Dogs of War: Cost-effective: Myth or fact?

[maddezmom]

By DAVID ISENBERG
WASHINGTON, April 25 (UPI) -- If you've heard it once, you've heard it countless times: Governments and corporations turn to private military contractors because it is more cost-effective than using regular military forces. But is it true?

Typical is this statement by Doug Brooks, president of the International Peace Operations Association: "Contractors are cost effective. While the popular perception is of huge salaries for cushy jobs, the reality is that contractors live alongside military personnel and generally cost the government far less in the long run."

This is a popular notion once adhered to only by diehard-free market advocates who believe government is fundamentally inefficient and unproductive. Admittedly, the actions of the Bush administration have given it credence, but it has been conventional wisdom since the days of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

It also reflects the cumulative effect of military force reductions and the fashionable notion of "core competency," i.e., that one should focus only on what one does best and pay someone else to do the rest. In the Pentagon's case, the core competency is war-fighting.

more:http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Emerging_Threats/Analysis/2008/04/25/dogs_of_war_cost-effective_myth_or_fact/8897/

[Demeter]

1. Given the Source of the Factoid, I'd Guess FALSE!

There are no true facts in BushWorld.

[bemildred]

2. Myth.

Governments have always preferred the levee en masse, when they can get it. They resort to mercenaries, an option that has numerous defects, when they cannot.

[ogsball]

3. This might be true if

you account for the fact that you don't have to cover medical costs of any civilian who sustains injuries in a war zone, there is no GI bill, there are no burials and there is very little political cost for cutting the contractors out of these typical military benefits.

Of course it's not true if contracts are cost plus no bid transfer payment to friends of the government.

[Arctic Dave]

4. You hit the nail on the head.

I'll simplify it. It is cheaper for the gov't to use people then discard them when they are no longer needed.