Where's All the War Dough? {"oversight was lax," contends Senator Jack Reed, Democrat }

Time ^ | March 13, 2006 | Sally B. Donnelly

[Former Military Chick]

The hefty -- and growing -- bill for the war efforts may be getting some new auditors. Over the past three years, Congress has approved $320 billion for military spending over and above the regular Department of Defense budget, which itself has risen about 40% since 2001. But "oversight was lax," contends Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, who sits on the Armed Services Committee. As Pentagon officials head to Capitol Hill next week to start defending this year's $70 billion request for Iraq and Afghanistan, there's new scrutiny of where all the cash is going.

The Department of Defense's inspector general, which some analysts charge has been slow to investigate war spending, will open its first office in the Middle East next week. And a new watchdog project called Follow the Money will begin monitoring from the outside. It's sponsored by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and led by Dina Rasor, an investigator who helped uncover the Pentagon procurement scandals of the 1980s. "Normal oversight systems have not been in place," Rasor says. "Troops are getting what they don't need but not getting what they do need. One soldier told us that although his unit could not get enough armor, it got a 60-in., $15,000 plasma TV to watch the daily brief, but the dust ruined it--just like it did the nine others they got to replace the first one."

According to Senator Reed, Pentagon officials should also expect questions on the Hill about what is not being spent. Case in point: the Marine Corps, traditionally the most frugal of the services, has borne the brunt of the burden of fighting in Iraq, yet has seen billions pared from its funding. The Marines' new special-ops unit--a pet project of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's--wanted $65 million for such equipment as sophisticated nightscopes and computer-mapping systems, but the Administration refused the request. The Marines are still flying around Iraq in Vietnam-era helicopters--yet $1 billion was cut from the program for the choppers' only replacement aircraft, the V-22 Osprey. The Marines were able to establish the long-awaited first squadron last week but say they need more funding to replace aging aircraft. "It is unconscionable," says a military officer, "that the one new aircraft that could clearly help them in Iraq is getting cut."

[Former Military Chick]

Let's see where to begin. How about the bias in this article. I get there needs to be accountability but you know so should there be with the folks asking for the accountability.

[Keith in Iowa]

Hey Jack, where's all the Katrina dough? Let's deal with our issues here at home first... :)

[DilJective]

There are so many managers of funding- I happen to manage funds for my Brigade- there are so many layers between Washington and the units on the ground that it is almost impossible to keep frivolous purchases like the plasma TV from happening. It takes confident and ethical managers to tell Generals that body armor is more important than a TV for briefings. I have to constantly remind my bosses that we are all custodians of taxpayers' money and have to act accordingly. The unit that provides a big-screen TV instead of body armor needs to have its leadership evaluated.

Otherwise, it's expensive to run a military and we have a ton of regulations that limit our ability to buy what we need. Often, a unit may be allowed to buy equipment for offices, but not "issued" items like helmets-- the blame falls on appropriations (how the money gets from Washington down through the various departments to the end user/unit). We are finding that in times of war, the normal appropriations processes have to be modified to better facilitate combat readiness as well as rear echelon/stateside missions.

I'm just a lowly soldier and have to work with what I'm given and the missions I receive... I wouldn't change it for the world. I love wearing the uniform! (in spite of ANY problems we may have)

[Criminal Number 18F]

The "Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America" is a Democratic Party front. Like the early years of the far-left Vietnam Veterans of America, nobody checks to see if the members are veterans, but they do check for left-wing politics.

Everybody I know, practically, is an Iraq or Afghanistan vet (or both). But none have joined that outfit.

Of course, the press would cite that left-wing hackerama as an objective group -- lying bastards.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F