I think you know that this is the case, and are unwilling to simply state it more forcefully. Well, the political influences what jobs are in what district, to the point that the Seabees (Navy Civil Engineering and Construction pros) are rarely allowed to do civil engineering tasks, like construction, on bases in CONUS.
Let's try and figure out just why that is, eh?
Yeah, I know.
Truth be told, I'm a little wishy-washy in my own mind on the subject, and have yet to divine a 'Golden Rule" that I feel can be applied to different examples and yield a consistent answer.
For example, I can see something like base trash collection working okay as a private sector function, but I'm a little split on food service, at least beyond allowing some private sector offerings as an addition, but not as a replacement.
On the other end of the spectrum I think the idea of employing private sector "security" forces in combat areas, even pacified (?) ones,
a la Blackwater, is a despicable corruption of our military expenditure that may rank up there with buying torpedoes that are known not to work, and then cashiering officers for cowardice when they don't.
Construction is a toughie. My whole career has been in that field,
in the field. I've worked on a number of on-base projects, and there are pros and cons that I can see. Have seen.
The potentials for financial abuse are rampant, but on the other hand there is very much of an infrastructure in the construction industry, both physical and less tangible, which isn't duplicated in the military. I think there may be reason to argue that it shouldn't be (i.e. doesn't
need to be) except in very specific circumstances. My experiences working with the field review of military engineers on on-base projects hasn't been particularly unpleasant. No more so than any heavily bureaucratized project whether it be public or private sector. I've done buildings for IBM which were a lot worse.
Like I said. Wishy-washy.
