Contractors in Contingency Operations: panacea or pain?

Air Force Journal of Logistics, Fall, 2004 by James E. Manker, Kent D. Williams

Introduction

The Department of Defense (DoD) has become increasingly reliant on contractors to accomplish the mission. Declining budgets and the reduction in force structure stemming from the peace dividend from the end of the Cold War forced the DoD to seek less expensive and more efficient ways of doing business. More and more, contractors are being called on to perform tasks historically performed by military personnel.

A myriad of factors addressed in the forthcoming pages drive continued reliance on contractors. One reason, often touted, is that contracting out operations saves money. On the surface, this seems to be true, but is the United States really saving money? Is the military required to prove it?

Background

Using contractors in military operations is not a new phenomenon. In fact, contractor use by the United States began prior to the Revolutionary War. During the Revolutionary War, the United States used contractors to move supplies to the front line. (1) Since then, contractors have filled important support roles in every conflict with US involvement, including Operation Iraqi Freedom. Table 1 shows civilian and contractor support levels in US conflicts, up to and including operations in Bosnia. Although figures are not yet available, the number of contractor persons providing support during Iraqi Freedom is sure to be a staggeringly large number. During the first Gulf War and again in Iraqi Freedom, the United States relied extensively on host-nation support contracts. The military, either directly or through host-nation support contracts, contracted for such items as cooks, water delivery, construction labor, and truck drivers. During Iraqi Freedom, third country national contractor persons numbered in the thousands in Kuwait alone. (2)

As the reliance on contractors has grown, the types of tasks contractors are being called on to perform are increasing as well. Contractors are finding their way into every facet of operations. Where the United States once relied on contractors solely for logistical support, contractor personnel now maintain and operate systems supporting the combatant commander. In some cases, contractors are being called on because they provide an expertise not organically possessed within the military. In other cases, they are being called on because they provide services faster, less expensive, and with less overhead than the military. Regardless of the reason, as contractors become more and more integrated into operations, the lines between combatant and noncombatant status are being blurred.

As the role of the contractor has expanded, the contractor's proximity to the battlefront has decreased. In the modern warfare era, there no longer is a distinctive line between battling forces. As a result, the contractors may find themselves close to the forward edge of the battlefield conducting activities, whether intentional or unintentionally.

Contractors who are supporting military operations are deployed globally, including the Central Command Area of Responsibility, providing support across Iraq. Contractors face the same dangers that military personnel encounter in the Middle East. During the conflict, they faced the potential for Scud attacks. Since our move into Iraq, contractors have suffered firsthand from attacks.

Even when the contractor is not fully deployed to the forward edge of the battlefield, the Global War on Terrorism poses a new threat to the theater of operation. Force protection issues have taken on increased importance with the deployed commanders. Their worries are not limited to the enemy's fielded forces and their inherent threats; now contemporary warfare and the threat of insurgencies bringing the battle to the rear area is a reality. Rear locations, once considered safe havens for troops to rest and relax, are potentially as dangerous as the front lines. This danger is not limited to troops: Americans and those who support American efforts are now targets. In many cases, the contractor poses a softer target to terrorists and is targeted specifically for that reason. News reports from Iraq indicate terrorists are actually targeting contractors and nongovernmental organization personnel because they are easy marks. During the last year, contractors were captured and killed supporting US military operations in Central America and the Middle East.

Contractors present multiple challenges to combatant commanders. Their status while deployed supporting contingency operations presents a real problem. The nature of the tasks contractors perform often blur the line between combatant and noncombatant status. Additionally, only a few status of forces agreements exist between the United States and countries around the globe that specify the status contractors will enjoy while deployed with forces. For those countries in which contractors are not covered by a status of forces agreement, the question arises as to the military's responsibility to ensure contractors understand the law and, more important, follow the law. Further, combatant commanders bear responsibility to account for contractors deployed to their areas of responsibility--unfortunately, responsibility does not constitute adherence.