of doing.
0

TheQuestionJul. 28, 2009 - 05:00AM JST

TheQuestion...what you say makes no sense at all...we are still putting people in harms way whether the military or a contractor.

And thats what private military contractors are paid to do. These people only profit off of conflict so we use them in such a way that we get our moneys worth. People in the U.S armed forces sign up due to a sense of duty or of patriotism. Contractors sign up for compensation and hazard pay.

If the contractors are so much better equipped than our armed forces, then why not hire them to fight the war?

What do you think we had Blackwater doing in Iraq? Cause they sure as hell weren't paid to go sightseeing. Also, the use of private contractors is frowned upon by most of the world and likened to releasing a rabid dog into a flock of sheep. Their usefullness is undeniable but all good things have limitations.

Again...it is moronic to hire people to do the Job that our military could be, and should be capable of doing.

It is capable and it is doing the job, but its always nice to have help. Plus contractors can do alot of things that the military can't, in addition they are not restricted by many statutes of the geneva convention. Like I said, useful.