The use of contractors in civil and government work is very common. A lot of the tasks that used to be done by troops are now performed by private companies. While you might think this work was limited to non-combatant logistics work such as meal preparation or truck driving, it may be more startling to consider that in the modern world of globalization, even the protection detail of the US Ambassador in Iraq is made up of private security guards. The burgeoning antiterrorist missions in Afghanistan and Iraq are well staffed with contract workers doing everything from interrogation to translation work. Often times, these contract workers are ex-military or ex-government - and are earning more than their former colleagues, performing the same role. An article from Slate earlier this year gives a revealing look into what it is like to be a contractor on the streets of Iraq.

Nowadays private involvement in the war on terror has reached a point that the armed forces simply cannot complete their mission -without- the assistance of multinationals. It seems to be a very good time to be a private entrepreneur, but not so great of a time to be serving the country for simple patriotism. After all, there's no money in it. From recruiting sergeants to interrogators, we are seeing civilian faces. Is this good for the military? Is this good for the country? Personally, I have my misgivings.

Still, one can understand the need to ramp up force numbers in an emergency by hiring outside help. Many of the private firms are staffed by former special operations and intelligence officers with extensive links and experience in their area of operation, and so one can be assured that in theory at least, they can perform the task for which they are hired, whether that be securing an airport or protecting a VIP (I'll leave aside the fact that some of these security firms have very close ties to the GOP Administration and Bush white house - that should be no surprise to anyone). But what about rebuilding an entire nation? Surely that would be done by experts at the State Department and Pentagon?

You might think so, but this week the Washington Post published adaptations from a recent book that claimed the exact opposite was the case. Far from recruiting the most able, it was revealed from examining the record that in many cases political leaning was the determining factor. It is difficult to argue ability trumped ideology when a 24 year old was put in charge of rebuilding Iraq's commercial stock exchange. The Democratic party are now lining up at the gate to hold hearings on the matter. While they do not control the House or Senate, one can be sure that if they manage to take one (or both) bodies in November, such hearings will be at the top of the agenda. It remains to be seen what the American public - and the world, for that matter - will make of this. If it is proven that the current Administration did in fact fill the CPA with loyal staffers rather than pragmatic professionals, history will not be a kind judge - and nor should the American people.

It not only applies to the war, Jack. The military is hiring/replacing active duty positions with previously unheard of numbers of civilians and contractors in every branch for every job. It's scary!

Though in most cases, politics don't seem to be a factor - just money.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)