PDA

View Full Version : Special Forces Exodus to Civilian Security Jobs Continues



XASA
03-30-2004, 09:09 AM
New York Times
March 30, 2004
Big Pay Luring Military's Elite to Private Jobs
By ERIC SCHMITT and THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON, March 29 — Senior American commanders and Pentagon officials are warning of an exodus of the military's most seasoned members of Special Operations to higher-paying civilian security jobs in places like Baghdad and Kabul, just as they are playing an increasingly pivotal role in combating terror and helping conduct nation-building operations worldwide.

Senior enlisted members of the Army Green Berets or Navy Seals with 20 years or more experience now earn about $50,000 in base pay, and can retire with a $23,000 pension. But private security companies, whose services are in growing demand in Iraq and Afghanistan, are offering salaries of $100,000 to nearly $200,000 a year to the most experienced of them.

The Central Intelligence Agency is also dangling such enticing offers before experienced Special Operations personnel that the Pentagon's top official for special operations policy, Thomas W. O'Connell, told a House panel this month that intergovernmental poaching "is starting to become a significant problem."

Evidence of a drain of seasoned Special Operations members, including elite Delta Force soldiers, is largely anecdotal right now, but the head of the military's Special Operations Command, Gen. Bryan D. Brown of the Army, is so concerned about what he is hearing from troops in the field that he convened an unusual meeting of his top commanders in Washington last week to discuss the matter. "The retention of our special operating forces is a big issue," General Brown said.

Last December, he gathered 20 senior members of the Navy Seals and Army Green Berets and Air Force commandos and their spouses, at his headquarters in Tampa, Fla., for a weeklong session to discuss career-extending sweeteners, like special pay bonuses and educational benefits. A special panel is now reviewing those recommendations.

"The kind of people we're training today, that are culturally aware, able to work overseas, experts with handguns and rifles, physically fit, hand-selected guys that also speak a foreign language," General Brown told the Senate Armed Services Committee last Thursday, "these kind of people are very attractive to those kind of civilian private industries that provide security services both at home and abroad."

General Brown and other senior officials acknowledged that the lucrative offers by outsiders presented a rare opportunity for career soldiers to gain financial security.

"They're not leaving out of disloyalty," said Gen. Wayne Downing, a retired head of the Special Operations Command who recently returned from Iraq. "The money is just so good, if they're going to be away from home that much, they may as well make top dollar."

One of those senior noncommissioned officers who chose to leave the Army for a private security job in Baghdad paused for a few moments on Monday to describe his decision, but requested that his name be withheld. After enlisting just over two decades ago, he received Airborne, Ranger and Special Forces training. At the end of 20 years of service, he received an offer to go to Iraq to guard public officials and help train local Iraqis to do the same.

"It wasn't that I minded the op-tempo or the deployments, that's why I joined," he said about the pace of operations. "But after putting in my time, I had this chance to make three times the money, and some of the guys are making even more than that."

Seasoned enlisted troops and officers have always offered skills that make them attractive to civilian employers, including military contractors, security companies and military consulting firms. Military personnel experts are cautioning that longer and more frequent deployments are threatening the ability of all the armed services to retain many of their best and brightest.

Experienced Special Operations personnel have always been the cream of the crop. The demand for their talents has grown steadily since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"Any people with Special Operations backgrounds are in very high demand right now," said the manager of the Baghdad office of a British security company.

The possible exodus, which was first reported this month by the newspaper European Stars and Stripes, comes as the size, budget and missions of the Special Operations Command are increasing sharply. At Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's direction, the command will now plan and execute its own missions worldwide, with support from other regional commands, rather than act in a largely supporting role.

Over the next five years, the Defense Department plans to add 3,900 people to the Special Operations Command, which now has 49,000 people, focusing on more pilots, Seals members, civil affairs and psychological operations specialists.

In Iraq, Special Operations forces are hunting for former Baathist paramilitary fighters, training the new Iraqi security forces and helping conduct stability operations throughout the country. And in Afghanistan, Green Beret personnel are living in primitive conditions near the Pakistan border, helping seal the borders and hunt Taliban or Al Qaeda fighters, as well as rebuilding villages to earn the locals' trust.

Senator Susan Collins, a Maine Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said, "At a time when we're more and more reliant on Special Operations forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and for covert action, we can't afford an exodus of the most experience special operators."

Recruiting entry-level troops for these kinds of missions is going very well, General Brown said. In most cases, Special Operations members are recruited after they have served six to eight years in the military.

A typical Green Beret member requires up to 18 months of training, including learning a foreign language, at an average cost of $257,000 per soldier. Only one out of four candidates completes the training.

For the senior noncommissioned officers, the sergeants who specialize in weapons, engineering and explosives, combat medicine and intelligence, years of experience are needed to achieve the maturity required before even applying to the Green Berets. These noncommissioned offices now describe a time of upheaval that is wholly new to a post-Vietnam generation of Special Forces.

With the heightened pace of deployments, the prospect that Special Forces will continue to carry a heavy share of the campaign against terrorism, and the offers from security firms to protect businesses, journalists and even American government officials operating in Baghdad, Green Beret members interviewed expressed fears that even more of their colleagues will depart.

One reservist civil affairs captain now assigned to Baghdad has been away from his municipal job in a midsize West Coast city for more than a year. While he and his family have been happy to bear that burden in support of the mission in Iraq, he said, the frustration of managing a number of local development projects in Baghdad, which he said require him to fight the United States government budget bureaucracy, is prompting him to think about not rejoining the reserves.

And any complaints from these troops about their jobs has top officials worried. "We can never compete dollar-for-dollar with outside firms," said Command Chief Master Sgt. Robert Martens Jr. of the Air Force, the senior enlisted adviser to General Brown. "We compete on job satisfaction."


Eric Schmitt reported from Washington and Thom Shanker from Baghdad.

Argyll
03-30-2004, 10:16 AM
Just goes to show that this is not just a problem for UKSF,as has been stated here within a few threads recently
There are also many Multi National SF Operators,hearing the call of the dollar,and it's easy to see why..........in Iraq this is their bread and butter,it's what they were trained for

Imshi-Yallah
03-30-2004, 10:27 AM
Quite a few Irish exers reported to be out there as well, so most likely UKSF will be similarly effected...it must be killing Commachio group

Royal
03-30-2004, 10:52 AM
...it must be killing Commachio group

Eh?

MaDuce
03-30-2004, 10:56 AM
Don't blame them they get payed up to 200k USD to just advise on what they have been doing fro 20 years.

Red
03-30-2004, 11:50 AM
I think the Military needs to increase the number of benefits that are offered to these soldiers.I can understand where these soldiers are coming from and frankly i don't blame them.If i was in their shoes i probably would have done the same thing.

11F5S
03-30-2004, 02:06 PM
I think the Military needs to increase the number of benefits that are offered to these soldiers.I can understand where these soldiers are coming from and frankly i don't blame them.If i was in their shoes i probably would have done the same thing.

Increase the number of benefits? What benefits do you suggest and how do you propose that Uncle Sam go about accomplishing this? Money doesn't grow on trees.

Iceman
03-30-2004, 03:11 PM
If I were SF soldier, I would definitly go or take the jop of the highest bidder. I donīt blame these guys at all. It is very natural. They have the best training avalible why not get the best sallary also. I would do it.

Royal
03-30-2004, 03:20 PM
If I were SF soldier, I would definitly go or take the jop of the highest bidder. I donīt blame these guys at all. It is very natural. They have the best training avalible why not get the best sallary also. I would do it.

Then it's probably a good job that you aren't and never will be...

California Joe
03-30-2004, 04:19 PM
Come on Royal, you know you joined cause someday you'd get to make big bucks and have all kinds of flashy gear.

ALBANIAN
03-30-2004, 04:24 PM
How much us sf soldiers are payed?

mocking_loudly_died
03-30-2004, 04:25 PM
Come on Royal, you know you joined cause someday you'd get to make big bucks and have all kinds of flashy gear.

And I didn’t join because I'm a coward (and possibly a socialist).

Argyll
03-30-2004, 04:31 PM
Come on Royal, you know you joined cause someday you'd get to make big bucks and have all kinds of flashy gear.


where's ma Gucci AK?........oh that's right I'm getting it next week ;)

California Joe
03-30-2004, 04:34 PM
Hope you got all your Abercrombie and Fitch cargo pants straight. Pretty motherf*cker.

Argyll
03-30-2004, 04:37 PM
Kilt and Sporran,that'll take them all by surprise ;)

California Joe
03-30-2004, 04:47 PM
That'd scare the hell out of me

Argyll
03-30-2004, 04:52 PM
Works for Farmgirl tho

farmgirl
03-30-2004, 04:55 PM
Works for Farmgirl tho



That it does, baby, that it does.... ;)

Argyll
03-30-2004, 04:56 PM
:hug: .........ok got to get back on topic ;)

Red
03-30-2004, 04:58 PM
I think the Military needs to increase the number of benefits that are offered to these soldiers.I can understand where these soldiers are coming from and frankly i don't blame them.If i was in their shoes i probably would have done the same thing.

Increase the number of benefits? What benefits do you suggest and how do you propose that Uncle Sam go about accomplishing this? Money doesn't grow on trees.
Well yes i know money does not grow on trees but if you need to keep these guys around then you have got to do what you've got to do.My suggestion is to create benefits geared towards SF families especially the children.I know in this line of work,it is not about the money or benefits but at the end of it,money still plays a big role in the framework of things.Hey 11F5S are you still pissed about my little rant in that other thread?i hope u aren't cause i meant no disrespect.I just noticed that you picked my post out of all the others.

farmgirl
03-30-2004, 05:07 PM
:hug: .........ok got to get back on topic ;)


yeah... cause that was my fault! ;)

seriously.... who can blame them for taking advantage of the money. Our soldiers should be better paid across the board.

MaDuce
03-30-2004, 05:26 PM
How much us sf soldiers are payed?

Depends on rank, pay grade and hazardous duty "special" pays you get. There is also house allowences and extra pay for dependants.
This pdf has all information on pay.
http://www.dfas.mil/money/milpay/pay/2004paytable.pdf

Tane Angle
03-30-2004, 05:34 PM
I think it is pretty dang irresponsible for Bush to have a tax cut when we have serious retention problems. 115FS, I think you know just as well as I do that it takes ten to twenty years to build a special operations force, no? If we throw away the one we have now, as we have done, how are we supposed to fight terrorism? Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

FuturePara
03-30-2004, 05:39 PM
Does anyone know how long these guys will spend over-seas training on average?
Just a kind of guesstimate...like six months minimum?

Truthsayer
03-30-2004, 09:47 PM
I think it is pretty dang irresponsible for Bush to have a tax cut when we have serious retention problems. 115FS, I think you know just as well as I do that it takes ten to twenty years to build a special operations force, no? If we throw away the one we have now, as we have done, how are we supposed to fight terrorism? Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

That is what some politicians just doesn't understand. For them the military is just another spending-post they are looking to cut another 10% from the next fiscal year... *sigh*

Flagg
03-30-2004, 10:02 PM
I've heard figures ranging from about $250K to $2MIL for initial and continuation training for a single world class SF soldier.

Think of it from an insurance perspective.

That's a lot of money and time invested in a single individual....

The RISK is if that individual decides to seperate from active service(not even accounting for the possibility of permanent disability/death while in servce), taking that investment with him....requiring another large investment in time/money/lost capability to replace him.

Think of it as an insurance premium.....a couple percentage points worth of the total training costs per annum paid to the individual to ensure their continued service is a good "insurance policy".....especially for a capability that can take so long to build, maintain, or recover from the loss of it(as Tane mentioned).

Forget about bennies and touchy-feely crap.......fork over the money.

There's too big of a disparity right now and for the foreseeable future between supply and demand of SF...too much demand....not enough of a supply.....it's unfortunate...but we live in a market economy world...and the cost is whatever the buyer can bear.

Either SF pay gets raised......or the attrition will continue as long as the disparity between military and PMC pay remains so wide.

But it wil sort itself out eventually.....remember the IT trade a couple of years back?

I was interviewing folks for positions at HUGE salaries because warm bodies were needed "yesterday." We were almost desperate enough to start kidnapping....Fast forward 5 years and those same folks are unemployed, underemployed, or have taken big wage cuts.....cause there's a global IT glut.

It's a cycle....it will pass eventually.

Tane Angle
03-30-2004, 10:15 PM
Good post. I don't know if the demand will ever reall go down, as people have been pushing for standing SOF since before WWII, and only in the past two decades have things like USSOCOM, JSOC, etc. taken shape, after decades of lobbying for them. It's a good bet that we will need such forces for the next few centuries, at least. As long as there is terrorism or wars, we will probably need forces to intercede. SOF are those forces.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

11F5S
03-31-2004, 06:04 PM
Well yes i know money does not grow on trees but if you need to keep these guys around then you have got to do what you've got to do.My suggestion is to create benefits geared towards SF families especially the children.I know in this line of work,it is not about the money or benefits but at the end of it,money still plays a big role in the framework of things.Hey 11F5S are you still pissed about my little rant in that other thread?i hope u aren't cause i meant no disrespect.I just noticed that you picked my post out of all the others.

Pissed off???? I don't recall being pissed off at you, infact I had to search your old posts to remember what you were referring to.

You made a suggestion, but didn't give us even a hint about what you had in mind.

The last time I checked SF and other SO units were still part of the US Army and as such I don't believe they can be given a benefits package that is any different than the rest of the Army.

Red
03-31-2004, 06:22 PM
Well yes i know money does not grow on trees but if you need to keep these guys around then you have got to do what you've got to do.My suggestion is to create benefits geared towards SF families especially the children.I know in this line of work,it is not about the money or benefits but at the end of it,money still plays a big role in the framework of things.Hey 11F5S are you still pissed about my little rant in that other thread?i hope u aren't cause i meant no disrespect.I just noticed that you picked my post out of all the others.

Pissed off???? I don't recall being pissed off at you, infact I had to search your old posts to remember what you were referring to.

You made a suggestion, but didn't give us even a hint about what you had in mind.

The last time I checked SF and other SO units were still part of the US Army and as such I don't believe they can be given a benefits package that is any different than the rest of the Army.
I know they are part of the army but the perform a function critical to the army which can't be performed by everyone in the army.I'll use this analogy-A CEO is part of a company as well the other workers but the CEO is paid more and has better benefits than the rest of the workers because the CEO has skills that the company needs and can't be provided by just about everyone in the company.SF are a special breed and as thus should be treated accordingly.Just my thoughts

Flagg
03-31-2004, 06:38 PM
I don't know if the demand will ever reall go down, as people have been pushing for standing SOF since before WWII, and only in the past two decades have things like USSOCOM, JSOC, etc. taken shape, after decades of lobbying for them. It's a good bet that we will need such forces for the next few centuries, at least. As long as there is terrorism or wars, we will probably need forces to intercede. SOF are those forces.

I agree that strong demand for SF capabilities will likely continue for a long time.

A big concern of mine is some of the core inherent traits needed in SF, SOF, and less "sexy" military trades:

Maturity
Intelligence/common sense
cultural/situational sensitivity
Ability to handle ambiguity

These are just a few traits of the type of people needed to effectively handle current "less than war, more than peace" operational environments.

You can't train recruits for that.

If you got it, you got it, if you don't, you don't.

And placing soldiers in a less than war environment armed with weapons, but not armed with the necessary maturity/intelligence/sensitivity/ability to handle ambiguity is trouble with a capital T.

just my opinion...

Red
03-31-2004, 06:47 PM
I don't know if the demand will ever reall go down, as people have been pushing for standing SOF since before WWII, and only in the past two decades have things like USSOCOM, JSOC, etc. taken shape, after decades of lobbying for them. It's a good bet that we will need such forces for the next few centuries, at least. As long as there is terrorism or wars, we will probably need forces to intercede. SOF are those forces.

I agree that strong demand for SF capabilities will likely continue for a long time.

A big concern of mine is some of the core inherent traits needed in SF, SOF, and less "sexy" military trades:

Maturity
Intelligence/common sense
cultural/situational sensitivity
Ability to handle ambiguity

These are just a few traits of the type of people needed to effectively handle current "less than war, more than peace" operational environments.

You can't train recruits for that.

If you got it, you got it, if you don't, you don't.

And placing soldiers in a less than war environment armed with weapons, but not armed with the necessary maturity/intelligence/sensitivity/ability to handle ambiguity is trouble with a capital T.

just my opinion...
But dont you think that along the line of their training pileline that these guys will be weeded out

Flagg
03-31-2004, 06:48 PM
I know they are part of the army but the perform a function critical to the army which can't be performed by everyone in the army.I'll use this analogy-A CEO is part of a company as well the other workers but the CEO is paid more and has better benefits than the rest of the workers because the CEO has skills that the company needs and can't be provided by just about everyone in the company.SF are a special breed and as thus should be treated accordingly.Just my thoughts

Someone from the US military could probably better respond, but I'll give it a go.

I don't think using a CEO as an analogy to SF is relevant or helpful to your argument.

You mention CEOs....have you had a look at the HUGE outcry in overenthusiastic compensation for CEOs in recent years? ....if anything, there is a call to reduce CEO/employee comparative compensation.

You also have to consider the US military services aren't companies and they are hindered by specific compensation guidelines(In otherwords, unlike CEOs, soldiers are unable to decide their own compensation). Their laititude in deciding total compensation may be limited and could require them to seek approval and funding from elected representives.

Red
03-31-2004, 07:00 PM
I know they are part of the army but the perform a function critical to the army which can't be performed by everyone in the army.I'll use this analogy-A CEO is part of a company as well the other workers but the CEO is paid more and has better benefits than the rest of the workers because the CEO has skills that the company needs and can't be provided by just about everyone in the company.SF are a special breed and as thus should be treated accordingly.Just my thoughts

Someone from the US military could probably better respond, but I'll give it a go.

I don't think using a CEO as an analogy to SF is relevant or helpful to your argument.

You mention CEOs....have you had a look at the HUGE outcry in overenthusiastic compensation for CEOs in recent years? ....if anything, there is a call to reduce CEO/employee comparative compensation.

You also have to consider the US military services aren't companies and they are hindered by specific compensation guidelines(In otherwords, unlike CEOs, soldiers are unable to decide their own compensation). Their laititude in deciding total compensation may be limited and could require them to seek approval and funding from elected representives.
The analogy was more a way to show that to keep a rare and usefull skill set,you need to offer a nice benefit package to keep this skill set.but your point is well taken.I just posed that question to the BTDT's on SOCNET

Flagg
03-31-2004, 07:35 PM
But dont you think that along the line of their training pileline that these guys will be weeded out

Certainly...I guess I need to clarify the point I'm trying to make.

There are only so many SF pers to go around.

An extremely high operational tempo is going to attrit existing numbers.

There are only so many folks out there who have the inherent abilities, combined with considerable training, to be effective, and taking a single per from day one until they can fill the shoes of a seperating long-serving veteran is measured in decades(as Tane has previously noted).

Multiply that by the number of seperating veterans.

And divide it by the program success rate.

If 100 SF veterans seperated today....it would take thouands of SF recruit prospects, a couple of hundred million dollars, and at least a decade to replace what goes out the door.

Like most skills/trades, the pers most effective in the current environment are the pers with the most experience, the most maturity, restraint at times, etc.....and they're likely closer to the end, rather than beginning of their service careers.

Red
03-31-2004, 08:07 PM
But dont you think that along the line of their training pileline that these guys will be weeded out

Certainly...I guess I need to clarify the point I'm trying to make.

There are only so many SF pers to go around.

An extremely high operational tempo is going to attrit existing numbers.

There are only so many folks out there who have the inherent abilities, combined with considerable training, to be effective, and taking a single per from day one until they can fill the shoes of a seperating long-serving veteran is measured in decades(as Tane has previously noted).

Multiply that by the number of seperating veterans.

And divide it by the program success rate.

If 100 SF veterans seperated today....it would take thouands of SF recruit prospects, a couple of hundred million dollars, and at least a decade to replace what goes out the door.

Like most skills/trades, the pers most effective in the current environment are the pers with the most experience, the most maturity, restraint at times, etc.....and they're likely closer to the end, rather than beginning of their service careers.
Well said,couldnt have said it any better