| inbluevt | Date: Thursday, 2013/07/25, 11:43 PM | Message # 1 | DMCA |
|
|
Private
Group: Blocked
Messages: 1024
|
Those who support using private military and security contractors often claim that a major
reason for doing so is that it is more cost-effective than using regular military forces.While there hasn’t been a whole lot of rigorous evidence put forward to substantiate the claim, especially considering the decades the argument has been forward, basic fairness dictates that we have to say
it is possible.
But, as the saying goes: be careful what you ask for, because you might just get it.
Perhaps the reason contractors are more effective than regular military forces is that they are more prone to getting shafted by their employers. Naturally, that is not the argument a
pro-private-military-and-security-contractor advocate might want to cite, but a paper written in 2012 provides some compelling evidence that it is the case.
Last year, Jimmy I. Wise, a U.S. Navy lieutenant commander, wrote a paper published by the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Outsourcing Wars: Comparing Risk, Benefits and Motivation of Contractors and Military Personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan (2009–2011) compared risk, insurance benefits, and motivation factors for contractors and U.S military personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2009 to 2011.
More
Message edited by inbluevt - Thursday, 2013/07/25, 11:45 PM |
|
|
| |
Main 
