Would removing contractors from traditional military jobs reduce the graft and profits of war?

[jpgray]

By which I mean all the work KBR and others do insofar as food, housing, transportation, etc. I can believe that the military was inefficient at doing these jobs and that profiteering still existed to a high degree under the old system, but doesn't this new rash of contractors just provide one more funnel of tax payer dollars into private corporations? And don't those corporations have an interest in promoting war if such is a major source of profit? Further, removing the contractors would require more soldiers to fill those non-combat positions, therefore making the military less capable of engaging in wars of choice even when recruiting is at an all time low. Based on what my father and grandfather have told me, the reports about the quality of service from KBR are outrageous considering the cost, and what the employees are paid compared to what servicepeople were paid in the same positions. The armed forces didn't do a spectacular job, but I'm told they did an average job for less cost.

So would this help? Or does increased contracting not have that great an effect?

[RC]

1. Putting Cheney in chains would do a better job of stopping graft.

[Vincardog]

2. The only thing 'Privatizing" governmental jobs and services does

is increase costs and divert money to the crony capitalist parasites who installed the latest incarnation of St. Ray Guns trickle down bull shit promoter.

PS Iraq is not a War it is an illegal occupation.