FACEBOOK
TWITTER
DALE SUITER: Support Troops
SUPPORT TROOPS
By Dale R. Suiter STAFF WRITER
History offers many examples of military personnel fielded as infantry when America’s combat arms are hard pressed in battle. The Marne in World War I, The Battle of the Bulge in World War II, The Chosin Reservoir in Korea, TET – 1968 in Vietnam are famous examples. Cooks, clerks, mechanics and other Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen have picked up weapons and acted as infantry. Many of the military support personnel have been replaced by so called private contractors. Troops back from Iraq and Afghanistan have told me they have a very, very low opinion of the private military contractors regarding their work ethic and technical capability to perform maintenance tasks.
Our military does not feed itself. Food service is contracted. Lt. Gen Lewis (Chesty) Puller said, words to the effect in “Marine” (Puller’s biography) “In future wars the troops will starve”. He had a point years ago. Gone are company Mess Sergeants that older vets like me remember. Gone too is the service the troops were provided by an in house food service system.
Repair of trucks, the (troop killing and maiming) HUMVEE, aircraft, armor and the thousands of maintenance and supply issues are privatized. Cost savings? Not within my view. A civilian welder is paid in excess of $80,000.00 a year in Iraq. His military counterpart makes far less.
Recall “Beware the military/industrail comples” said by a fromer President in the 1950′s. We can not “beware” the military/industrial complex. It is here – and it does not work.
The thousands of contracted “workers” will not be available to respond to the next offensive by the nation’s enemies. Who is going to pick up a rifle and go “…once more into the breech…”?
Dale R. Suiter
RVN Vet 67-69
Related Posts:
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=47270
Posted by Dale R. Suiter on Sep 6 2010, With 0 Reads, Filed under Veterans Affairs. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
COMMENTS
To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback
What is the point of this piece? I can’t even call it an article… it appears to be a stream of consciousness diatribe by a vet from a war long gone. Yes, I get that they never end. And I
thank you for your service, sir, but please help me – and your other readers- get to the point. I still don’t know what it was, and my husband has served 2 combat tours in Iraq. Seriously, WTF are you trying to say here? This kind of bumbling makes all of us look bad.
Contracted “support” is not cost effective. Use of contractors removes the “duty” from combat and combat service support and replaces it with the profit motive. Soldiers take care of each other.
Thank you for your response.
Dale R. Suiter
Please Note:
The “Troop killing HUMVEE” has been reported to me by soldiers returning from Iraq and Afganistan. The HUMVEE was not intended as a combat vechilce but has been adapted as one. The “up armoring” of the HUMVEE is a story in itself of United States neglect to the welfare of troops. Not long ago, asking the amputess at Walter Reed what vehicle they were in when “hit” habitually had a respons “HUMVEE”. Civilian contractors and our federal system were responsbile for the tradegy.
Dale R. Suiter
Who is going to pick up a rifle and go “…once more into the breech…”?
Hopefully noone. There is no breach [sic], nor any threat from without. The only true enemy is entrenched in Washington D.C. (and in Israel) and our military isn’t fighting any of them. So much for “fighting for our freedom”.
Thank you for taking the time to write an opinion. Threre will always be another war. History supports the world will always be in a rather constannt state of warfare. Using contractors make a few people rich. Troops tasked to fight wars are shortchanged regarding support, supply, replacements and the tools needed to sustain them in combat. Contractors operate on the sytsem of profit, not combat effectiveness. Thanks for the spelling corrections too.
Regards
Dale R. Suiter
Contractors do not report to a chain of command within the military force structure. An NCO for example can not order a civilian to repair a vehcile needed for a routine or important mission. Nor can a civilian be detailed to fill a combat role when needed. There is always an exception – I agree that there are individual circunstances where contractores may be “an answer” for a specific situation. Convoys, movement of troops and supplies, maintenance, force protection etc. are better within a military force structure. Thank you for your response.
Dale R. Suiter