Comment E-mail Print Bio Archives

BAGRAM, Afghanistan -- It is amazing how a change of geography can alter perception. In the weeks leading up to this, my 16th Fox News deployment to cover the fight against radical Islamic terror, the news was full of attacks on civilian contractors. The target: those who have been providing support for U.S. military and intelligence operations since Sept. 11.

"Contractor" is the new "dirty word" in the so-called mainstream media -- and in Washington. On Capitol Hill, contractors are the Rodney Dangerfields of the war -- they just "get no respect." Here, where the war is being fought, contractors are regarded as essential to victory.

The attacks on civilian contractors didn't begin with this summer's hemorrhage of congressional leaks, sensational disclosures of classified information, threats of inquisitions and the appointment of a special prosecutor. Civilian contractors have been in the crosshairs of Congress since George Washington had to defend buying beans, bread, bandages and bullets from sutlers accompanying the Revolutionary Army.

In the opening days of World War II, then-Sen. Harry Truman became famous for threatening to "lock up" civilian contractors for producing sub-par munitions. President Dwight D. Eisenhower ominously warned against the threat of a "military-industrial complex."

All that is pale by comparison, however, to the venom now being aimed at civilian contractors supporting the campaigns in the land between the Tigris and Euphrates and in the shadow of the Hindu Kush. Though the mainstream media and congressional critics initially ignored the essential role played by civilian security and logistics contractors in the opening months of Operation Enduring Freedom, they went into high dudgeon when the Bush administration began preparations for liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein. It has gone downhill since.

Critics on the left are quick to point to events like the 2007 incident in Baghdad that led to the prosecution of security contractors for using excessive force in carrying out protective duties. On Capitol Hill, members of Congress have threatened to cut the budgets of federal agencies that use security contractors instead of government employees to protect key personnel and sensitive installations.

At the Pentagon -- which uses more civilian contractors in the war effort than any other U.S. government entity -- the response to the criticism was capitulation.

In April, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced plans to hire 30,000 additional DoD employees to cut the percentage of work being done by contractors. The fiscal year 2010 defense budget request replaces nearly 14,000 contractor personnel with government employees -- even though the "lifetime cost," counting government benefits and retirement, will more than double the expense to American taxpayers.

The numbers don't mesh, but when it comes to getting the press and politicians off the backs of Pentagon poo-bahs, cutting contractors loose is apparently a small price to pay.

Unfortunately, dollars may not be the only thing lost. Last week, in the midst of the firestorm over U.S. intelligence agencies using private contractors, Gen. Michael Hayden, CIA director from 2006 to 2009, asked a telling question: "Who is the best individual available for this task at this moment?" With more than 30 percent of his former agency's work being performed by contractors, the answer is obvious. He went on to note that the CIA uses contractors for their "very discreet skill sets" and "as an integral part of our workforce."

>> Continued -- Page 1 2