To compete or not to compete

There seems to be a bit of confusion here. Josh Marshall, citing an AP piece by Robert Burns, tells us that Robert Gates is exploring whether he can get the troops to sign non-compete contracts to prevent them from being lured away to the mercenary militias like Blackwater, who pay much more for the same work. Actually, however, the Robert Burns piece tells us that Gates is exploring whether he can get the Blackwater's of this world to sign non-compete agreements.

Either way, it's pretty kooky. If Josh is right, it would be easy to get the troops to sign the non-compete agreements. Look they're essentially slaves. All you have to do is order them to sign and threaten them with court martial if they refuse. But, that would be totally dastardly. Hell, we're already screwing them enough while they're soldiers. To tie their hands behind their backs after they've left the service would be really terrible.

On the other hand, think about forcing the Blackwater's to sign non-compete agreements. What are they competing for? The answer is people who are willing to train as soldiers, tote guns, and go to dangerous places. Any person Blackwater employs to do those things is obviously a person who might otherwise have joined the military. So, as far as I can tell, a Blackwater non-compete agreement would prevent Blackwater from hiring anyone who would otherwise qualify to be recruited by the military. That would leave Blackwater recruiting from the pool of those not qualified to join the military -- the criminals, the sick, the aged, the illegal, the retarded. I don't think I'd want those people protecting me if I were a diplomat. Of course, that might force the military to do the job it's supposed to do instead of this joke of hiring others to do it for them.