(HOST) Commentator Bill Seamans has been following the Blackwater controversy, and he's begun to wonder if these services really are needed - and if so - why.

(SEAMANS) Time and again we’ve heard President Bush say "We’ve
got the finest troops in the world."  I’ve heard others ask that if, indeed, we have the best troops in the world why are we hiring Blackwater and other private security companies to do some of our troops’ most important jobs?  The mercenaries guard diplomats.  Why can’t our Special Forces or Marines do the job?  The hired guns guard certain key areas like the Baghdad airport and so-called sensitive but undefined secure installations.  Are these tasks beyond the capability of the finest troops in the world?  Is this not a great insult, a humiliation for the finest troops in the world?

As the presidential campaign becomes even more heated, we can surely expect that the question why hasthe Bush administration hired about 50,000 private gunmen each earning up to a hundred thousand a year, over six times the average GI’s pay - a question that will surely become one of the most sensitive issues faced by the presidential candidates.  Blackwater, which supplies more than 800 security guards, has become the symbol of that controversy    

Critics of the administration charge that the privatizing of critical army functions is but another example of Bush cronyism and war profit capitalism. The private contractors are now responsible for the supply of fuel, food, water and ammunition for our troops.  As all veterans know, these critical supply lines must be maintained under the most dangerous military situations.  Critics ask if the civilian hires come under lethal combat pressure would they bug-out because they are not under the control of the Army? So why do we hire them?  If they are so much trouble why aren’t they eliminated?  

Defense Secretary Robert Gates got to the hard core of the hired help problem.  He pointed out at a recent congressional hearing that the Army doesn’t have enough troops to perform many specialized tasks like guarding diplomats.  The obvious answer is to increase the troops needed if the Army is already stretched out to what one general called "the breaking point."  

But how many thousands more troops would be required to end the civilian contractor system?  Army recruiters even offering cash bonuses are having a difficult time meeting their enlistment quotas - could they sign up enough volunteers to create an Army that is not at its "breaking point?"  Gates remarks indicated that the Army has, in fact, become dependent on the private contractors.   

Thus the Blackwater controversy could eventually bring up the imperative need for a draft to supply the necessary manpower - a need that could be forcing
itself on reluctant presidential candidates by the critical failure of the political mismanagement of the military personnel problem.

Bill Seamans is a former correspondent and bureau chief for A-B-C News in the Middle East.