No government department gets what it wants more than the Pentagon. After 9/11, it had a virtual blank check to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even now, the top civilian and military leaders are lobbying Congress for a bigger budget in 2016 and many lawmakers are all too eager to indulge them. Too often, this unquestioned sense of entitlement and boundless resources has led to profligacy and waste in military programs; the F-35 advanced fighter jet – which is billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule – is one high-profile example. Now, in a report to Congress this week, the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction (also known as SIGAR), John Sopko, has turned a spotlight on another instance of Pentagon bad judgment and spending run amok. It involves a fancy new 64,000 square foot headquarters at Camp Leatherneck in Helmand province, a Taliban stronghold in Afghanistan. Although the facility cost the taxpayers as much as $36 million, it was not needed or wanted, has never been used and may end up being torn down. How could this happen in an agency that prides itself on fail-safe systems? Initially, the Pentagon sought funding saying the facility was needed to handle the surge of American troops in Afghanistan in 2010, Mr. Sopko reported. Later, Major Gen. Richard Mills, who was in charge of the surge in Helmand, decided it was not required and asked to cancel the project. But he was overruled by then-Major Gen. Peter Vangjel, who, the report concluded, believed it was not “prudent” to cancel a project for which funds had already been approved by Congress. This reflects a so-called “use it or lose it” approach to spending that makes prudent management impossible. Unlike most SIGAR reports, this one names names. Most of the blame goes to Major General Vangjel, who was later promoted to lieutenant general, for barreling ahead with the project despite objections from field commanders and “wasting” $36 million. The report also faults Maj. Gen. James Richardson for failing to carry out a “fulsome investigation” of the project when ordered to do so by the commander of American forces in Afghanistan and Col. Norman Allen, a legal adviser, for discouraging cooperation with Mr. Sopko’s investigation. Although the report recommends disciplinary action against all three men, the Pentagon refused, saying their actions “do not represent misconduct warranting consideration of administrative or disciplinary action.” In letters included as part of the report, Lieutenant General Vangjel and Colonel Allen denied any wrongdoing; Major General Richardson did not respond. Compared to the Pentagon’s annual budget of more than $500 billion, this project is a pittance. But at a time when the United States is still at war, the military is complaining about budget cutbacks and important domestic programs have been cut severely, every $1 million counts. “This will continue to happen as long as there is no personal accountability,” Mr. Sopko told me. The sad truth is that he is probably right.
No comments:
Post a Comment