Contractors on the Battlefield: Has the Military Accepted too Much Risk?

Contracting for services is not new. Throughout the history of warfare, armies used the services of non-military personnel or civilians to accomplish logistical functions to maintain the force and support combat operations. Colonial forces in the Revolutionary war relied on contracted teamsters for services at Valley Forge. United States forces have continued to rely on contractors to provide support from the Revolutionary War to the Gulf War. In Bosnia, contractors provided fifty-two types of support - from LifeCycle(R) treadmills to helicopter maintenance by Bell and Boeing. Continued budgetary pressure, however, will force the military to further outsource services to industry. The logistics focus is not merely the amassing and storage of material and equipment, but ultimately the timely and balanced arrival of resources to the forces in need. Using responsiveness, flexibility, and economy as criteria to determine the level of risk; this paper answers if the United States Army's theater services contracting path presents unacceptable risk to successful operations. The author argues that the United States military (specifically the Army) due to budgetary pressure, has accepted an unreasonable risk with its policy towards contractors on the battlefield. The recommendations include numerous methods to mitigate risk. These recommendations include changes in leadership, planning, training and doctrine. Training and doctrine for contractors on the battlefield form the framework for the leadership through anticipatory planning to develop "habitual relationships" between contractor and soldier, solidifying the bond ensuring successful mission accomplishment.