historiblogography

actions down the chain

Two stories about the same thing.

When I was in Kuwait last year, I drove a senior NCO to a meeting at Camp Arifjan to join a discussion about a set of changes the Army wanted to make in its administration of pre-combat training for units headed north into Iraq. I sat in the corner during the meeting, which brought together a group of civilian contractors from several companies, a group of soldiers who oversaw the training, a group of civilian employees from the DOD, and an Army officer who served as a contract manager.

The proposed changes were unremarkable, but they still led to shouting and frustration, and the meeting ended without the business being done. Every change in training operations required a change in contract terms, a process with many layers and a great deal of friction. Every action echoed through the bureaucracy, bouncing from headquarters to headquarters and generating new work, new requirements, new processes. Contractors wouldn't lift a wrench until the contract was changed to say they were being paid to lift it.

I also watched, another time, as a major in the training office sent an email to a contractor, criticizing the way the contractor was doing its business on behalf of the military and trying to give directions about the execution of its contract. Again, the action had a long echo, and resolution was long in coming. Field grade officers sent nasty emails back and forth. Meetings ran long.

So here's what I wonder as I read the news these days, and it's a question that I haven't seen addressed in any of the reporting:

Given that the U.S. military effort in Iraq is supported on a foundation of contract services, and given that Gen. David Petraeus is moving toward a system of strategic hamlets quadrillage to try to stabilize Baghdad, what kind of change orders are showing up in the service support contracts? How much more does it cost to have contractors supply dozens of small and relatively insecure bases rather than simply supplying a few massive FOBs? Are contractors more exposed to attack? And what are they charging to cover the difference?

My bet is that a small legion of majors is racing along behind the changes Petraeus is making, scrambling to fix the contracts. And I bet we see, when the numbers start bubbling out in a few months, that the costs of the war are rising sharply to pay the contractors for the changes.

posted by Chris Bray @ 5:53 PM