USMC size reduction

[Lynn2]

"Civilian contractors are just that, civilians. They are only motivated by getting through the day,"

Something that no Marine is ever accused of I am sure.

Well I guess if you say so then it must be true. You claim this or that and offer NOT ONE supporting number, data, study, or link. Its all...."its true because Bulkyker says so"

Because you claim something means-----that you claim something. And nothing else.

I have not made an argument. I have asked questions. Or I have raised questions.

I have not made an argument because I do not know what the answer is. I may know some little of what should be studied or looked at in terms of cost or savings or contracting out. But that does not mean I know what the answer will be.

And the reason? I have no idea what numbers or data a study group would come back with after looking at some of these truly complex issues dealing with contracting out.

It might make sense. It might not. It might make sense sometimes and not others. But you only have a real guess after a serious study of the issue.

Unlike you I rely on numbers and data. Not self-made pronouncements based on---"I say its so"

In short I try to look at this stuff as a professional would. Not as a cheerleader would.

[Quinbo]

Face palm .....

Ok a cook just gave you an accurate description of what day to day life is working with contractors. Another "me" gave you an accurate description of what it is like to be replaced someone of a lower pay grade with someone of a higher pay grade.

The ultimate plan of hiring contractors was to free more Marines to fight. General Gray came up with that plan. Let contractors wash the dishes and guard the gates. It is just silly to think that plan is more financially efficient.

Can we say haliburton???

[Beltayn]

Its all...."its true because Bulkyker says so"

You realize that I AM a cook? I have a rather intimate understanding of how the civilian contract functions and the implications of it. Why would I make his stuff up?

Something that no Marine is ever accused of I am sure.

"Just doing the minimum" for a civilian contractor and "just doing the minimum" for a Marine are massively different because of the different level of accountability. A Marine can't just say "I quit!" if they feel they are being worked too hard. And if you honestly think that a Marine cook can skate very much at all, even if they want to, you have an unrealistic understanding of what it is we actually have to accomplish.

If a civilian skates and doesn't bother doing their job completely or correctly, absolutely nothing happens, except maybe a manager chewing their ass at most. They know that the Marines will simply have to come in behind them and do what they didn't bother to, what they thought they could get away with leaving for us.
If the Marines don't do our jobs, fellow Marines do not eat, or even get sick, we all get NJPed, lose money, lose rank, get sent to the brig even, and we cannot just say "screw you" and leave, we are there at the pleasure of the Marine Corps for as long as they choose to keep us.

So yes, there is a huge difference.

I have not made an argument. I have asked questions. Or I have raised questions.

I have not made an argument because I do not know what the answer is. I may know some little of what should be studied or looked at in terms of cost or savings or contracting out. But that does not mean I know what the answer will be.

And the reason? I have no idea what numbers or data a study group would come back with after looking at some of these truly complex issues dealing with contracting out.

It might make sense. It might not. But you only have a real guess after a serious study of the issue.

A) You are not the first person to raise the question. It is not new or innovative out-of-the-box thinking. It has been studied to death over and over.

B) It is NOT something there is a definitive, scientific answer for, because there are a large number of factors that are unquantifiable in dollars. So whatever the bias of the study group, the more the results will turn out exactly how they expect them to. It depends entirely on what factors you arbitrarily decide to quantify, and which you ignore as "not important or relevant".

[Danny C Smith]

I really don't have much to offer here.
Being a "simple" GRUNT.
I'll tell you all one thing though.
The United States Marine Corps WILL live on.
It just will.
Our gun club has been in action, as we all know, longer
than this Nation has been "officially" a Nation.
You gotta be kiddin' me.
Do any of you think, or believe that we are going away?
Think what you want. I ain't buyin' it.
My .02

Semper Fi.

[Lynn2]

"Just doing the minimum" for a civilian contractor"

Some of the hardest working people I have ever seen in my life have been civilian contractors.

And some of the unhappiest eat the apple people I have seen have been Marines.

I am sure there are good and bad examples of both types on both sides.

And yes I know you were a cook. I also realize that many places have made the transition to civilian contractors for this type of work and have not then done away with the contractors and gone back to AD types doing the work. And Marines are now not starving because of these changes.

I think contractors can work for many support jobs. And also some combat jobs as well. At least in certain instances. And in some cases they can do the job better and do it cheaper.

Sorry but I just do not see why in many instances anyone has to go through boot camp to grill a steak or scramble some eggs. And if I were in charge and had to accomplish the job (combat) and I was faced with a reduction in people I would seriously look to change the way I operated.

Marines do not NEED to be on the gates of the USNA. Marines do not NEED to be doing security on Navy ships. Marines do not NEED to be cooks in many USMC locations.

We do need enough well trained well equipped combat arms Marines ready to go at a moments notice.

And if I had to cut people I know where I would look first.

[Lynn2]

"It is NOT something there is a definitive, scientific answer for, because there are a large number of factors that are unquantifiable in dollars. So whatever the bias of the study group, the more the results will turn out exactly how they expect them to. It depends entirely on what factors you arbitrarily decide to quantify, and which you ignore as "not important or relevant"."

I agree 100% with this statement of yours.

[Quinbo]

So Lynn ...
Do you concede that although it may be more tactically intelligent to let a civilian cook the eggs or a sailor to guard a gate that it is not finacially responsible to do so?

[AAV Crewchief]

I don't know why but this sounds like a sense of entitlement to me.

Just saying.

That's horse****. Have some compassion. The Army will probably take folks who want to cross over. They have been taking folks in the AF as a program called From the Blue to the Green was created just for that. What's BS is that we aren't even done fighting the wars we are in and Obama/Gates wants to downsize.

[AAV Crewchief]

"Just doing the minimum" for a civilian contractor"

Some of the hardest working people I have ever seen in my life have been civilian contractors.

And some of the unhappiest eat the apple people I have seen have been Marines.

I am sure there are good and bad examples of both types on both sides.

And yes I know you were a cook. I also realize that many places have made the transition to civilian contractors for this type of work and have not then done away with the contractors and gone back to AD types doing the work. And Marines are now not starving because of these changes.

I think contractors can work for many support jobs. And also some combat jobs as well. At least in certain instances. And in some cases they can do the job better and do it cheaper.

Sorry but I just do not see why in many instances anyone has to go through boot camp to grill a steak or scramble some eggs. And if I were in charge and had to accomplish the job (combat) and I was faced with a reduction in people I would seriously look to change the way I operated.

Marines do not NEED to be on the gates of the USNA. Marines do not NEED to be doing security on Navy ships. Marines do not NEED to be cooks in many USMC locations.

We do need enough well trained well equipped combat arms Marines ready to go at a moments notice.

And if I had to cut people I know where I would look first.

A lot of that COOK/CONTRACTOR **** is going on with KBR in Iraq and other places. I remember in 03 when I was at BIAP and the guy running the little flight area chowhall was making 175k per year and expected to do even better if he extended in place doing the same thing for another 365 days? Now, why don't we get rid of guys making this kind of jack and keep the combat trained force we have developed?

[irpat54]

A lot of that COOK/CONTRACTOR **** is going on with KBR in Iraq and other places. I remember in 03 when I was at BIAP and the guy running the little flight area chowhall was making 175k per year and expected to do even better if he extended in place doing the same thing for another 365 days? Now, why don't we get rid of guys making this kind of jack and keep the combat trained force we have developed?

just one thing to say about that

[Lynn2]

So Lynn ...
Do you concede that although it may be more tactically intelligent to let a civilian cook the eggs or a sailor to guard a gate that it is not finacially responsible to do so?

Nope I do not.

And I do not because I have never studied the issue. Making management decisions for an organization is something I did for a living. Assuming this is better that that without some serious study is just plain bad management. As is just going on your gut.

Now what is the cost of that contractor to the American people? Rather easy to figure out. Its all spelled out in the contract.

But what is the cost of that Marine cook? That I have no idea. And I bet no one else in this discussion does either.

Salary? Sure. That is easy.

But the cost of training before they enlist and after?

Cost of their housing. Food. Electricity they use. The water they use. The office space they work in. Uniforms. . Regular retirement. VA disability. Travel. Bonus. Their on-going medical care while in the service. Money for the wife. Medical care for the wife and kids. Etc etc etc etc.

All that and more goes into the cost of one US Marine.

And it is that overall cost you would have to use in comparing a Marine cook to a Contractor cook as far as the money it costs for one or the other.

[irpat54]

Nope I do not.

And I do not because I have never studied the issue. Making management decisions for an organization is something I did for a living. Assuming this is better that that without some serious study is just plain bad management. As is just going on your gut.

Now what is the cost of that contractor to the American people? Rather easy to figure out. Its all spelled out in the contract.

But what is the cost of that Marine cook? That I have no idea. And I bet no one else in this discussion does either.

Salary? Sure. That is easy.

But the cost of training before they enlist and after?

Cost of their housing. Food. Electricity they use. The water they use. The office space they work in. Uniforms. . Regular retirement. VA disability. Travel. Bonus. Their on-going medical care while in the service. Money for the wife. Medical care for the wife and kids. Etc etc etc etc.

All that and more goes into the cost of one US Marine.

And it is that overall cost you would have to use in comparing a Marine cook to a Contractor cook as far as the money it costs for one or the other.

but at least with a Marine, wether cook, or mp, or AC tec. you know that if the crap hits the fan you have another triger puller on your side and not someone whos looking for someone to hold his or her hand.

[USNAviator]

Drastic cuts outlined in think-tank report



By Dan Lamothe - Staff writer

An independent team has made a series of recommendations to Congress to reduce future Defense Department budgets, in light of the country’s growing deficit — including big cuts to the Corps.

The team, dubbed, The Sustainable Defense Task Force, was tapped for the project by a bipartisan group of lawmakers. Their suggestions could reduce defense spending by $960 billion from 2011 to 2020.
Ideas include:
• Roll back the size of the Army and Marine Corps as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down. The U.S. could save $147 billion over the next decade by reducing the Army’s end strength from 547,400 to 482,400 and the Corps’ from 202,000 to 175,000, the task force says.
• Reduce the number of maneuver units in the Army and Marine Corps. The task force suggests reducing the number of Army brigades from 45 to 42 and the number of Marine infantry battalions from 27 to 24. Doing so would contribute to the $147 billion in savings as the services reduce their end strengths.
• Delay or cancel development of Navy variants of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The U.S. could save $9.85 billion from 2011 to 2020 by canceling the purchase of JSF jets for the Navy and Marine Corps and buying more affordable F/A-18 jets instead. Doing so would leave the Corps without jump jets once the AV-8 Harrier leaves the service, but the task force argues that capability “has not proved critical to operations in recent wars.”
• End the fielding of new MV-22 Ospreys. The Corps could save $10 billion to $12 billion over the next 10 years by buying new MH-60S and CH-53K helicopters, analysts say. The K variant of the CH-53 is not expected to hit the fleet until at least 2015, but the Navy began replacing outdated CH-46 helicopters early this century with the MH-60 on amphibious assault ships.
• Kill the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program and field cheaper alternatives. The Corps could save at least $8 billion in the next decade by refurbishing cheaper, existing amphibious assault vehicles instead of continuing development of the yet-to-be-fielded EFV, the task force says.
• Reduce military recruiting budgets. The task force does not provide a service-specific breakdown, but says that with a military drawdown underway, the U.S. will not need to spend as much money finding new recruits. Recruiting budgets could be reduced by $5 billion over the next decade.
A smaller Corps

Some of the proposals — killing the EFV to save money, for example — are hardly new. But the report also includes a second set of proposals authored by Benjamin Friedman and Christopher Preble, analysts at the conservative Cato Institute in Washington.
In a five-page section at the back of the task force’s 56-page report, the two analysts propose a “strategy of restraint — one that reacts to danger rather than going out in search of it.” If adopted — a big “if” — it would result in deep cuts to the Army and Marine Corps, with the Army reduced from about 560,000 soldiers to 360,000, a 36 percent reduction, and the Corps reduced from 202,000 Marines to 145,000, a 28 percent decrease. The cuts would make the Corps smaller than it has been at any time since 1950, when there were about 74,300 Marines on active duty before the U.S. took an active role in the Korean War.

[Lynn2]

"but at least with a Marine, wether cook, or mp, or AC tec. you know that if the crap hits the fan you have another triger puller on your side and not someone whos looking for someone to hold his or her hand."

Yes indeed.

That becomes a part of managements decision making process as they look at this issue.


You do not need a trigger puller Marine cook at Camp Pen. You did not need them at the DaNang airbase. You did not need them at Camp Reasoner outside of DaNang.

But there may be many places you do need them. That is above my pay grade.

But if that contractor cook does end up being cheaper--- and it could ---- would you rather have a Marine cook or a cheaper cook and the money saved spent on an 0311 trigger puller?

Which option makes the Corps a better combat organization?

[irpat54]

about the proposed defence cuts, these guys are on drugs, thay have to be! talk about clueless, (in my opinion), the one thing that got us into trouble and brought down the wtc was reacting and not acting.