OUTSOURCING MILITARY TO SOLDIERS OF FORTUNE -- (House of Representatives - July 12, 2005)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Conaway). Under a previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, this evening, I would like to talk about a cultural change occurring in the U.S. military that is very troubling to me. For those people who have served our country and continue to serve our country in the military service, the words honor, duty, God, and country mean everything. These timeless words have motivated hundreds of thousands of our patriotic citizens to enlist and serve in the United States military over the decades, and they inspire a calling to rise above one's own self-interest for the betterment of our Nation and her highest principles: Liberty, equality and justice.
Those high principles are in stark contrast to what the World Book Dictionary defines as a soldier of fortune, ``a man serving or ready to serve as a soldier under any government for money, for adventure or for pleasure.''
I could not help but think about this and read and reread that definition as I examine how pay and benefits provided to these private military personnel engaged in the Iraqi war dwarf what we provide our all-volunteer military. Guards for private security firms on average are earning $400 to $600 a day or $144,000 to $216,000 in a single year, and they are earning it tax free. That is right. These salaries and tax-free dollars are provided so long as the men remain in-country for more than a year.
The slain guards for Blackwater were earning nearly a thousand dollars a day for an astronomical salary of $365,000 a year. Let us compare that to what we provide the men and women who have served in our military for 6 years, not even the 1 or 2 years that most personnel in Iraq are at. A military commissioned officer can expect to earn between $100 and $270 a day, for a paltry total of $36,000 to $96,000 a year. Enlisted soldiers, those who carry out the toughest assignments and are in the most danger and need the most support, earn $36,000 in a good year. That is outrageous.
General Omar Bradley, the GI general himself said, ``Leadership in the democratic Army means firmness, not harshness; understanding, not weakness; justice, not license; humaneness, not intolerance; generosity, not selfishness; pride, not egotism.''
I thought a lot about those words as I am increasingly saddened as I watch what seems to be transpiring in the Iraqi war. As each day passes, a nonsensical strategy is unraveling in Iraq that threatens to transform many of our most important ideals into crash commercialism. The utter mismanagement of the war troubles me as I witness what I perceive to be the undermining of the honor code and the diminishment of the meaning of the words ``service'' and ``duty'' that have served as hallmarks of our military tradition from its inception.
Let me be clear. For those soldiers, both enlisted personnel and officers serving under the time-tested rules of engagement, I have no quarrel. They serve bravely. Their integrity is indisputable, their will resolute. No, my apprehension lies with the architects of war. Where I am growing increasingly uncomfortable and downright concerned is with the actions of the President and his role as commander in chief, his Vice President, and their Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Together, they are authorizing a strategy for the outsourcing of military functions that is unparalleled in scope and size in the history of this Nation. Never before have so many private contractors, an estimated 20,000 private military personnel and 100,000 civilian contractors, been utilized in such a function to perform critical security and military needs in theater, duties that heretofore had been under the direct purview of the regular military and its established chain of command beginning with the commander in chief and his joint chiefs of staff.
Mr. Speaker, no one in Congress has any idea of the exact number of private security contractors working and operating in Iraq. Last year, in response to a detailed request levied by myself and dozens of our colleagues, the Coalition Provisional Authority compiled a list of 60 different firms employing a total of 20,000 personnel back then, including U.S. citizens, Iraqis and third country nationals. No additional information, no specifics on the contracts awarded, just a list.
And so we watch the news, and we try to figure out what is actually happening over there. According to an excellent journalistic expose' on Frontline, and I quote, ``Beforehand handing over power to the newly elected Iraqi government in January 2005, the CPA established Memorandum 17, a notice that called for all private security companies operating in Iraq to register by June 1 and established an oversight committee led by Iraq's Ministry of the Interior. According to Lawrence Peter, a former CPA official and the director of the Private Security Association of Iraq, as of June 21, 2005, 37 security contractors have registered with the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior. One is awaiting approval, and 18 additional security companies are in the process of registering.''
Mr. Speaker, what on earth is going on in Iraq? How do we distinguish between soldiers of fortune and those of our own military who are committed to honor, duty, God, and country? Why can this Congress not get straight answers from the administration on this and a bevy of other issues? Why are we relying on thousands of contractors, including some from third countries, to provide backup and support to our regular military? Why is it perfectly acceptable to outsource war, and this under a veil of secrecy? I have hundreds of questions, and Members can rest assured I will refuse to stop asking them until the American people get real and substantive answers to those responsible.
What really bothered me was when I saw that Paul Bremer at the beginning had guards around him that did not have military-issued uniforms nor U.S. Department of Defense weapons. I began to ask questions. I will continue to raise them, and I include for the RECORD some additional materials.
[Begin Insert]
Honor, duty, God, country. These timeless words have motivated hundreds of thousands of patriotic citizens to enlist and serve in the United States Military over the decades. These words inspire a calling to rise above ones own self for the betterment of our nation and her highest principals--liberty, equality, justice.
General Omar Bradley (the GI General himself) said that ``Leadership in the democratic army means firmness, not harshness; understanding, not weakness; justice, not license; humaneness, not intolerance; generosity, not selfishness; pride, not egotism.'' / General George Marshall, the architect of the Marshall Plan and one of the foremost General officers of his day is oft quoted as saying, ``Morale is the state of mind. It is steadfastness and courage and hope. It is confidence and zeal and loyalty. It is élan, esprit de corps and determination.'' If only we were to heed the words of these two incredible men as we continue to engage in a costly and unpredictable war in Iraq.
Instead, I am increasingly saddened as I watch what seems to be transpiring in the Iraqi war. As each day passes, a nonsensical strategy is unraveling in Iraq that threatens to transform many of our most important ideals into crass commercialism. The utter mis-management of the war troubles me as I witness what I perceive to be the undermining of the honor code--and the diminishment of the meaning of words ``service'' and ``duty'' that have served as hallmarks of our military tradition from its inception.
Let me be clear. For those soldiers (both enlisted personnel and officers) serving under the time tested rules of engagement, I have no quarrel. They serve bravely. Their integrity is indisputable. Their will resolute.
No, my apprehension lies with the architects of the War. Where I am growing increasingly uncomfortable and downright concerned, is with the actions of this President in his role as Commander and Chief, his Vice President, and their Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.
Together they are authorizing a strategy for the outsourcing of military functions that is unparalleled in scope and size. Never before have so many private contractors (an estimated 20,000 private military personnel and 100,000 civilian contractors) been utilized in such a fashion--to perform critical security and military needs in theatre. Duties that had heretofore been under the direct purview of the regular military and its established chain of command--beginning with the Commander in Chief and Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Mr. Speaker, no one in this Congress has any idea of the exact number of private security contractors working and operating in Iraq. Last year, in response to a detailed request levied by myself and dozens of colleagues, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) compiled a list of 60 different firms employing a total of 20,000 personnel (including U.S. citizens, Iraqis and third-country nationals). No additional information. No specifics on the contracts that were awarded. Just a list.
My colleagues and I are forced to rely on the tabulation of news articles and press releases to keep on top of what companies are operating in theater, what duties they may or may not be performing and just how much money the United States government is paying them.
According to an excellent journalistic expose on the PBS program Frontline, ``before handing over power to the newly elected Iraqi government in January 2005, the CPA established ``Memorandum 17'' a notice that called for all private security companies operating in Iraq to register by June 1 and established an oversight committee led by Iraq's Ministry of the Interior. According to Lawrence Peter, a former CPA official and the director of the Private Security Company Association of Iraq, as of June 21, 2005, 37 security contractors have registered with the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior. One is awaiting approval, and at least 18 additional security companies are in the process of registering.''
Mr. Speaker--What on earth is going on in Iraq? Why can't this Congress get straight answers from the administration on this and a bevy of other issues? Why are we relying on thousands of contractors to provide backup and support to our regular military? Why is it perfectly acceptable to outsource war--and this under a veil of secrecy? I have hundreds of questions Mr. Speaker, and you can be assured that I refuse to stop asking them until the American people get real and substantive answers from those responsible.
Perhaps the problem is the constant replacement of theater commanders during an already tumultuous occupation. After the ground victory, the U.S. watched the architect of the rapid sprint to Baghdad--General Tommy Franks--retire early. When his photo appeared like a 12 inch high pin up on the cover of Cigar Aficionado Magazine in December of 2003, just months into the occupation, I wondered what Generals Joe Stillwell and Omar Bradley would think. In that interview, General Franks discussed the over-reliance on Reserve troops, and the types of jobs that U.S. military personnel were asked to handle. He said ``We need to get people out of those jobs, get civilians in them, and get our military into the jobs that are the highest payoff in terms of the military skills.'' I thought to myself: ``This is coming from a general who has left nearly 150,000 of his troops in theater, while at the same time feels that we are not allocating our resources in the best way possible.'' I couldn't think of a single precedent for such an action--to leave before relative calm was restored. Before the peace was won.
General Franks had it half right. We are getting civilians into thousands of jobs in Iraq with ease, but we're doing it in exactly the wrong way. We are filling critical slots with civilians who are paid far more money than regular U.S. troops, who have a much more cavalier attitude toward duty, justice and honor and who are simply wrong for the job.
My concerns grew exponentially during the first year of the occupation. It was quite a shock to see Ambassador Paul Bremmer on the front page of the New York Times guarded not by U.S. soldiers (in regular military uniform and carrying military issue weapons), but by private contractors in civilian clothing looking like something out of the NYPD undercover squad. To then learn their salaries were 5 to 10 times as high as our soldiers--who by the way still can't get adequate body or vehicle armor--riveted my attention.
Then, on March 31, 2004, four Blackwater USA guards (again, private military/security forces) were ambushed by Iraqi insurgents while on escort-duty west of Fallujah. As recounted, ``The guards were killed; a mob of Iraqis set their cars on fire and hung two of the bodies from a bridge. The families of the guards are suing Blackwater for wrongful death: They claim the company did not meet its contractual obligation to supply two SUVs with three guards per vehicle.''
Those men went into Fallujah without notifying or seeking the approval of the U.S. Marine Corps, then responsible for the security of that sector. Tragically those men lost their lives and it is a miracle that our own military servicemen--who were ordered in to recover their remains--escaped uninjured. More importantly, the regional Marine commander was forced to alter his strategy for quelling the insurgency to not only recover the remains of the men, but deal with the heightened tensions caused by the incident.
Mr. Speaker, the World Book Dictionary defines a soldier of fortune as: ``a man serving or ready to serve as a soldier under any government for money, adventure, or pleasure.''
I cannot help but read and re-read that definition as I examine how pay and benefits provided to these private military personnel dwarf what we provide our all-volunteer military.
Guards for private security firms on average, earn $400 to $600 per day--or $144,000 to $216,000 in a single year. Tax-free. That's right Mr. Speaker, these salaries are tax-free providing that these men remain in-country for more than one year. The slain guards for Blackwater were earning nearly $1000 a day for an astronomical $365,000 yearly salary.
Let's compare that to what we provide the men and women who'' have served in our military for six years (not even the one or two years that most personnel are in Iraq). A military commissioned officer can expect to earn between $100 and $270 a day--for a paltry total of $36,000 to $96,000 each year. Enlisted soldiers, those who carry out the toughest assignments, are in the most danger and need the most support might earn $36,000 in a good year. That is outrageous, Mr. Speaker.
In my hand I hold a solicitation sent to a police officer in my Congressional District in Toledo, Ohio. It is from DynCorp International LLC and promises an annual compensation of over $120,000 to perform an ``armed, plainclothes mission'' to ``help
the Iraqi judicial system organize effective civilian law enforcement agencies.''
This is what we are dealing with on a daily basis Mr. Speaker. As the U.S. attempts to secure the peace in Iraq, thousands of individuals are flooding into the country to perform armed, dangerous and complex tasks, often with little to no formal or military training.
A constituent of mine reports that her husband of more than 20 years, who moved to Kuwait last year to take a very high-paying job ferrying security personnel into (and out of) Iraq, is earning a huge salary and may not return to the U.S. He has decided to divorce her for a much younger Asian woman who has moved to Kuwait. Both intend to remain in the Middle East.
Mr. Speaker, this is not honor. It is not duty. It is not God. And it certainly is not country. It is money. It is adventure. It is pleasure.
Mr. Speaker, we need to ask ourselves a fundamental question: what is a soldier and what is a mercenary? Why are we short-changing, under-supplying and selling out our own U.S. troops to pay private military companies hundreds of millions of dollars so that their professional warriors can earn exorbitant salaries?
I will be in the well of this House (every day if I must) asking these questions until they are answered in a satisfactory manner.
[End Insert]
http://thomas.loc.gov