Foreign Countries and Army

¶ … army has often resolved to use private contractors in various aspects of the force's operations when the need arises. In light of the need to cut down the cost of the army operations, the US Army has resolved into massive contracting within the services in the recent past to levels that the America has never witnessed before. Critics of this approach have argued that it compromises the integrity of the American Security. While these concerns are genuine, the importance of the current level or reliance on contract support outweighs the demerits (National Defense University 2010). Secondly, the army can address such concerns within the framework of enlisting support. The following study holds that the American Amy should maintain the current levels of reliance on contract support.

Some factors influence and inform the need for the Army to maintain the current contract support. Firstly, some instances in the operations of the US Army require the quick deployment of army personnel as well as other support services. Such instances are particularly prevalent in cases where the planning stage does not foresee the need for great deployment. If such cases occur in foreign countries, sending more army troops to the foreign country may not be effective in dealing with the emergency in question. As such, contracting private contractors will be effective both from a cost perspective as well as from the efficiency perspective (National Defense University 2010). For instance, the Pentagon failed to foresee the need for high level of personnel in the Afghanistan mission and hence resorted into contracting as a stopgap measure. This example demonstrates the importance of contracting in times of emergency need for more personnel and hence justifies why the American army needs to maintain the current levels of reliance on contract support.

Secondly, the need for continuity requires some personnel to stay in the same stations over a long period while other officers rotate in other stations. Moreover, continuity is required even among the non-armed staff of the US Army such as truck drivers and other support staff (ATTP 4-10, 2011). However, this process requires the American Army to pay huge incentives to staffs that remain in the same stations over a long period. The American army can avoid this extra cost if it contracts such continuity personnel from private providers and companies (National Defense University 2010). For instance, in 2008 the Department of Defense was able to avoid massive cost of maintaining American army personnel in Iraq by resolving to engage private contractors. Therefore, contracting enables the American army to ensure continuity in various stations without incurring the extra cost of incentives. As such, the American army should maintain the current levels of contracting.

Lastly, contracting provides a general avenue through which the American Army can cut down their cost of operations. In essence, the overall cost of contracting both combat and non-combat personnel is less in comparison to the cost of hiring and maintaining personnel within the Army. The salaries as well as other allowances paid to the American Army are much less in comparison to the general cost of outsourcing and contracting private contractors (ATTP 4-10, 2011). Therefore, it is prudent that the Army contracts majority of the non-core functions within the army. This will tremendously cut down the cost of army operations.