While the topic of contracting out the US Army and Marines to former Army personnel and the "others" who join private "security" firms seems to be well established what I find new and interesting is the extent to which these private security firms are being used today by the US Federal Government.
It was the role of the US Marines to provide protection for the State Department but with all but a few good men spoken for patrolling the streets of Bagdad the void had to be filled some how. In Viet Nam that void was filled with a Draft. The simple fact then as is now is the reality of an all volunteer force is we are limited in what we can do from a tactical and strategic perspective because we do not have the man power to support every goal.
If you have an all volunteer, or all recruited, force then it does not become possible to say that we can maintain two fronts (or three, four, five, etc). Military history shows time and time again that no matter how powerful the army without the logistical support being in place to sustain and protect the rear areas of the theater the battle may be won but the war will be lost.
What we have really lost here is sight of what is really going on and I find it distasteful at the least; that being politicians using US Taxpayer money to buy themselves out of a political nightmare. That nightmare simply said is the avoidance of a Draft through the use of private armies.
This brings into the fold a new challenge for DoD and other sensitive systems that support warfighting. While it is well known that contractors provide IT support. (Including myself) There has always been a separation of duties. The clear oversight and practice of least privileged I believe has ensured operational security and mission success.
Outsourcing our core military capabilities is wrong, demoralizing to the warfighter (who is often on food stamps), and dangerous to national security. Limited use of physical security contractors here in the United States is fine but putting Mercenaries on the ground in a hot LZ is a different story all together.
If we can't secure the peace we haven't won the war. The worst part is that why should any 18 year old choose to go into the Army and earn $18000 a year when they can go to a private firm and make $30k to start (Much more if you have experience).
It all comes back to "Trust but Verify" because physical and cyber security are the same thing and depend on one another without the ability to separate either one. So the next time you think about outsourcing think about the additional risk you are accepting before you pop the champaign and celebrate how much you think you just saved. BTW - The latest estimates on the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are over 2 trillion dollars by 2010. Back in 2002 the total cost was projected at only 500 billion and most of that was going to be paid for by a eager democratic Iraqi government from the oil reserves. Moral of the story there is that nothing, and I mean nothing (Security Tools, Firewalls, Vendors Promises) is what it appears.
Sounds hypocritical coming out of my mouth since I am technically a "vendor" but I do apply the same standard to myself as anyone else. In that I apply the three fundamental laws of AI.
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Vendors in principal follow the same logic. As a business you would not do anything that would harm the business. However we are here to provide service to the customer and as such much obey. But we should not obey orders that would break the first law.
Oh hell this is good for another post.
No comments:
Post a Comment