As the U.S. intelligence community battles yet another data breach following the recent dump of information contained in WikiLeaks Vault 7, the media and government officials are yet again in a frenzy. As it pertains to fears among the population regarding the CIA’s programs and capabilities, the existence of government programs and how or when they are used are entirely different discussions.
Furthermore, it is imperative that our silent warriors have the most robust capabilities possible to defeat the innumerable threats that exist to our safety and security today. It is not, however, acceptable for the general public, or worse yet our enemies, to know these capabilities. As such, the Vault 7 breach is an extremely significant event that will impact U.S. operations abroad and the traitors behind this horrific act must be dealt with, utilizing the full reach of the judicial system.
However, this piece is not about the breach. It is not about how the CIA and other intelligence community members forge their path ahead following this damaging leak. This is about the comments made by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), with whom I strongly disagree.
I wept every time I got in the car and pulled away from my beautiful wife and four adorable children knowing that it could be the last time I see them.
In an article published by Time magazine, Feinstein said, “I think we really need to take a look at the contractor portion of the employee workforce, because you have to be loyal to America to work for an intelligence agency. Otherwise don’t do it.”
This is a true statement. Loyalty is most certainly imperative to work in the fields of intelligence, law enforcement and our military, and it exists beyond levels that you could ever possibly understand. Why else would individuals like myself deploy over 30 times to Iraq and Afghanistan?
Trust me, it wasn’t because of problems at home. I wept every time I got in the car and pulled away from my beautiful wife and four adorable children knowing that it could be the last time I see them.
Ability to Serve the Way We Want
I did not deploy because I was forced to. I could have taken a different position, but wanted to deploy as often as I did because it was my passion. Our national security apparatus needs people willing to deploy and take the fight to the enemy. This is one of the primary reasons individuals transition from federal jobs to contracting — it’s the ability to have more control of one’s future.
Related: The ‘Troops’ Who Support Our Troops
The government often determines what is in the best interest of its employees and prevents, for example, staff officers from spending too much time in war zones because it could adversely affect their career track and subsequently promotion process. Personally, I can respect that; but for many, myself included, our passion and fight was in the war zones against the worst of the worst enemies. As a contractor, I was allowed to specialize in these areas vs. move on to new locations and missions every couple years, something that federal employees are required to do. While we have outstanding staff intelligence officers, it is difficult to become an expert on any issue when you are only on the ground for a limited period of time.
Life of a Contractor
Many assume that contractors only provide security or infrastructure support in mechanics, logistics, or other mission enhancement roles. This, too, is far from the truth. With most of the United States’ efforts to combat terror taking place abroad, the government has struggled to find both the expertise and volume of employees to staff the growing requirements overseas. Therefore, a large portion of the work performed abroad is completed by contractors.
This includes security operations, intelligence operations, air operations, logistical support, positions related to facility infrastructure and even kitchen staff. The point being, there is little the U.S. government does not utilize contractors for and in most all cases, particularly in war zones, the contractors previously served in similar roles as federal employees or in the military, thus providing a wealth of experience.
Related: Technology in the Military: Friend or Foe?
Now, you could argue that the individuals that remain in the United States and perform technological duties, such as those who have been involved in the breaches have a different outlook and take on patriotism. Sure, they aren’t beating the ground overseas and thus the sacrifice looks different, but I would never challenge anyone who shows up to work each day to defend our country. It just so happens that these breaches have come from those in that arena of intelligence operations.
It’s Not About the Money
Despite what many think, even those within the government, contractors do not earn nearly as much as many expect. The government, in an effort to be frugal, has drastically reduced hazard pay for almost all contractors, now offering only a 25 percent percent hazard differential rate for individuals in war zones. The differential previously ranged between 50-70 percent for contractors serving in war zones. Federal employees continue to earn 70 percent, as they should.
However, the decrease in rates for contractors did not stop at the drop in hazard differential. In most cases now, hazard pay for contractors only applies for the first 40 hours of each week, indicating that said patriots are no longer in danger after they hit that mark, a purely absurd, and likely illegal, sentiment. I say all this to demonstrate that despite the ridiculous rate reductions these warriors continue to leave their families and fight the good fight. They are rarely rewarded, frequently ridiculed, but always ready to serve.
Bottom Line
Don’t worry, Sen. Feinstein, you are not the only one who has made the mistake of attacking the credibility and patriotism of defense contractors, and you sadly won’t be the last. It is done on a consistent basis by individuals in and out of the community. But it is critical that shortsighted and narrow-minded individuals like yourself get this right now and cease the finger-pointing at broad groups of people who have red, white and blue pumping through their veins.
Yes, there are bad contractors. Yes, there are bad staff employees. Yes, we should punish those who betray the oath to protect this nation. But without experience and expertise of our contractors, who make up a great portion of our national security apparatus, we would be in dire straits.
Related: The Hidden Hurt of Military Families
I fully support government positions being the primary drivers of the strategy and mission, particularly at home where organizations are ripe with bloat. However, in order for that to occur, the government has to recruit for competence vs. diversity and then allow officers to flourish in areas that are of the greatest interest to them. This will reduce attrition, improve the capabilities of the organization, and lessen the need for contractors.
Or — we can just trek down our current path and people like you can continue to spit in the face of those who preserve your very freedom and ability to make such foolish statements.
Drew Berquist is the founder and editor-in-chief of OpsLens. He served as a counterterrorism officer for the United States Intelligence Community, where he performed more than 30 deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan to conduct intelligence operations against the Taliban, al-Qaida and more recently ISIS. Berquist speaks to audiences and has commented on national security matters on “Fox and Friends,” Lou Dobbs, Dennis Miller and a number of other shows across the country. This OpsLens article is used by permission.
Read more at OpsLens:
Hawaii is First State to Challenge New Travel Ban
High Speed Pursuits: Why Criminals Run from the Law
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette.
Join the Discussion
Comments are currently closed.