Contractors in the military have been used for many years and throughout many different wars, but do they have more to offer then a service member? With the withdrawing of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan more and more contractors whether private or government are taking over jobs once held by military personnel. While this is nothing new, it has been an issue plaguing service members at home and overseas since the war began in 2003. Contractors like Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR), Blackwater, and Fluor were some of the first to work side by side with service members, but some people believe they were only there for the paycheck and not to do their work. Pay, logistics, and security are the main reasons that contractors are used overseas, but are contractors needed when service members do the same jobs and for less the pay. Since contractors first started being used during wars whether back in Ancient Greece to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have always been compensated more than regular Army soldiers. Many people believe this is because they are used to take on jobs that regular military personnel are not allowed to do. U.S. soldiers are usually on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan risking their lives yet get paid 3 times less than contractors. In the military salary for the lowest rank and only one year of service was about $15,500 a year, while the government pays contractors $500 to $1,500 a day equaling to between $150,000 to $250,000 a year. To me this is not fair because a contractor can quit at any time they want while a service member has an obligation to fulfil and cannot get out of their contract so easily. Soldiers, marines, airmen and other service member risk their lives while they are deployed for the love of country and for minimal pay. Logistics plays a major role in why so many contractors are used overseas. From truck drivers to cooks these jobs have been outsourced from service members to contractors. Reas