> You think the prospect of injuries in among military personell are going to prevent policies and practicalities that increase operational fitness?
My point is that someone has to shoulder the costs. I'm not sure I would classify the Navy as an "idiotic beaurocracy" but it is not an efficient organization. They can "get it done" as you imply only with an obscene amount of money budgeted (and even so still have to shuffle money around every year). In one scenario, contracting out helps operational fitness by letting sailors focus on their MOS and taking the burden of upkeep and maintenance off the table.
Sure, contracting is often done poorly or even wickedly, but the best solution isn't always to replace contracting with an MOS.
My point is that someone has to shoulder the costs. I'm not sure I would classify the Navy as an "idiotic beaurocracy" but it is not an efficient organization. They can "get it done" as you imply only with an obscene amount of money budgeted (and even so still have to shuffle money around every year). In one scenario, contracting out helps operational fitness by letting sailors focus on their MOS and taking the burden of upkeep and maintenance off the table.
Sure, contracting is often done poorly or even wickedly, but the best solution isn't always to replace contracting with an MOS.