Updated info about Special Forces going Corporate

[jterrell]

I argued that these guys were getting pulled into Blackwater et al.

And I was correct until some time 2005 when acts were taken to alleviate it.
Apparently numbers back that about the same amount of special forces type leave but keep in mind they get 6 figure signing bonuses now to stay.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/...commando_costs



By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press Writer 12 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has paid more than $100 million in bonuses to veteran Green Berets and Navy SEALs, reversing the flow of top commandos to the corporate world where security companies such as Blackwater USA are offering big salaries.
ADVERTISEMENT

The retention effort, started nearly three years ago and overseen by U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., has helped preserve a small but elite group of enlisted troops with vast experience fighting the unconventional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Defense Department statistics.

Overall, more than 1,200 of the military's most specialized personnel near or already eligible for retirement have opted for payments of up to $150,000 in return for staying in uniform several more years.

The numbers gathered by The Associated Press and other Pentagon research indicate there has not been an extended exodus of commandos to private security companies and other businesses that value their talents.

"Back in 2005, we saw quite a few exits," said Rear Adm. Michael LeFever, director of the Navy's military personnel plans and policy division. "What we're seeing lately is just the opposite. We've become very aggressive."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates remains so concerned over the lure of high salaries in the private sector that he has directed Pentagon lawyers to explore putting no-compete clauses into contracts with security companies that would limit their recruiting abilities.

While special operations forces are by no means the only candidates for security jobs in Iraq that can pay hundreds of dollars a day, they are the most attractive because of the unique training they receive.

In addition to being proficient with weapons, many of these troops have advanced educations, the ability to speak the languages of the Middle East and other regions, and the cultural awareness that comes with living among the local populations.

For those same reasons, the military wants to hold on to them as long as possible, and at the same time demonstrate to younger enlisted troops that there's a financial incentive for an extended career.

The stress of repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan and the opportunities for financial stability outside the military have heightened the urgency of the military's retention efforts.

Gates said Wednesday the Army must focus more on training foreign militaries and fighting insurgent groups - methods essential to success in the type of irregular warfare U.S. forces now face. Troops with these skills "need to be retained," Gates told the annual convention of the Association of the U.S. Army.

With the Pentagon expecting to spend another $43.5 million on commando bonuses in fiscal year 2008, which began Oct. 1, statistics show the military is building a more mature special operations force.

In addition to retention bonuses, enlisted special operations personnel ranging from corporals to sergeant majors also qualify for a special duty pay of $375 a month above their normal salary.

The Special Operations Command bonus program was approved in late 2004 and targeted noncommissioned Army, Navy and Air Force commandos with 19 years or more of service. After 20 years, military personnel are eligible to retire at half pay and have lifetime access to military medical care and other benefits.

At the 19-year mark, an Army sergeant first class earns about $63,400 annually, a figure that doesn't include what the Congressional Budget Office calls "noncash" benefits available to military members such as subsidized child care, lower grocery costs at base stores, and free access to recreational facilities.

The "critical skills retention" bonuses work on a sliding scale and are offered to senior enlisted personnel and warrant officers who form the backbone of the force.

Those agreeing to stay an extra six years receive $150,000; five years is worth $75,000; four years, $50,000; three years, $30,000; two years, $18,000; and one extra year, $8,000.

Since January 2005, 2,326 have been eligible and more than half took bonuses, statistics show.

Those who didn't opt for an extension may have retired, or they may be waiting for the right time to take the bonus: accepting it during a battle-zone deployment makes the payment tax free.

Within the Army Special Forces, the largest U.S. commando branch better known as the Green Berets, more than 900 have traded time for money. Over a third of these troops agreed to six-year extensions.

Overall, at a cost of $75 million, the Pentagon bought an average of 3.3 additional years from Green Berets with nearly two decades of experience in combat engineering, communications, intelligence and field medicine, figures show.

Just over 300 Navy SEALs - Sea, Air and Land commandos - have signed up for longer tours at a cost of $27.6 million. More than half agreed to six additional years.

The Air Force pool of combat controllers and pararescuemen with at least 19 years of service is the smallest; 32 of these troops opted for bonuses costing $3 million. Half took the six-year package.

While Special Operations Command officials view the results as positive, retention figures probably will do little to settle the heated debate over recruiting tactics used by private security companies.

"The disgraceful cycle works like this: Contractors hire away military talent. The military finds itself short of skilled workers, so contractors get more contracts. With more money, they hire away more uniformed talent," wrote Ralph Peters, a retired Army officer and a frequent commentator on military issues, in a recent op-ed in the New York Post.

Blackwater USA has a large contract with the State Department to guard U.S. diplomats in Iraq. Since a Sept. 16 shooting in Baghdad that left 17 Iraqis dead, the company has been sharply criticized for the way it operates.

At an Oct. 2 congressional hearing, Democratic lawmakers accused the company of poaching from the military's ranks. Erik Prince, Blackwater's top executive, defended his company, saying not every one wants to stay in uniform for 20 years.

"At some point they're going to get out after four, six, eight, whatever that period of time is, whatever they decide, because we don't have a draft. We have a voluntary service," Prince said. "Yes, a lot of them come to work for companies like us, but not at any higher rate than they ever did before."

Chris Taylor, a former vice president for strategic initiatives at Blackwater, said Prince's claim is backed by a July 2005 study from the Government Accountability Office that said attrition levels within military specialties favored by contractors were about the same as before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

More recently, Chris MacPherson reached a similar conclusion in a research project he conducted over the summer in the Pentagon's special operations directorate.

"I found no evidence that (private security companies) have increased the number of U.S. special operations forces leaving the military," said MacPherson, a graduate student at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

Of the estimated 25,000 security personnel working in Iraq, only about 2,000 are Americans and they earn between $350 to $500 a day, said Doug Brooks, president of the International Peace Operations Association.

That means there aren't that many high-paying security jobs available even if a service member leaves the military, said Brooks, whose organization represents many companies doing business in Iraq.

"There's no drain on the military," Brooks said. "This is way overblown."

[burmafrd]

As I recall you were claiming THOUSANDS were being employed by blackwater and others and I pointed out that THERE WERE NOT THAT MANY SF around.
Numbers show that that has not changed a lot due to the signing bonuses.
And I have no problem with our guys getting the money. They certainly EARN it.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

As I recall you were claiming THOUSANDS were being employed by blackwater and others and I pointed out that THERE WERE NOT THAT MANY SF around.
Numbers show that that has not changed a lot due to the signing bonuses.
And I have no problem with our guys getting the money. They certainly EARN it.

DING DING DING. We argue quite a bit but we are in 100% agreement on this issue.

And they still deserve more, all soldiers serving do IMO.

[Yeagermeister]

Originally Posted by BrAinPaiNt

DING DING DING. We argue quite a bit but we are in 100% agreement on this issue.

And they still deserve more, all soldiers serving do IMO.

Except those lazy bastages called Combat Medics that trained at Ft. Sam

[burmafrd]

Well, some of them certainly deserve to be left out in the open at Bagram without a weapon or cover. Then to sit back with the beer and popcorn and watch the fun.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Originally Posted by Yeagermeister

Except those lazy bastages called Combat Medics that trained at Ft. Sam

Watch your mouth mister.

[zrinkill]

My only comment is that these men have earned every penny. Much more than the professional athletes who would laugh at that salary.

[jterrell]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

As I recall you were claiming THOUSANDS were being employed by blackwater and others and I pointed out that THERE WERE NOT THAT MANY SF around.
Numbers show that that has not changed a lot due to the signing bonuses.
And I have no problem with our guys getting the money. They certainly EARN it.

No argument from me there.

I'd rather offer higher base salaries and entice more soldiers than outsource to Blackwater.

Blackwater has hired thousands of these guys. Two thousand are working in Iraq at the time of the report. We should be swelling our Special Forces not merely maintaining them after years at War....

And Blackwater does more than just operate in Iraq.

Gates is considering a non-compete clause with contracts for private security firms because he doesn't want to lose Special forces types to them. Which only makes sense.

[arglebargle]

Originally Posted by jterrell

No argument from me there.

I'd rather offer higher base salaries and entice more soldiers than outsource to Blackwater.

Blackwater has hired thousands of these guys. Two thousand are working in Iraq at the time of the report. We should be swelling our Special Forces not merely maintaining them after years at War....

And Blackwater does more than just operate in Iraq.

Gates is considering a non-compete clause with contracts for private security firms because he doesn't want to lose Special forces types to them. Which only makes sense.

The fact that Gates is considering a 'no compete' clause shows that he thinks it is a serious enough issue.

[jterrell]

Originally Posted by arglebargle

The fact that Gates is considering a 'no compete' clause shows that he thinks it is a serious enough issue.

As does the fact we now offer six figure signing bonuses and still see the same level of recidivism we did prior to the offering of military contracts to these companies.

I am glad we are paying these guys but we are merely staying even even after substantial financial investment.

[burmafrd]

There are NOT thousands of Special Forces in Blackwater. Or in any of the other firms. Because there are NOT THOUSANDS of them around to be in those firms. Do the math if you cannot figure it out otherwise. You keep coming up with these numbers but have NOTHING to support it.

[jterrell]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10062007...uit.htm?page=1


BRIBING TROOPS TO QUIT
BLACKWATER VS. NAT'L DEFENSE

October 6, 2007 -- THE problems with military outsourcing go far beyond last month's massacre of civilians by Blackwater USA's hired guns: Wartime profiteers are bleeding our military.

Astonishingly, contractors are free to approach those in uniform, offer them generous salaries to leave their service in wartime, then profit from the skills your tax dollars taught them.

This isn't just about Navy SEALS or other special operators. In intelligence, for example, we train young soldiers for complex missions and expensively process their security clearances - then contractors bribe them to leave the military, raking in big bucks from your investment in their new employee.

Maybe we could look the other way in peacetime. But we're fighting multiple wars. Would we have allowed contractors to hire away some of the most highly skilled men and women in uniform during World War II? (Of course, most lawmakers really were patriots then . . .)

It's fundamentally wrong to let contractors go head-hunting among our troops in wartime. Those in government who've elevated outsourcing to a state religion pretend it helps our war effort - with the whopper that outsourcing military functions saves taxpayer dollars.

Exactly how does that one work? You get stuck with the training and security-clearance costs; the soldier lured to the private sector gets his salary doubled or tripled - then the contractor adds in a markup for his multiple layers of overhead costs and a generous profit margin, and bills the taxpayers. How is that cheaper than having soldiers do the job?

The scam-artists tell us that using contractors saves money in the long run, since their employees don't get military health care and retirement benefits. But the numbers just don't add up.

Contractors are looting our military - while wrapping themselves in the flag.

Thankfully, the finest soldiers and Marines aren't in it for the money. But we're still losing personnel with vital in-demand skills.

Here's how one disgusted special-ops veteran puts it:

"I got tired of old SF buddies handing me their business cards as I exited the dining facility in Iraq [and] asking me to come over and work for them. I'll go teach high school English in the inner city first."

In a follow-up message, this veteran - who's sticking by the colors - wrote:

"The saddest thing I see in those 'flesh peddlers' is the part of the conversation when they admit that they really miss the unit and the people in it. A true warrior isn't in it for the money, but, rather, for those things that money can never buy: mutual respect, camaraderie and the self-worth that comes with it.

"Every one of my contractor 'buddies' eventually breaks down and admits these things to me. Unfortunately, they can also pick up on a malcontent quickly, therefore acquiring the 'easy sale.' "

The disgraceful cycle works like this: Contractors hire away military talent. The military finds itself short of skilled workers, so contractors get more contracts. With more money, they hire away more uniformed talent.

Here's what we need to do to right a wrong that borders on treason:

* Congress must defy its campaign contributors and criminalize attempts to hire those in uniform away from their service during periods of war and conflict.

* If a service member put in a full 20 years or more and retired, he or she should be free to take a job with any law-abiding firm. But any soldier short of 20 who accepts specialized training and a security clearance at government expense should have to wait two years after his or her discharge before moving to a related private-sector position.

* Defense contractors who hire young veterans with advanced skills or security clearances should have to reimburse the government 50 percent of their training and background investigation costs.

The current system is intolerable. The problem, of course, is Congress. Although the Hill is half-way to approving stateside prosecutions for criminal conduct by government contractors abroad, your representatives only did so because they were caught out by the Blackwater scandal.

The truth is that most members of Congress, Republican or Democrat, will favor a contractor who pays in campaign contributions over soldiers who pay with their lives.

We saw classic congressional behavior last week, when Blackwater founder Erik Prince testified on the Hill and set a new standard for smugness. A solid Republican phalanx defended a major contributor. The Dems, who failed to do their homework on the issues, looked stupidly partisan themselves - just harassing a GOP donor.

And Prince got away with his shameless claims that he and his trigger-happy thugs are true-blue patriots. If so, why hire talent away from our military in wartime? Why give heavy weapons to under-supervised "malcontents," endangering our battlefield progress?

And if the independently wealthy Prince is so patriotic, why not provide Blackwater's services to the government on a no-profit basis?

Well, Blackwater ain't no red-white-and-blue charity, and Prince isn't one of FDR'S dollar-a-year men. The company lacked serious credentials when it landed its first security contract - and one suspects it would never have been hired if not for Prince's campaign contributions and political connections.

People like Erik Prince aren't patriots. They're vampires sucking the blood of our troops - war profiteers growing rich while soldiers die.

As I warned in these pages several years ago, we didn't just outsource services in Iraq. We outsourced our nation's honor.

Ralph Peters is a retired military officer and the author of "Wars Of Blood and Faith."

[burmafrd]

This article is bull crap. So basically you are saying that since our young people VOLUNTEERED and SERVED their time we now OWN them?
THAT is what this article is saying. Frankly, anecdotal so called evidence means nothing to me. Show me a real factual piece written with numbers and backed up. NY Post. Not much less reliable then the National Enquirer. This is all you could find, JT? Retired military officer? details. was he a REMF? was he a combat soldier?

[Garland powerplay]

A neighbor of mine who was in Iraq for 3 tears told me the contractors have different rules of engagement that aids the US forces. What happens here is a uniformed military member spots a civilian in the street who fired upon him the night before. They are not allowed to engage the enemy at this point. The contractors don't follow the same rules of engagement allowing them to handle the type of business necessary without the handcuffs put on the G.I.'s.