The Chickenhawk Military in the GWOT Exposed

crossposted from unbossed

Only a true chickenhawk president and his chickenhawk advisors could have brought the US military so low. The story is just pouring out from GAO this week in report after report. Yep! It's the shame ol' shame'ol!

Exhibit One
You know how hard it is to get good construction people.

Military Construction: Kaiserslautern Military Community Center Project Continues to Experience Problems    GAO-08-923T, June 25, 2008

Approximately 1year after GAO’sJune 2007 testimony and over 2 years after the KMCC’s originally scheduled construction completion date, the project continues to experience significant cost and schedule uncertainty along with construction quality problems and ongoing criminal investigations. Limited progress has been made on KMCC construction, and there are still no accurate estimates of how much the total project will cost or when it will be completed. Major construction deficiencies GAO reported in 2007 are just now beginning to be corrected. The photos below show that other than floor tiles being installed, the food court area remains essentially the same as in 2007 and still requires finishing work and the installation of restaurants.

(Picture two photos here of construction progress two years apart. They look the same.)

In addition, the Air Force does not track the total cost of the KMCC. Specifically, tens of millions of dollars related to design, foreign currency fluctuation, rework, personnel, and furniture and equipment costs are not included in the Air Force’s cost estimates. Contingencies to fund items such as repairs to cracking concrete are also not included in the Air Force’s estimates. After including all estimated costs, the total cost of the project will likely exceed $200 million. Project delays have also resulted in additional costs to the U.S. government and lost profit for project funding partners. For example, AAFES estimates that it is losing $500,000 of profit for each month that the exchange facility is not open.

Exhibit 2

Getting snookered by our esteemed "allies". If only we asked them, they would have gotten us the information. Maybe.

Combating Terrorism: Increased Oversight and Accountability Needed over Pakistan Reimbursement Claims for Coalition Support Funds   GAO-08-806, June 24, 2008

Coalition Support Funds are critical components of America’s global war on terror and the primary support for Pakistani operations to destroy the terrorist threat and close the terrorist safe haven in Pakistan’s FATA. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress quickly authorized emergency funding to prevent another attack, and given the grave and immediate threat at the time, Congress recognized that ensuring accountability for these funds was secondary to protecting the nation from another attack. However, given the large amounts of funding provided to Pakistan since October 2001, and indications that Pakistan will continue to receive such payments in the future, we believe that Defense should ensure it follows its own guidance and consider what other guidance is needed.

Our assessment found that while CSF played a key role in Pakistan’s support for our war on terror, Defense had not followed its existing guidance and provided little oversight of the effort at the embassy in Pakistan. Defense had concerns about the accuracy of Pakistan’s claims from the very first claim submitted in 2001. Based on the lack of supporting evidence in the Pakistani claims from January 2004 through June 2007 (the latest claims reimbursed by Defense), we found that neither Defense nor we could determine if Pakistan had actually incurred most of the costs in their claims. Prior to 2004, it appears that there was even less evidence to support Pakistan’s claims. As a result, we conclude that Defense cannot accurately determine how much of the $5.56 billion in costs reimbursed to Pakistan since 2001 were actually incurred.

Exhibit 3

More on getting snookered by our "allies".

Combating Terrorism: U.S. Oversight of Pakistan Reimbursement Claims for Coalition Support Funds    GAO-08-932T, June 24, 2008

Defense Comptroller issued new guidance in 2003 to enhance CSF oversight. The guidance calls for, among other things, CSF reimbursement claims to contain quantifiable information that indicates the incremental nature of support (i.e., above and beyond normal operations), validation that the support or service was provided, and copies of invoices or documentation supporting how the costs were calculated. While Defense generally conducted macro-level analytical reviews called for in its guidance, such as determining whether the cost is less than that which would be incurred by the United States for the same service, for a large number of reimbursement claims Defense did not obtain detailed documentation to verify that claimed costs were valid, actually incurred, or correctly calculated. GAO found that Defense did not consistently apply its existing CSF oversight guidance. For example, as of May 2008, Defense paid over $2 billion in Pakistani reimbursement claims for military activities covering January 2004 through June 2007 without obtaining sufficient information that would enable a third party to recalculate these costs. Furthermore, Defense may have reimbursed costs that (1) were not incremental, (2) were not based on actual activity, or (3) were potentially duplicative. GAO also found that additional oversight controls were needed. For example, there is no guidance for Defense to verify currency conversion rates used by Pakistan, which if performed would enhance Defense’s ability to monitor for potential overbillings.

. . . However, ODRP’s continued oversight activity is not assured, as Defense had not developed formal guidance delineating how and to what degree ODRP should attempt to verify Pakistani claims for reimbursement.

GAO recognizes that Defense may not be able to fully verify every Pakistani claim without the ability to access Pakistani records or do onsite monitoring. However, such ability would enhance CSF oversight.

I think that last paragraph is GAO's way of saying: "Gee, guys, at least give me something to work with here.

Exhibit 4

And in Iraq . . . accountability, we don' need to stinkin' accountability.

Military Operations: Actions Needed to Better Guide Project Selection for Commander's Emergency Response Program and Improve Oversight in Iraq  GAO-08-736R, June 23, 2008

While the MNC-I project approval process provides some oversight, the Offices of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) , the Army and MNC-I have limited oversight of CERP in Iraq because they

(1) do not require units executing projects to monitor them,

(2) have not established performance metrics, and

(3) have limited knowledge of projects under $500,000.

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) limits its oversight to developing CERP guidance, reviewing the CERP quarterly reports, and submitting the CERP budget request to Congress.

A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you're talkin' about real money.

Exhibit 5
Making progress in Iraq. Honestly!

Securing, Stabilizing, and Rebuilding Iraq: Progress Report: Some Gains Made, Updated Strategy Needed GAO-08-837, June 23, 2008

The New Way Forward responded to failures in prior strategies that prematurely transferred security responsibilities to Iraqi forces or belatedly responded to growing sectarian violence. Overall violence, as measured by enemy-initiated attacks, fell about 70 percent in Iraq, from about 180 attacks per day in June 2007 to about 50 attacks per day in February 2008. Security gains have largely resulted from (1) the increase in U.S. combat forces, (2) the creation of nongovernmental security forces such as Sons of Iraq, and (3) the Mahdi Army’s declaration of a cease fire. Average daily attacks were at higher levels in March and April before declining in May 2008. The security environment remains volatile and dangerous. The number of trained Iraqi forces has increased from 323,000 in January 2007 to 478,000 in May 2008; many units are leading counterinsurgency operations. However, the Department of Defense reported in March 2008 that the number of Iraqi units capable of performing operations without U.S. assistance has remained at about 10 percent. Several factors have complicated the development of capable security forces, including the lack of a single unified force, sectarian and militia influences, and continued dependence on U.S. and coalition forces.

The Iraqi government has enacted key legislation to return some Ba’athists to government, give amnesty to detained Iraqis, and define provincial powers. However, it has not yet enacted other important legislation for sharing oil resources or holding provincial elections. Efforts to complete the constitutional review have also stalled. A goal of The New Way Forward was to facilitate the Iraqis’ efforts to enact all key legislation by the end of 2007.

Between 2005 and 2007, Iraq spent only 24 percent of the $27 billion it budgeted for its own reconstruction efforts. More specifically, Iraq’s central ministries, responsible for security and essential services, spent only 11 percent of their capital investment budgets in 2007—down from similarly low rates of 14 and 13 percent in the 2 prior years. Violence and sectarian strife, shortage of skilled labor, and weak procurement and budgeting systems have hampered Iraq’s efforts to spend its capital budgets.

Although oil production has improved for short periods, the May 2008 production level of about 2.5 million barrels per day (mbpd) was below the U.S. goal of 3 mbpd. The daily supply of electricity met only about half of demand in early May 2008. Conversely, State reports that U.S. goals for Iraq’s water sector are close to being reached. The unstable security environment, corruption, and lack of technical capacity have contributed to the shortfalls.

So there you have the military week last Monday through Thursday from GAO. Read 'em and weep. And thank our chickenhawk leaders for another mission accomplished.