Privatization of the Military and its effects on mass shootings.

1. 82

   peoplepower73posted 11 years ago

   When I was in the Air Force (1956 to 1960}, there was very little privatization in the military. I was in Japan on a remote radar site and we did have Japanese house boys. But that was about the extent of  it. We had military police, cooks, quarter masters, engineers and facilities. Today we have an all voluntary military with almost all of the supporting functions  privatized.  We use to have to pull KP and work in the kitchens.  Today they have private firms.  It looks like they even have private police on the bases.  What ever happened to the military police (MP's) ?
   
   It is my belief that the shootings at Fort Hood and the Navy Yard could have been prevented if there were military police and if the vetting of security clearances was done by government agencies instead of private firms. What are your thoughts on this?

   replyreport
   1. 55

      Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I believe you are right.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I believe the privatizing of the military has made a lot of civilians very wealthy.  Could it be we were better off with the draft. With the draft, you serve your time and then you are out of there.  You don't go back for several deployments until one gets to the point of PTSD!

         replyreport
         1. 69

            rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I agree and the flip side of it is that there would be fewer dirty little wars if there were no deferments of the wealthy and politicians children.

            replyreport
2. 68

   innersmiffposted 11 years ago

   There's this phony 'privatisation' again, that bears no resemblance to the true free market. The military is a public institution funded by coercive taxation - the fact that they hire private companies to perform certain tasks is immaterial. Yet, you haven't provided any evidence to suggest that the nature of the private business is less trust-worthy to provide proper safety than a government one.
   
   I could just as well say: I don't own a Ferrari, and this was the case during both the Fort Hood shooting and the Navy Yard shooting, so therefore to end these shootings you need to give me a Ferrari.
   
   My advice? Privatise the whole lot. Private security firms and private militias. Make it profitable for people to be safe, and watch it happen.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I received a secret clearance with crypto access when I worked for an aerospace company. The clearance had to be vetted by a government agency.  They actually interviewed my neighbors, friends and all of my relatives in Italy. Clearances are now grated by private firms that don't do a through job as evidenced by Eric Snowden, The Fort Hood Shooter, and the Navy Yard. Further if there would have been military police at the entrance, chances are very good,  he would have never been able to shoot the guard.
      
      When I worked on secret projects, I had to enter a gate that was controlled by a guard.  The gate closed behind me with a closed gate in front of me.  After I was cleared, the guard opened the front gate to allow me to enter.  Privatization is about the bottom line. Companies are in business to increase profits. If they have to cut corners to increase profits, chances are very good, they will do it, even if involves security risks.
      
      In Afghanistan, many soldiers were electrocuted because a private company built barracks that had showers that were exposed to electrical wiring.  They were probably cutting corners or the job went to the lowest bidder.

      replyreport
   2. 82

      peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Innersmiff: I rest my case:
      
      http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-hundred … ector.html

      replyreport