Morning Smoke: Wartime Contracting Commission Discovers Wasteful Spending, Poor Management, Lax Oversight

Panel finds lax oversight of wartime contracting [Associated Press]

U.S. to Propose Wider Oversight of Compensation [The New York Times]

Congress Unlikely to Reform Root Cause of Economic Crisis [The Washington Independent]

Robert Gates plays offense on acquisitions [Politico]

Defense: Cold War vs. The New Order [Politico]

Flake wants tighter financial interest rules [The Hill]

Bank Repayments May Exceed Estimate [The Washington Post]

Comments

[Posted on: Jun 15, 2009 at 12:18 PM]

There are "Morning Smoke" signals from POGO; and then there are the pesky "smoke screens" from the Military-Industrial-Congressional (MIC) complex". In civilian terms smoke screens are releases of information to distract public attention from important issues. Remember what Ike said in his farewell address:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial (congressional) complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together".

In that regard I have detected what appears to me to be a planned smoke screen, which tries to shift the focus overseas to Halliburton/KBR contracting actions taken in Iraq years ago. However, I believe that we have a major Halliburton no-bid contract award right here in the U.S.A. that needs vetting.

I respectfully request that POGO consider writing a letter to President Obama requesting that he make his first appointment to the "Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan". It has come to my attention that the services of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Official may be available, especially since she appears to be being under-utilized. The Honorable Ms. Bunnatine H. Greenhouse can be tasked with "looking under the hood" at the $385 million dollar no-bid contract awarded to Halliburton to build "detention centers" in the United States of America. She impresses me as a "Valley Forge" type of patriot, who can come to our Nation's rescue. We can all agree that talk is no longer enough, and that immediate corrective contracting actions and strict accountability by the folks at Halliburton, KBR, and other companies are needed and will speak much louder than words and reports due out in the summer of 2010. Further, we may be able to connect the dots between how the U.S. Department of Homeland Security awarded its contract here, and how the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded its contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Posted on: Jun 11, 2009 at 03:50 PM]

Mr. Shays is a Commissioner and the Co-Chair of the "Commission on Wartime Contracting". Mr. Shays represented Connecticut's fourth congressional district in the House of Representatives from 1987 to 2009 and served as Ranking Member of the National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, which held this Hearing, and Chair of its predecessor Subcommittee. It is one of the subcommittees of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which is the main investigative committee in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) has a very informative website. The March 2009 listing of SIGIR accomplishments lists 20 Quarterly Reports to Congress, 276 audits and inspection reports, over 300 recommendations to improve program activities, 26 testimonies before Congress, and four "Lessons Learned" reports.

Instead of Commission members traveling all the way to Iraq, and going out to bases to see if there are duplicate dining facilities being built; I would like to suggest that the Commission request that SIGIR send out one of its teams of auditors and engineers to conduct the on-site inspections.

Meanwhile the Commission might check on who made the decision to prohibit France and Russia from participating in the Iraq Reconstruction contracts. As reported by Asia Times years ago, prior to the U.S. invasion, Iraq's oil infrastructure was built and maintained through the years by French and Russian technicians and companies. These two countries received oil in return. Remember the U.N. Security Council Oil For Food (OFF) program set-up in 1995? Prior to the regime change in 2003 French and Russian oil companies possessed oil contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime that covered roughly 40 percent of the Iraq’s oil wealth. A child could understand that it was not in the national interest of France and Russia to help the U.S. blow-up one of their oil suppliers. How much extra did the taxpayers of the United States of America pay by having to set-up a brand new Iraq oil infrastructure supply chain; instead of being able to just order repair/spare parts from the established French and Russian suppliers?

[Posted on: Jun 11, 2009 at 01:35 AM]

What possible motivation would a reasonable person have for putting forth the ideal that a contract company would have a greater interest in the national good than the U.S. military? How much of my decendants money (you have already spent mine) are you going to spend investing in an ideal that is obviously not working? Let the military take care of the military.