WASHINGTON (AP)- Blackwater chairman Erik Prince vigorously defended his private security company on Tuesday, rejecting charges that his staff acted like a bunch of cowboys immune to legal prosecution while protecting State Department personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

“I believe we acted appropriately at all times,� Prince, a 38-year-old former Navy SEAL, told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

 

His testimony came as the FBI is investigating Blackwater personnel for their role in a Sept. 16 shootout that left 11 Iraqis dead.

 

“Despite the valiant missions our people conduct each day with great success, in this September 16 instance, Blackwater and its people have been the subject of negative and baseless allegations reported as truth,� Prince said.

 

The incident and others, including a shooting by a drunk Blackwater employee after a 2006 Christmas party, has raised pointed questions by lawmakers about whether the government is relying too heavily on private contractors who fall outside the scope of the military courts martial system.

 

“Privatizing is working exceptionally well for Blackwater,� said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., committee chairman. “The question for this hearing is whether outsourcing to Blackwater is a good deal to the American taxpayer, whether it’s a good deal for the military and whether it’s serving our national interest in Iraq.�

 

Waxman said he agreed not to probe for specifics of the Sept. 16 incident during Tuesday’s hearing, upon request by the Justice Department that Congress wait until the FBI concludes its investigation. But Waxman said it was still appropriate to probe Blackwater’s company policies, and whether the State Department helped Blackwater cover up Iraqi deaths.

 

Is State 'Blackwater's enabler'?

Blackwater, which has been paid more than $1 billion in federal contracts since 2001, is embroiled in a host of controversies over the conduct of its guards.

 

In particular, Waxman said he was concerned to learn the State Department advised the company on how much to pay the family of an Iraqi security guard shot by a drunken Blackwater employee in 2006. Internal e-mails later revealed a debate within the State Department on the size of the payment, Waxman said.

 

“It’s hard to read these e-mails and not come to the conclusion that the State Department is acting as Blackwater’s enabler,� Waxman said.

 

Administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe an ongoing investigation, said the incident had been referred to federal prosecutors in Seattle, where the former Blackwater employee now lives, but there has been no public announcement of any charges.

 

Prince said the individual was immediately fired and fined.

 

“But we as a private organization can’t do anything more. We can’t flog him, we can’t incarcerate him,� said Prince, adding that he would be “happy to see� further investigation by law enforcement.

 

The Blackwater chairman said he also supports legislation that would guarantee Blackwater employees and other private security companies working for the State Department are subject to prosecution in U.S. courts. The House was expected to pass such a bill, sponsored by Rep. David Price, D-N.C., on Wednesday.

 

Afghan plane crash cited

Waxman also cited a November 2004 crash in Afghanistan of a plane piloted by Blackwater pilots as an example of what he said is the company’s cavalier attitude about how it operates.

 

The crash of flight “Blackwater 61� killed the Blackwater crew and three U.S. military personnel who were passengers. According to information gathered by Waxman’s staff, the Blackwater pilots lacked experience flying in Afghanistan, yet they were joy riding through a valley before crashing into a canyon wall.

 

Prince acknowledged pilot error led to the crash, but also said his company’s aviators often fly missions in difficult conditions. He said the military violated its own rules by loading people and explosives on Blackwater 61. But Blackwater flew the mission anyway because that’s what its government customer wanted.

 

“There is no FAA in Afghanistan,� he said.

 

Throughout the hearing, Prince defended his staff as courageously defending U.S. diplomats overseas. He said 30 Blackwater contractors have been killed in action and no Americans have died while in its protection.

 

“We’re the targets of the same ruthless enemies that have killed more than 3,800 American military personnel and thousands of innocent Iraqis,� he said, sitting alone at the witness table.

 

Republican: 'Some blind spots'

Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., the committee’s top Republican, said the State Department is “trying to get it right,� but its oversight of security contractors “seems to have some blind spots as well.�

 

There’s little data on contractor performance, Davis said, “so it’s impossible to know if one company’s rate of weapons related incidents is the product of a dangerous ’cowboy’ culture or the predictable result of conducting higher-risk missions.�

 

Davis said concentrating only on Blackwater won’t answer the complex questions surrounding the use of security contractors.

 

“Nor are we likely to learn much by focusing on one sensational incident still under investigation,� Davis said.

 

Report released

Prince rejected a claim in report released by the committee Monday, saying Blackwater does not engage in “offensive or military missions, but performs only defensive security functions.�

 

He also disputed the math that concludes security contractors cost far more than American forces to protect U.S. diplomatic personnel. In its report, Waxman’s committee said Blackwater charges the government $1,222 each day for a single security contractor, which works out to $445,000 on an annual basis. That’s six times the cost of a U.S. soldier, the report said.

 

Prince said there’s a large amount of expensive training for military personnel that the government pays for, but is not calculated in these unflattering estimates of what his company charges.

 

“That sergeant doesn’t show up naked and untrained,� Prince said.

 

Blackwater, founded in 1997 by Prince and headquartered in Moyock, N.C., is the largest of the State Department’s three private security contractors with nearly 1,000 personnel working in Iraq. The others are Dyncorp and Triple Canopy, both based in Washington’s northern Virginia suburbs.

 

195 shooting incidents cited

Blackwater has been involved in 195 shooting incidents since 2005, more than the other two companies combined, according to the committee report.

 

Blackwater has had to fire 122 guards — one-seventh of the personnel it has in Iraq — over the past three years for problems ranging from misuse of weapons, alcohol and drug violations, inappropriate conduct, and violent behavior, the committee report said.

 

In more than 80 percent of the incidents, called “escalation of force,� Blackwater’s guards fired the first shots even though the company’s contract with the State Department calls for it to use defensive force only, the report said.

 

“In the vast majority of instances in which Blackwater fired shots, Blackwater is firing from a moving vehicle and does not remain at the scene to determine if the shots resulted in casualties,� it added.

 

The report said there is no evidence that “the State Department sought to restrain Blackwater’s actions, raised concerns about the number of shooting incidents involving Blackwater or the company’s high rate of shooting first, or detained Blackwater contractors for investigation.�

 

The staff report says Blackwater has made huge sums of money despite its questionable performance in Iraq, where Blackwater guards provide protective services for U.S. diplomatic personnel.

 

Blackwater has earned more than $1 billion from federal contracts since 2001, when it had less than $1 million in government work. Overall, the State Department paid Blackwater more than $832 million between 2004 and 2006 for security work, according to the report.

 

Link

Blackwater needs to be hit with some heavy fines, and someone needs to go on trial for these crimes.

 

I also find it insane that we are paying contractors $450K a year to do jobs that our volunteer soldiers are doing for about a 10th of that in some cases. Not only that, but regular soldiers have people to answer to, and they can't come and go as they please like the Blackwater guys.

Boldfacing is cool, can I do it too?

 

WASHINGTON (AP)- Blackwater chairman Erik Prince vigorously defended his private security company on Tuesday, rejecting charges that his staff acted like a bunch of cowboys immune to legal prosecution while protecting State Department personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

?I believe we acted appropriately at all times,? Prince, a 38-year-old former Navy SEAL, told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

 

His testimony came as the FBI is investigating Blackwater personnel for their role in a Sept. 16 shootout that left 11 Iraqis dead.

 

?Despite the valiant missions our people conduct each day with great success, in this September 16 instance, Blackwater and its people have been the subject of negative and baseless allegations reported as truth,? Prince said.

 

The incident and others, including a shooting by a drunk Blackwater employee after a 2006 Christmas party, has raised pointed questions by lawmakers about whether the government is relying too heavily on private contractors who fall outside the scope of the military courts martial system.

 

?Privatizing is working exceptionally well for Blackwater,? said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., committee chairman. ?The question for this hearing is whether outsourcing to Blackwater is a good deal to the American taxpayer, whether it?s a good deal for the military and whether it?s serving our national interest in Iraq.?

 

Waxman said he agreed not to probe for specifics of the Sept. 16 incident during Tuesday?s hearing, upon request by the Justice Department that Congress wait until the FBI concludes its investigation. But Waxman said it was still appropriate to probe Blackwater?s company policies, and whether the State Department helped Blackwater cover up Iraqi deaths.

 

Is State 'Blackwater's enabler'?

Blackwater, which has been paid more than $1 billion in federal contracts since 2001, is embroiled in a host of controversies over the conduct of its guards.

 

In particular, Waxman said he was concerned to learn the State Department advised the company on how much to pay the family of an Iraqi security guard shot by a drunken Blackwater employee in 2006. Internal e-mails later revealed a debate within the State Department on the size of the payment, Waxman said.

 

?It?s hard to read these e-mails and not come to the conclusion that the State Department is acting as Blackwater?s enabler,? Waxman said.

 

Administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe an ongoing investigation, said the incident had been referred to federal prosecutors in Seattle, where the former Blackwater employee now lives, but there has been no public announcement of any charges.

 

Prince said the individual was immediately fired and fined.

 

?But we as a private organization can?t do anything more. We can?t flog him, we can?t incarcerate him,? said Prince, adding that he would be ?happy to see? further investigation by law enforcement.

 

The Blackwater chairman said he also supports legislation that would guarantee Blackwater employees and other private security companies working for the State Department are subject to prosecution in U.S. courts. The House was expected to pass such a bill, sponsored by Rep. David Price, D-N.C., on Wednesday.

 

Afghan plane crash cited

Waxman also cited a November 2004 crash in Afghanistan of a plane piloted by Blackwater pilots as an example of what he said is the company?s cavalier attitude about how it operates.

 

The crash of flight ?Blackwater 61? killed the Blackwater crew and three U.S. military personnel who were passengers. According to information gathered by Waxman?s staff, the Blackwater pilots lacked experience flying in Afghanistan, yet they were joy riding through a valley before crashing into a canyon wall.

 

Prince acknowledged pilot error led to the crash, but also said his company?s aviators often fly missions in difficult conditions. He said the military violated its own rules by loading people and explosives on Blackwater 61. But Blackwater flew the mission anyway because that?s what its government customer wanted.

 

?There is no FAA in Afghanistan,? he said.

 

Throughout the hearing, Prince defended his staff as courageously defending U.S. diplomats overseas. He said 30 Blackwater contractors have been killed in action and no Americans have died while in its protection.

 

?We?re the targets of the same ruthless enemies that have killed more than 3,800 American military personnel and thousands of innocent Iraqis,? he said, sitting alone at the witness table.

 

Republican: 'Some blind spots'

Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., the committee?s top Republican, said the State Department is ?trying to get it right,? but its oversight of security contractors ?seems to have some blind spots as well.?

 

There?s little data on contractor performance, Davis said, ?so it?s impossible to know if one company?s rate of weapons related incidents is the product of a dangerous ?cowboy? culture or the predictable result of conducting higher-risk missions.?

 

Davis said concentrating only on Blackwater won?t answer the complex questions surrounding the use of security contractors.

 

?Nor are we likely to learn much by focusing on one sensational incident still under investigation,? Davis said.

 

Report released

Prince rejected a claim in report released by the committee Monday, saying Blackwater does not engage in ?offensive or military missions, but performs only defensive security functions.?

 

He also disputed the math that concludes security contractors cost far more than American forces to protect U.S. diplomatic personnel. In its report, Waxman?s committee said Blackwater charges the government $1,222 each day for a single security contractor, which works out to $445,000 on an annual basis. That?s six times the cost of a U.S. soldier, the report said.

 

Prince said there?s a large amount of expensive training for military personnel that the government pays for, but is not calculated in these unflattering estimates of what his company charges.

 

?That sergeant doesn?t show up naked and untrained,? Prince said.

 

Blackwater, founded in 1997 by Prince and headquartered in Moyock, N.C., is the largest of the State Department?s three private security contractors with nearly 1,000 personnel working in Iraq. The others are Dyncorp and Triple Canopy, both based in Washington?s northern Virginia suburbs.

 

195 shooting incidents cited

Blackwater has been involved in 195 shooting incidents since 2005, more than the other two companies combined, according to the committee report.

 

Blackwater has had to fire 122 guards ? one-seventh of the personnel it has in Iraq ? over the past three years for problems ranging from misuse of weapons, alcohol and drug violations, inappropriate conduct, and violent behavior, the committee report said.

 

In more than 80 percent of the incidents, called ?escalation of force,? Blackwater?s guards fired the first shots even though the company?s contract with the State Department calls for it to use defensive force only, the report said.

 

?In the vast majority of instances in which Blackwater fired shots, Blackwater is firing from a moving vehicle and does not remain at the scene to determine if the shots resulted in casualties,? it added.

 

The report said there is no evidence that ?the State Department sought to restrain Blackwater?s actions, raised concerns about the number of shooting incidents involving Blackwater or the company?s high rate of shooting first, or detained Blackwater contractors for investigation.?

 

The staff report says Blackwater has made huge sums of money despite its questionable performance in Iraq, where Blackwater guards provide protective services for U.S. diplomatic personnel.

 

Blackwater has earned more than $1 billion from federal contracts since 2001, when it had less than $1 million in government work. Overall, the State Department paid Blackwater more than $832 million between 2004 and 2006 for security work, according to the report.[/b]

WASHINGTON (AP)- Blackwater chairman Erik Prince vigorously defended his private security company on Tuesday, rejecting charges that his staff acted like a bunch of cowboys immune to legal prosecution while protecting State Department personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

I believe we acted appropriately at all times, Prince, a 38-year-old former Navy SEAL, told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

 

His testimony came as the FBI is investigating Blackwater personnel for their role in a Sept. 16 shootout that left 11 Iraqis dead.

 

Despite the valiant missions our people conduct each day with great success, in this September 16 instance, Blackwater and its people have been the subject of negative and baseless allegations reported as truth, Prince said.

 

The incident and others, including a shooting by a drunk Blackwater employee after a 2006 Christmas party, has raised pointed questions by lawmakers about whether the government is relying too heavily on private contractors who fall outside the scope of the military courts martial system.

 

Privatizing is working exceptionally well for Blackwater, said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., committee chairman. The question for this hearing is whether outsourcing to Blackwater is a good deal to the American taxpayer, whether its a good deal for the military and whether its serving our national interest in Iraq.

 

Waxman said he agreed not to probe for specifics of the Sept. 16 incident during Tuesdays hearing, upon request by the Justice Department that Congress wait until the FBI concludes its investigation. But Waxman said it was still appropriate to probe Blackwaters company policies, and whether the State Department helped Blackwater cover up Iraqi deaths.

 

There is no FAA in Afghanistan, he said.

 

Throughout the hearing, Prince defended his staff as courageously defending U.S. diplomats overseas. He said 30 Blackwater contractors have been killed in action and no Americans have died while in its protection.

 

Were the targets of the same ruthless enemies that have killed more than 3,800 American military personnel and thousands of innocent Iraqis, he said, sitting alone at the witness table.

 

Republican: 'Some blind spots'

Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., the committees top Republican, said the State Department is trying to get it right, but its oversight of security contractors seems to have some blind spots as well.

 

Theres little data on contractor performance, Davis said, so its impossible to know if one companys rate of weapons related incidents is the product of a dangerous cowboy culture or the predictable result of conducting higher-risk missions.

 

Davis said concentrating only on Blackwater wont answer the complex questions surrounding the use of security contractors.

 

Nor are we likely to learn much by focusing on one sensational incident still under investigation, Davis said.

 

Report released

Prince rejected a claim in report released by the committee Monday, saying Blackwater does not engage in offensive or military missions, but performs only defensive security functions.

 

He also disputed the math that concludes security contractors cost far more than American forces to protect U.S. diplomatic personnel. In its report, Waxmans committee said Blackwater charges the government $1,222 each day for a single security contractor, which works out to $445,000 on an annual basis. Thats six times the cost of a U.S. soldier, the report said.

 

Prince said theres a large amount of expensive training for military personnel that the government pays for, but is not calculated in these unflattering estimates of what his company charges.

 

That sergeant doesnt show up naked and untrained, Prince said.

 

Blackwater, founded in 1997 by Prince and headquartered in Moyock, N.C., is the largest of the State Departments three private security contractors with nearly 1,000 personnel working in Iraq. The others are Dyncorp and Triple Canopy, both based in Washingtons northern Virginia suburbs.

 

195 shooting incidents cited

Blackwater has been involved in 195 shooting incidents since 2005, more than the other two companies combined, according to the committee report.

 

Blackwater has had to fire 122 guards one-seventh of the personnel it has in Iraq over the past three years for problems ranging from misuse of weapons, alcohol and drug violations, inappropriate conduct, and violent behavior, the committee report said.

 

In more than 80 percent of the incidents, called escalation of force, Blackwaters guards fired the first shots even though the companys contract with the State Department calls for it to use defensive force only, the report said.

 

In the vast majority of instances in which Blackwater fired shots, Blackwater is firing from a moving vehicle and does not remain at the scene to determine if the shots resulted in casualties, it added.

 

The report said there is no evidence that the State Department sought to restrain Blackwaters actions, raised concerns about the number of shooting incidents involving Blackwater or the companys high rate of shooting first, or detained Blackwater contractors for investigation.

 

The staff report says Blackwater has made huge sums of money despite its questionable performance in Iraq, where Blackwater guards provide protective services for U.S. diplomatic personnel.

 

Blackwater has earned more than $1 billion from federal contracts since 2001, when it had less than $1 million in government work. Overall, the State Department paid Blackwater more than $832 million between 2004 and 2006 for security work, according to the report.

 

Link

Blackwater needs to be hit with some heavy fines, and someone needs to go on trial for these crimes.

 

I also find it insane that we are paying contractors $450K a year to do jobs that our volunteer soldiers are doing for about a 10th of that in some cases. Not only that, but regular soldiers have people to answer to, and they can't come and go as they please like the Blackwater guys.

Heavy fines, putting someone on trial... are you kidding me? Charging someone with murder in Iraq is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.

 

Their responsibilities include guarding US embassy employees while traveling, could you or I or anyone make all the correct calls with thousands of people who want nothing more than to kill you? Blackwater has to be aggressive, they have to be a lot more aggressive than the US military because when Blackwater gets in trouble they have no backup, they cannot call in artillery, they can not call in mortars, they can not call in an air strike, they cannot call for armor support, they are 100% on their own. When you have 4 Blackwater operators responsible for protecting an entire convoy of state department personnel and you come under attack you respond immediately and without hesitation, and no matter what happens as long as you and your principles are alive in the end that's all that matters.

 

They may get paid a lot of money, but it's not worth it. No contractor has ever made $450,000, that may be what the state department is paying the contracting company like Blackwater or DynCorp for each operator, but the actual operator is only taking home a small percentage of that $450k with the rest going to the company. The average contractor will make in the neighborhood in $90,000 for 6 months of work, not worth it at all and the number of contractors who are killed never gets reported on the news, there will never be a memorial for them, their families will never be taken care of - the number of deaths among contractors is extremely high.

 

Don't you remember Fallujah when 4 Blackwater operators had their bodies mutilated, dragged through the streets, and then hung from a bridge? That goes through the mind of every single contractor when they leave the green zone and they will use any means necessary from preventing it from happening again. It's a god damn war zone, putting someone on trial or charging someone for murder

 

Inquiring minds wish to know how and why you judge them, from the comfort of your keyboard.

I'm sorry, but it would be a lot better to be a Blackwater contractor who does not have to stay in the country indefinitely, than a soldier who can be recalled even after they serve for a longer period, thanks to the stop-loss system. I'm convinced that regular soldiers have it far worse off. I can also say easily that regular soldiers would certainly take the $90,000 for 6 months of work like you say. Far too many veterans are going broke thanks to various injuries, both physical and mental, that they have suffered in Iraq. It doesn't help that I just read a GAO report last week saying that the conditions at Walter Reed have not improved since the scandal erupted earlier this year.

 

For those who attack me because I have not served in the military, that is an unfair attack. I would absolutely serve in a war that directly affected the safety of this nation, like a World War II. But to attack me because I don't support a war without an end, a clear objective, or competent leadership (not unlike Vietnam), is cowardly. It does not make someone less patriotic to oppose a war of choice like this.

No one called you out for not fighting or serving, learn to read what is actually written.

Bolding text is fun and makes people read what's highlighted.

I heard Davis say on Jim Lehrer tonight that the State Department had determined it would cost $500,000 (including training and what-not) per person to use our own military men to do the same job, so it certainly isn't true that Blackwater is costing 10 times as much per man. On the other hand, it sounds like Blackwater needs to do a better job training its personnel, and if they're going to cause problems for the US and the military in Iraq, then Blackwater may not be worth the theoretical savings and the opportunity not to divert our military resources for these tasks.

 

Listening to Waxman and Davis debate this issue, though, made it clear that a lot of this hearing was about politics (surprise!), particularly from the side of the Democrats.

I'm convinced that regular soldiers have it far worse off. I can also say easily that regular soldiers would certainly take the $90,000 for 6 months of work like you say. Far too many veterans are going broke thanks to various injuries, both physical and mental, that they have suffered in Iraq.

Horse sh*t.

 

You don't understand the military at all yet you think you know what goes through the mind of a serviceman, as if you're some sort of expert. You're convinced regular soldiers have it far worse off and would take 90 grand for 6 months of work? Uhh, NO. Did you not even read my post? Blackwater operators do not have air power. They don't have armor. They don't have any QRF from the US military. All they have is a rifle and their past experience. They are much more vulnerable than any military force in country. You don't know enough on the subject to even be able to form an opinion. You think you do, but you really don't.

 

As far as veterans going broke because of injuries, please just shut the hell up. When your argument fails, you'll always pull something ridiculously absurd out of your ass.

Hearts and minds

 

Democracy

 

Preventing the death of innocent civilians

 

The central mission of Blackwater

Accord, it seems you're defending the actions of the Blackwater folks, which is fine, but at the same time, I read your commentary and I think it sounds like another argument against the use of these private companies in the first place. I don't want Blackwater employees dying any more than I want our soldiers dying. If these guys are so vulnerable, maybe it really isn't worth it.

Blackwater isn't conducting operations that require air power. They are supposed to be providing security to dignitaries, not launching counter-insurgency operations.

 

I'm not saying I'm a military expert. That's what YOU are saying that I said.

 

I also love how you just enjoy attacking people's opinions.

 

Just because you serve in one part of the military doesn't make you an expert either, sorry.

Blackwater isn't conducting operations that require air power. They are supposed to be providing security to dignitaries, not launching counter-insurgency operations.

 

I'm not saying I'm a military expert. That's what YOU are saying that I said.

 

I also love how you just enjoy attacking people's opinions.

 

Just because you serve in one part of the military doesn't make you an expert either, sorry.

Blackwater isn't conducting operations that require air power... are you kidding me? Yes they are, they're responsible for the security of hundreds of Iraqi politicians, dignitaries, and otherwise important people involved in bringing democracy to Iraq and that absolutely requires air support. When they leave the green zone and get ambushed with 4 Blackwater operators responsible for the security of an entire convoy, guess what happens? They get waxed and easily overwhelmed because they have NO AIR SUPPORT and cannot call for fire.

 

Do you know what a MAGTF is? Do you even understand the use of call for fire or air support? Do you know what a QRF is and what it's purpose is? No you don't, so shut the hell up and stop acting like you know what you're talking about and don't sit there and say Blackwater doesn't require air support because they absolutely do, their role is no different than that of a PSD unit in the Army or Marine Corps which has virtually unlimited amounts of resources, but Blackwater is doing it with a rifle and a prayer.

 

I don't attack peoples opinions, I simply call it like I see it and if you're posting something stupid in an area that I am well informed on and have direct experience with, I will call you out on it. It's rather simple. You may disagree with my politics and I admit I don't know sh*t about a lot of things, but don't question me about war fighting. I am not a pogue, I am not some computer programmer in the Air Force or an MP in the Army, I am a US Marine on the tip of America's military spear. The stuff you're posting are just opinions you formed on a whim and nothing more.

I'm sorry, I'd actually rather do a year working for Blackwater in Iraq making $90,000 then making $890.00 a month in the Air Force.

 

But Blackwater does have a sinister name though.

But Blackwater does have a sinister name though.

 

Fuzzybunnies would have prevented all this 'controversy.'

I'm sorry, I'd actually rather do a year working for Blackwater in Iraq making $90,000 then making $890.00 a month in the Air Force.

 

But Blackwater does have a sinister name though.

I definitely wouldn't, I didn't join the military for the money. I'm slated to make about $12,500 this year after taxes, big baller :lol . I would easily be making quadruple that in the civilian world right now had I not become a Marine, but like I said I don't care about the money. However, you don't have to go into contracting to get paid a lot for doing the same job, my buddy just got an $80,000 re-enlistment incentive to lateral move to EOD so long as he completes the school which has an extremely high attrition rate... crazy bastard.

I didn't join the Air Force for money, but still 90,000 dollars.

 

And I've never heard of a reenlistment bonus that high.

I didn't join the Air Force for money, but still 90,000 dollars.

 

And I've never heard of a reenlistment bonus that high.

The Army is giving $150,000 reenlistment bonuses to anyone in the 18X field to keep them in. So many of them were getting out and going into private contracting because of the money and the Army was seriously undermanned in the 18X field because so many were getting out and not enough were joining, so the Army had to offer $150k bonuses so they would stay in and reenlist. It's pretty sad that our US Army actually has to compete with private contractors like that, but I guess that's just the nature of the beast.

 

The Marine Corps only has approximately 350 Marines in EOD for the entire Marine Corps, that's no where near enough especially when we're at war. IED's in Iraq aren't getting taken care of and dealt with properly or in time because there aren't enough EOD Marines in the Corps, 350 Marines to handle every IED in the AO controlled by the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd MEF is just impossible. The school is 9 months long and one of the most academically challenging schools in the entire military (it's about on par with the Navy's Nuke school) and the attrition rate exceeds 80%, not to mention the fact that you must be a Cpl or above to even hold an EOD MOS and it's no wonder that there are so few EOD Marines. So when an EOD Marine is about to get out, the Corps can't afford to let that Marine go because it is incredibly difficult to replace that Marine, so they offer an $80,000 reenlistment incentive to stay in.

Wow. I was a 55D and was offered $30K. I would have reenlisted for $80K. Of course, I'd probably be sandflea chow by now but just saying...

 

Yeah, my EOD class started with 40 and graduated 7. Easily the most demanding course load in the military. You are, in fact, required to earn MSO qual in 55B [ammunition specialist] so that the soldiers that fail out still have a job to fall back into. Physical [including full spectrum vision] and Mental [including full psych workup, TS clearance, and 95th percentile in ASVAB] eliminate some absurd percentage [98+ I think] of the military's prospective candidates.