"Let me spell it out for you in simple terms. Woman and minority owned businesses are given preferential treatment when bidding for government contracts. It's the law. You see, it's one of those affirmative action/social justice things that the Democrats are so big on. Of course, in your world you don't think it's racist to give priority based on race or sex, so long as the correct demographic is advanced. You and Bull Connor would have a lot in common on that point.
So here's how it works. There are woman and minority-owned businesses out there that bid on contracts and get them. But they themselves don't do the work -- they subcontract it out to another company. Of course, the company they sub it out to delivers the service cheaper than what the shadow company won the bid for -- and the shadow company pockets the profit. So in the end, the government pays a higher price than needed in order to satisfy a social agenda. In the world of public administation and governance, the word we use to refer to money spent on an artificially inflated price is "waste."
This is your theory and you state it as if it is fact. You being a white male republican hate anything to do with affirmative action. You feel it is unfair to you as a white male and white males in general. While nothing is perfect affirmative action had it's place when the business world was once dominated by white males and minorities and women didn't have a chance to get their foot in the door due to racism. Has that time passed? Maybe, maybe not, as this election has shown that there are still many who hold a deep dislike if not outright hatred to those who aren't white.
Another problem with your example and theory is that you hold any action by a 'white businessman' to be completely above board and legit and in the same breath imply that any action by a 'minority or women business person' is suspect and they are only trying to scam the system. You are blind to your prejudices.
In regard to your statement here:
"In terms of contractors in the field, here's the simple version you might understand. The military has been cut by almost half what it was in 1990. That forced the military to make the decision to outsource support services in order to preserve core competencies like combat specialties. When war in Afghanistan and Iraq kicked up, the military didn't have enough military numbers to send forward for those functions. Many of those functions had been outsourced, and the only answer was to pay to have a private company perform the function in theater. "
Well when you had an administration decide to start a war based on lies because they thought it'd be easy, they should have been prepared, as they were gambling with peoples lives.
But, let's be honest, that's not the real reason they decided to hire a mercenary army and subcontract all the logistic and reconstruction work. It was profits, big, fat, huge, profits, for Halliburton and Blackwater. The US gov. was paying huge no bid contracts to these outfits where many times contract work was very shoddy or wasn't even completed and or mercenaries were guarding food and utensil shipments.
Remember when US troops were paying five dollars for bottles of water sold by KBR and some obscene amount for telephone calls back home. Again, PROFITS, that's what the main emphasis was on. While at the same time they talked about how much they 'loved' the troops they were gauging them blind.
The CEO's of these companies were co-workers, friends, and campaign supporters of Bush and Cheney.
"Here's a clue -- you gotta pay through the nose to get civilians to go into a combat zone. I don't know what you do for a living, but what would we have to pay you to leave your family behind and do the same job in a place that gets mortared on a regular basis? The high cost of contracts isn't the military's fault -- it's due to a political decision that drove force structure changes that led to outsourcing. Furthermore, there aren't a lot of companies that can do what the military needs over there.
Civilian contractors have been on the battlefield for our nation's entire history. If you don't like it, support candidates that would build military capability and take those functions back."
To borrow a line from your hero, Reagan, there you go again! Listen expat if you can break out of the vise like grip of neocon worship read the book Inside Blackwater, it explains all of the screw ups in terms of contract work and the illegal cowboy actions of the mercenary troops over there. You do a dishonor to the troops by defending these vultures.
For anyone interested in truth and reality check out this link for the Documentary No End In Sight. The movie goes over the limitless incompetence of the Bush Admin in the first year of the war and touches on the civilian contractor issue.
Among those interviewed are:
General Jay Garner, who briefly ran the reconstruction before being replaced by L. Paul Bremer
Ambassador Barbara Bodine, who was placed in charge of the Baghdad embassy
Richard Armitage, former deputy secretary of the State Department
Robert Hutchings, former chairman of the National Intelligence Council
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff
Col. Paul Hughes, who worked in the ORHA and then the CPA
I think any one of them is just as if not exceptionally more qualified then expat to speak on the issue. Please watch it, it is powerful stuff.