- If the government needs to ramp up its number of intelligence professionals (i.e., taking on additional work while not "dropping" what is already being done), there are two choices: train more analysts or hire experienced ones. You can move your current staff around to new duties, but you're limited by the other work that has to be done and the fact that analysts specialize and need time to develop expertise in the "new" area.

- Training more analysts is a long-term solution, that would only have real effects in five or more years--fifteen if you need those new trainees to be able to lead analytical efforts.

- Hiring experienced analysts can only be done by offering them a better deal than they already have--for government employees, that means bringing them on as senior personnel. This can cause problems for the government, by the way:

I had a friend who was a GS-14, and left the government because, among other frustrations, the agency he worked for brought in a youngster with less than a third of his overall experience and about a sixth of his "job-critical" experience to be his new boss. The new guy was a good person, intelligent and dedicated (he worked for me when I was still on active duty, as it turns out), so it wasn't a completely ridiculous move. But it did help to alienate a senior intelligence analyst who "had options" because the agency uses a significant number of contractors to support its activities, develop tools, etc.

- So, the only realistic option to address these short-term staffing shortfalls is to hire experienced people, and the only way to quickly bring analysts (versus managers, see comments about grade structure above) on board is to pay the contractors' bill.

James and the commenters are quite right that hiring lots of contractors isn't the optimal solution long-term. But it's the only way to make things happen quickly. To enact what you're recommending as a long-term solution, the Government has some work to do--it needs to figure out a way to provide attractive options for contractors to return to government service.

Technology played a role in it, too. As more and more clerical and support functions could be readily accomplished on a PC, clerical and support positions disappeared. It's only very senior gov't officials who have secretaries these days.

But there's a limit to the benefit to be derived from tech. My keying in my own correspondence is certainly something I can do. I can do a travel voucher, a request for leave, my Financial Disclosure forms. Some of that I may want to do, both for privacy and accuracy.

But it's not efficient for me to do that. My hourly rate is far in excess of that of a GS-4 Clerk-Typist, or a GS-5 Vouchering Clerk.

There is a cap on the number of federal employees, as well as a cap on the number for each individual agency. Raise the caps--which assumes that the additional money will be there for salary and benefits--and a lot of jobs could be created and filled instantly.

It's nearly impossible, though, to get rid of GS employees who underperform. Short of a jailable offense, it takes years of documenting every action and corrective action taken before it happens. But those under-performers are still encumbering limited positions.

I'm not laying into GS employees here. Most are dedicated to doing their jobs right. They also suffer a great deal of bureaucratic abuse. But they aren't the problem.

Lift the hiring caps and a lot more things could be done "in-house." But as James points out, not everything needs to be in-house. Look at the efficiency of it, not just the politics of it.

I admit I have mixed feelings. We will always have a need for some contracting � I have no problem with that when it is limited. On the personal side, almost all of my friends from my Army days have become contractors. They are making great money compared to GS government work -- and with the cost of living around the beltway as it is, they are able to own their own homes and live fairly well. Many have retired from government service and simply moved over to the contracting side of the house (which I think isn�t such a bad idea), some left government service to make the bigger bucks (which I think is a bad idea).

Almost all of our linguists in Iraq are contractors -- they would be GS employees if the pay was there and more billets were assigned to this war-- and why they don�t create them is beyond me; this war has no end due to it being about cultures, not armies. They make triple the pay (with no cap, unlike GS) � how does that save money? On one hand, I cannot blame them for eschewing regular government work. But on the other, I wonder how long this can go on and when patriotism became tied to dollar signs.

I feel a basic discomfort with the idea that the core of our Intel work is done by the (cliché alert) �lowest bidder�, rather than a core of patriots who work for US interests above and beyond the interests of their pocketbooks. Perhaps a broad generalization and a bit harsh, but I stand by it. I am not talking about specific individuals or even the firms themselves, but in a general sense regarding the theme of the current contracting boom and what patriotism really means.

How things turn will depend more on politics than anything, and that actually bothers me *more* than the contracting. Once Intel became politicized (the Church Commission sowed the seeds we are now reaping after a good watering by Clintonites), I think we started down a dark path and there may be no coming back.

Or perhaps I am just a dinosaur from the old era and don't even realize that I have become extinct in the new one.

I don't know about your experience at DISA, but having spent the last 11+ years as a DoD civilian, I can tell you that it's different all over how well contractors are integrated into the team. I view my contractors as valuable integral members of the team whom we totally depend on to perform highly technical work.