Erik Prince in the Hot Seat

Larry Gude

Strung Out
By some odd coincidence, a couple of major wars started up right about the same time. We could call that a "sudden and dramatic increase in demand for products and services". :razz:

Prince is everyone's favorite pinata, but... ]

You honestly don't expect me stand by and let that non sense go, do you? Those wars didn't just start up out of the blue. We chose them both. A handful of delta operators had bin Laden pinned down and had a plan to end it. They were told to stand down and let their indigenous partners finish the deal for PR reasons. Either we let him go on purpose or honestly thought a bunch of people who sauntered to the front after breakfast every day and ran home for supper every night were gonna close the deal or it was on purpose. You take your pick. In any event, BIG Army wanted in on the party and that is what they got. Iraq was completely a war of choice and one we spent, at the very minimum, 18 months building up to politically; more than enough time to expand existing special operations forces or even to create a whole new diplomatic security force. Wearing US uniforms. Under US command. Prince, and others, worked their asses off to get some gummint cheese out of this.

It was a mistake and is one. In my view.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
You honestly don't expect me stand by and let that non sense go, do you? Those wars didn't just start up out of the blue.

But what's that got to do with this thread? You trying to change the subject?

Say, you notice how huge that list of security companies is? Kinda makes focusing on Prince look......silly, at best.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
But what's that got to do with this thread? You trying to change the subject?

Say, you notice how huge that list of security companies is? Kinda makes focusing on Prince look......silly, at best.

The point of the thread as I understand it;
is under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal agencies for attempting to broker military services to foreign governments and possible money laundering, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the case.

What began as an investigation into Prince’s attempts to sell defense services in Libya and other countries in Africa has widened to a probe of allegations that Prince received assistance from Chinese intelligence to set up an account for his Libya operations through the Bank of China. The Justice Department, which declined to comment for this article, is also seeking to uncover the precise nature of Prince’s relationship with Chinese intelligence.

If there was no US sub contracting of trigger jobs, his company either doesn't exist our has always existed outside US interests. Yes?
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
If there was no US sub contracting of trigger jobs, his company either doesn't exist our has always existed outside US interests. Yes?

Except that their first and foremost product was training, for which there was a lot of demand. Nice facilities too.

Say, you happen to notice how many other companies are competing in that space?? Must be a ton of demand, eh?
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Except that their first and foremost product was training, for which there was a lot of demand. Nice facilities too.

Say, you happen to notice how many other companies are competing in that space?? Must be a ton of demand, eh?

Prince was angling to get into that space from the get go, to compete with the Executive Outcomes of the world. And the ones in business today are a who's who of front page #### ups, duplicitous deals and job security for shady people the world over. To say only Blackwater could offer US diplomats 'proper' security is to say the US military couldn't handle it. It could have if directed to. Using contractors was just one more way for our leaders to avoid dealing with the real problem of winning the wars or not. "Mission Accomplished! Now, back in the armored cars and into the convey to the next photo op! Hurry up!"
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Prince was angling to get into that space from the get go, to compete with the Executive Outcomes of the world. And the ones in business today are a who's who of front page #### ups, duplicitous deals and job security for shady people the world over. To say only Blackwater could offer US diplomats 'proper' security is to say the US military couldn't handle it. It could have if directed to. Using contractors was just one more way for our leaders to avoid dealing with the real problem of winning the wars or not. "Mission Accomplished! Now, back in the armored cars and into the convey to the next photo op! Hurry up!"

Looks like bidness is booming, doe..
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Looks like bidness is booming, doe..

It's one thing if American's are building specialized boats around the world. You're not shooting anyone. If a bunch of ex-whatevers end up in yet another shoot out in yet another unstable place and a bunch more 'civilians' get shot, 'innocent' bystanders, those private contractors will no longer be Bob or Ed or Joe. They'll be "US Navy SEAL Bob/US Delta Force Ed/Army Ranger Joe yesterday shot a bunch of kids..."
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I'd rather those guys were kept employed in the army/Navy to age 50 and then sent off with nice $500,000 bonus's.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
To what extent? And did it not explode during Iraq War IX or whatever chapter we were on in '03? Illegal immigration was going on prior to Dubbya. It exploded under him. I'm all for seeking out and understanding root causes and historical context. I'm just fairly comfortable saying the problem became YUGE after 2003. Yes, no?

The DoD implemented a project called A-76. I don't know the date this all started, but it was meant to 'privatize' (or contract) out certain military positions. When I got stationed at Eglin AFB in '93 the studies were well on their way. By the time I left Eglin in '98 many positions were already being contracted out. This was done because they thought it would be more cost-effective to put contractors in certain positions than military. They're already trained in those fields, so it reduced the cost of training military folks. The other reason for it is it provides continuity. You get contractors in these positions that potentially stay for long periods of time. They develop the corporate knowledge of that position as well as no need for technical training that would be required for military due to the frequent turn-over of people.

I would say most of the contracted positions that exist today were well in place before Clinton got out of office.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
The DoD implemented a project called A-76. I don't know the date this all started, but it was meant to 'privatize' (or contract) out certain military positions. When I got stationed at Eglin AFB in '93 the studies were well on their way. By the time I left Eglin in '98 many positions were already being contracted out. This was done because they thought it would be more cost-effective to put contractors in certain positions than military. They're already trained in those fields, so it reduced the cost of training military folks. The other reason for it is it provides continuity. You get contractors in these positions that potentially stay for long periods of time. They develop the corporate knowledge of that position as well as no need for technical training that would be required for military due to the frequent turn-over of people.

I would say most of the contracted positions that exist today were well in place before Clinton got out of office.


I will grant any time line or purpose you guys require. My one and only point is that I think it is better for us as a nation if geared up guys openly carrying rifles and pistols and moly out the ass in what amount to battle zones are current members of the US military.
Anyone who actually believes it's cheaper to use contractors has been spending too much time guarding our poppy fields in A'stan.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
I will grant any time line or purpose you guys require. My one and only point is that I think it is better for us as a nation if geared up guys openly carrying rifles and pistols and moly out the ass in what amount to battle zones are current members of the US military.
Anyone who actually believes it's cheaper to use contractors has been spending too much time guarding our poppy fields in A'stan.

This is the best way I can explain how cost comes into play contractor vs. military. But first, you have to realize most contract positions are desk jockeys or maintenance people.

I'll talk about my position. It requires a security clearance, IT certifications, and training (both IT training and OJT).

I'm hired with a salary. I've already been trained in IT at my expense. I already had a security clearance coming into this job. It requires fairly high level of knowledge and proficiency in routers, switches, virtual servers, stand-alone servers, cryptos, firewalls... In other words, you can't just bring someone off the streets and plop them down and get working. It requires a long period of OJT. So, a contractor comes in, already cleared and trained, gets their weeks of OJT and remains in that position for several years. I've been here for almost 10 years.

A military person typically would come in at a lower or middle rank. They had to go through a 10-12 months of technical school to learn their skill. This costs lots of money. They get assigned here, stay for about 2-3 years then they are reassigned somewhere else. Most don't come in with their clearances; so they can't touch anything until they are cleared. Next guy goes through technical school, gets assigned here, gets OJT, then is gone again in about 2-3 years. And over and over... They also receive their salary as I do. Granted, not as much as I would get, but it goes to the cost of filling that position.

This doesn't take into consideration deployments. A military person will deploy for 8-12 months taking with them corporation knowledge that someone else will have to fill. A contractor doesn't deploy. They provide consistent continuity to that position.
 
Last edited:

Larry Gude

Strung Out
This is the best way I can explain how cost comes into play contractor vs. military. But first, you have to realize most contract positions are desk jockeys or maintenance people.

I'll talk about my position. It requires a security clearance, IT certifications, and training (both IT training and OJT).

I'm hired with a salary. I've already been trained in IT at my expense. I already had a security clearance coming into this job. It requires fairly high level of knowledge and proficiency in routers, switches, virtual servers, stand-alone servers, cryptos, firewalls... In other words, you can't just bring someone off the streets and plop them down and get working. It requires a long period of OJT. So, a contractor comes in, already cleared and trained, gets their weeks of OJT and remains in that position for several years. I've been here for almost 10 years.

A military person typically would come in at a lower or middle rank. They had to go through a 10-12 months of technical school to learn their skill. This costs lots of money. They get assigned here, stay for about 2-3 years then they are reassigned somewhere else. Most don't come in with their clearances; so they can't touch anything until they are cleared. Next guy goes through technical school, gets assigned here, gets OJT, then is gone again in about 2-3 years. And over and over... They also receive their salary as I do. Granted, not as much as I would get, but it goes to the cost of filling that position.

This doesn't take into consideration deployments. A military person will deploy for 8-12 months taking with them corporation knowledge that someone else will have to fill. A contractor doesn't deploy. They provide consistent continuity to that position.

I think I'm smart enough to get all of that. I do NOT think a given job can be done cheaper and more efficiently by the gummint. However, when that given job is what amounts to a military job, armed, in hostile areas, I think we are better off if they are US mil. Heck, we want continuity? What's Princes turnover? What if Central Command was handed a unit whose job was this sort of security?
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
I think I'm smart enough to get all of that. I do NOT think a given job can be done cheaper and more efficiently by the gummint. However, when that given job is what amounts to a military job, armed, in hostile areas, I think we are better off if they are US mil. Heck, we want continuity? What's Princes turnover? What if Central Command was handed a unit whose job was this sort of security?

I would never suggest combat positions be contracted out. Blackwater was a huge mistake. But that is NOT the norm. I also have big problems with the CIA conducting combat operations that our military should be doing.
 

Lurk

Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
The DoD implemented a project called A-76. I don't know the date this all started, but it was meant to 'privatize' (or contract) out certain military positions. When I got stationed at Eglin AFB in '93 the studies were well on their way. By the time I left Eglin in '98 many positions were already being contracted out. This was done because they thought it would be more cost-effective to put contractors in certain positions than military. They're already trained in those fields, so it reduced the cost of training military folks. The other reason for it is it provides continuity. You get contractors in these positions that potentially stay for long periods of time. They develop the corporate knowledge of that position as well as no need for technical training that would be required for military due to the frequent turn-over of people.

I would say most of the contracted positions that exist today were well in place before Clinton got out of office.

Wasn't A-76 a Clinton spoor?
 
Top