The mercs, by contrast, don’t have a job unless there’s a war to fight.

And we're relying on them to help us end a war? Where is their incentive to get the job done right?

Of course if Blackwater is providing a superior service over the 40+ security agencies that now exist in the government at a cost effective price, then we really need to expand their duties. Why don't we start by firing the FBI & Secret Service from the job of protecting POTUS, et al, & put Blackwater in their place? Waddaya mean Prime Minister Cheney would never go for that? Isn't what is good for the geese good for the gander?

Anyone ever hear of military draw downs - like those that occurred after Vietnam and the Cold Wars ended? A lot of good soldiers ended up out on the streets. We had 18 active duty divisions in the late '80s and only 10 now. The military does not guarantee a job for life (or until retirement).

Sure, I was caught up in the latter myself post-Desert Storm. Still, the Army invests in soldiers for the long term. My battalion commander had been in 17 years and never heard the proverbial shot fired in anger until ODS.

Anyone ever hear of military draw downs - like those that occurred after Vietnam and the Cold Wars ended? A lot of good soldiers ended up out on the streets. We had 18 active duty divisions in the late '80s and only 10 now. The military does not guarantee a job for life (or until retirement).

I think the main point in the Black Water controversy isn't the cost effectiveness in dollars of using contract security forces. It is the lack of accountability and the lack of discipline. A number of soldiers/marines have been or are being court marshaled for excessive violence against Iraqis. How many contractors have faced a trial for similar actions? The use of excessive force (or even the perceived use), either by military or by contractors, works against US goals in Iraq by making the Iraqi government seem ineffective and illegitimate in protecting its citizens. Black Water has become a liability in Iraq.

A difference between the salaries paid by private companies and public sector salaries is that the revenue used to pay public sector salaries is collected at the point of a gun.

I've always loved this particular point of fear mongering by the government hating right wing.

OMG, look! The IRS men have guns! Rational people realize that taxation is the price of living in a civilized, modern society. The the government's legal monopoly on force is balanced by our ability to vote the bums out of office.

If you really, really hate America and the Constitution, which, of course, specifically allows for taxation of income, feel free to move to the libertarian paradise of Somalia, where there is no government monopoly on force and taxation is spotty, at best.

Not to mention it presumes that the corporate compensations should be left alone...

A difference between the salaries paid by private companies and public sector salaries is that the revenue used to pay public sector salaries is collected at the point of a gun. I think this requires a different sort of stewardship. Additionally, companies that don't perform and continue to pay high salaries go out of business. To date the government has shown no signs of going out of business.

James, I think that the claim that we need to pay government employees (elected, appointed, or regular civil service) wages that are competitive in some way with those in the private sector is completely specious. The assumption is that all motivations are denominated in dollars.

Not to mention it presumes that the corporate compensations should be left alone...

James, I think that the claim that we need to pay government employees (elected, appointed, or regular civil service) wages that are competitive in some way with those in the private sector is completely specious. The assumption is that all motivations are denominated in dollars.

That's sad, if true. Jobs have intrinsic as well as extrinsic rewards and the presumption that the most capable people are uninterested in intrinsic rewards is problematic. Additionally any idea that salaries either in the private or public sector are based on merit is doubtful. Salaries anywhere are what you can commend, not what you deserve.

I'd be willing to bet that the contracting companies aren't putting an individual to work on the contract 365 days a year. So the days they don't work, they don't get paid.

Although I know that Gen Petraeus isn't just working five days a week, but just to show some balance, if we divided his annual salary by 260 (5 days a week, 52 weeks in the year), his daily pay goes up to just under $700.

As usual, someone wants to make a point, so they fudge the numbers to fool people.

For those unfamiliar, such costs as guns and ammunition as well as medical and administrative costs aren't costed out in a soldier's pay. Nor are the retirement costs, a 4-star with 30+ years will get $130,000+ for the rest of their life with Cost of Living increase when they retire. Not to mention access to Tricare. Such costs are taken care of separately and must be factored in when doing comparisons. OMB A-76 requires 36% of base pay to be added civilian employee benefits. Military benefits would be more given retired pay starts immediately upon retirement after 20+ years of service and total medical coverage is provided at government expense for active duty.

But what Blackwater charges has to include their equipment (armored trucks, bullets, airfare, benefits) and feeding their people on-site if not at a military base.

So a Blackwater employee doesn't make what Gen. Petraus is paid, even if they bill the government a ton to support that employee they put out their.