Hacker News Reader

Interesting article:

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/06/15/the-twin-in...

Its basic thesis is that the modern nation-state is being hollowed out by a twin insurgency: criminals and terrorists from below, and plutocratic corporations from above. Neither of these actually seeks to destroy the state; rather, they act as parasites, using the vestigial remains of the state for their own purposes while fulfilling none of the duties that membership in a nation-state has historically entailed. The criminal insurgency uses the state for infrastructure, wealth, and a trusting population whose productivity it can siphon off. The plutocratic insurgency uses the state for its legal framework, populist legitimacy, and social services. Both populations seek to create zones of autonomy & comfort by taking advantage of the national population, who continues playing by the rules even though the former group ignores the rules and the latter stacks them in its favor.

Seems somewhat apropos here, given that we were fighting the terrorist insurgency in Iraq and doing so to enrich the plutocratic insurgency, all at the expense of the taxpayer.

> the majority of base construction on the modern battlefield is done by contractors.

Not initially in war zones or any hostile areas. Contractors come in later to provide base support services. It is military personnel who first establish the base.

Navy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seabee

Air Force: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Engineer_Deployable_Heav...

> They supply virtually every aspect of the temporary-cities that are U.S. wartime bases. Without them, we can't have these wars.

I don't believe this at all. We don't need these 'green zones' to run a war, as the US has done many times before. We did need them to run a specific kind of war, which was a blitzkrieg occupation. Not saying it was a bad plan, it certainly achieved some measure of success, but pretending that it's the only way to engage in war is unwise.

I’d argue that the company controls Dick Cheney. Brown and Root was the patron of LBJ in the 40s, and was a big part of his rise and the huge military buildout in Texas — uniquely profitable due to the unique ownership structure of vacant land in that state.

Whoa! I did not realize that Halliburton was Brown and Root.

If there are no private contractors then the US Military would just takeover those duties itself.

I believe that was the OP's point. If these roles are filled by soldiers instead of contractors, the profit motive for war goes away. At the time, the VP's company was providing billions of dollars of support for the war in the Middle East. While he had divested himself while in VP, to think there was no influence would be naive.

To rephrase: lack of private contractors would not affect military might.

As far as profits, there will always be contractors and vendors to buy stuff from. The military is not going to be making everything from scratch.

As of 2016, there were 3 contractors for every 1 military personnel in Afghanistan, which is a titanic inversion from a few decades ago. Removing contractors would limit the availability of our military to fight in other engagements. We also get less recruits these days, in poorer condition. The states where we normally recruit the most soldiers has also had the highest incidents of accidents incurred during basic training, due in part to steadily dropping physical fitness rates in trainees.

We rely on contractors to buffer our ranks not just logistically but also politically. Due to a lack of reporting on contractors and their budgets, we don't know exactly how much we spend on our wars, nor how many people get killed (more contractors have died than U.S. personnel in past 2 wars). Our military may not be able to wage wars of tacit public approval without the use of contractors to hide the true cost.

Of course we will always contract for things the military isn't specialized in, such as manufacturing. But this isn't about manufacturing, it's about a logistical supply chain and service industry, in addition to [what appears to be] an approaching mercenary army. Without these services, the military would probably take years to build up the same specialization, and would have to use less money than the contractors use, with more volunteers.

Indeed, there are more contractors than US personnel in Afghanistan and formerly Iraq.

These are not only used in logistic and services but also as combatant troops.

And this not always has been the case, during the first Golf War, the percentage of contractor was much lower at 10 to 20%.

This is a recent evolution (around the 2000s).

It also raises a number of questions like:

* legal loopholes when atrocities are committed (one example is the Blackwater case in 2007)

* the very damaging conflict of interests that arise from privatizing war (conflict of interests in a public contract for let say a bridge can cost money to the collectivity, a conflict of interest in for waging war can destabilize a region, kill a lot of people and damage a country reputation for decades).

* This can be also be liked to the fact that contractors have an incentive to have their contract extended ie not ending a war quickly but pouring gas on the fire.

In my opinion, privatizing wars is really dangerous. War is a kind of violence that only a state should be able wage and preferably with a lot of checks from outside (UN) and within (governments, public opinion, votes and laws).

That isn’t true. There are not enough military age males available to fill a voluntary army that sustains combat operations for two decades. Full stop.

We’re following the British colonial model. The military demographically is rural white and minority. It’s seen as a way out or up, and there is a saturation point for that market. Nobody has the political capital to push a draft, so we make do with mercenary entities hiring cheap local help and charging usurious rates for non-core tasks.

Who are the contractors, if the rural white and minorities are the recruits? Former military? Rich white dudes and local labor?

We don't know for sure, because the Pentagon likes to play don't ask, don't tell with contractor stats. But it seems that around 70% of contractors killed are not U.S. citizens. But the number of killed, injured, or even employed is not accurately reported, according to GAO reports. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_contractor_dea... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Con...

Major General Smedley Butler on war profiteers back in 1935:

https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html