
Originally Posted by
Novaheart
Blaphemy! Everyone knows that privatization putsmoneyinthepocketsofmillionaires, I mean saves money. Just ask Rick Scott.
Hardly. Privatizing military functions leads to decreased costs in peacetime, but increased costs in wartime. For example, most units had cooks assigned at the company level, so that field feeding was done at a relatively small cost, but the bean counters in the 90's decided that they could eliminate those positions as part of the total drawdown of the force, and make it up with consolidated DFACs throughout CONUS. It did save money, but when we ramped up for Iraq, those positions didn't come back, and we had to establish the same kind of DFACs throughout theater, with combat pay for the civilians who run them. The various contractors managed to find Third Country Nationals (TCNs) to run them at lower cost, but the overall cost was still higher than paying Soldiers to do it, expecially when the cooks ended up being needed to oversee the operaions.

Originally Posted by
Novaheart
Still doesn't change the fact that the article doesn't contain anything to suggest that President Obama had anything to do with the decision to cut back on hot food service.
Uh, no. From the article:
Officials stressed other comforts at the forward operating bases may also soon be reduced, such as laundry and recreation, as officials look for other ways to reduce the American footprint in advance of departing the country.
“In order to set the conditions for each base closure or a base transfer, non-tactical logistics and support services (i.e. any non-mission essential services) must decline. Typically the complete cessation of non-tactical logistics and services, such as laundry services or morale, welfare and recreation services, occurs 2-3 months prior to a base closure or transfer,” Lt. Col. Paul Haverstick said.
Read more:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2JwMwxW3H
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
The decision to withdraw precipitously was Obama's, therefore the effects are his.