A recent article in the Stars and Stripes following the Blackwater CEO's testimony revealed that the average cost of a Blackwater employee here in Iraq is approximately $440k. The argument for using private security companies by the Dept of Defense and the Sate Dept is that it is more cost effective then using US soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen. Let's look at this with the most expensive soldier in the Army based on 2007 pay rates. One soldier who has commensurate time in service as a Blackwater employee, who is a veteran, is probably somewhere around 12 years. Military pay charts show for 12 years of service, up to an E9, or Sergeant Major (SGM).
Yearly base pay: $50446.80
Highest Housing Allowance for San Francisco: $35796 per year.
Subsistence Allowance (BAS): $3358.56
Clothign Allowance: $529.20
Foreign Language Proficiency Pay: $12000
Hazardous duty pay (Flight Pay): $2880
Hostile Fire pay: $2700
Hardship Duty Pay: $1200
Special Duty Assignment Pay: $5400
Separation Allowance: $3000
COLA in NY: $5928
For a grand total of $123238.56
This is not a very likely scenario, since few SGM are at the 12 year mark, and few get this many incentives. This is an extreme case, assuming that all of our soldiers claim SF as their home of record, but somehow get NY COLA. I haven't accounted for the benefits that come with being in the military. I seriously doubt that will add up to an additional $320,000 though.
What about an officer though? Ok, let's do that too. Pay charts show at 12 years, highest rank is an O8, or a Major General. Not likely, but we'll go with it.
Base pay: $120362.40
BAH: $35796.00
BAS: $2312.88
Foreign Language Pay: $12000.00
Hazardous Duty Pay: $1800.00
Hostile Fire pay: $2700.00
Hardship Duty Pay: $1200.00
Sep Allowance: $3000.00
COLA: $8424.00
Total is $187595.28
If there are other incentives for General's, I don't know what they are.
So basically, you can see that even if we had an entire army of general's we could still get 2 generals for the price of one Blackwater foot soldier. I'm not totally sure I see how this is more cost effective for the government. I guess by not using soldiers, you don't convince them to stay in and then you don't have to pay them a retirement when they leave, but this comparison isn't about that. Can't be medical benefits while in country, b/c the military provides them medical care in accordance with their contract.
Hell, I need to start my own Private Security Company (PSC) and start bilking the government for almost a billion dollars. Either way, I support them being here since our government is too afraid to put the thousands of additional troops on the ground. It's much better to say that we only have 165,000 troops in Iraq then say we have 450,000 troops. Just my opinion on this though.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Ouch! Those kind of numbers must go over like a lead balloon.
This is getting away from your point but I find it very cool that a sargent gets the same hazard pay as a general. Even though the sargent is probably more likely to be in harm's way than the general, I like the democratic principle behind it.
That's a chunk of change difference.
Funny, GEN Shinseki, back in 2002 and 2003, said we couldn't stabilize Iraq unless we had a force of around 400,000 soldiers there. Maybe then, it would be more cost effective...but we wouldn't need PSCs then, would we?
Post a Comment