Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Too True to be Funny
Dana Milbank, in today's Post:
This meeting of the Senate Military-Industrial Caucus will now come to order.
The chair recognizes the senator from Northrop Grumman for a question.
"We've noticed the increase in the amphibious ship fleet needs that go beyond traditional military missions," said Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.). "Do you see a continuing need for shipbuilding in the amphibious area?"
Of course, Senator. Nobody will hurt the DD(X) destroyers they build in Pascagoula.
Does the senator from General Dynamics have a question?
"Littoral combat ships," said Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). "Do you believe that this program will play a vital role in our Navy's future fleet?"
Certainly, Senator. Tell the folks in Mobile that their shipbuilding operation is safe. The chair now recognizes the senator from Boeing.
"I wanted to ask you today if you can tell me how you are taking into account the health and longevity of our domestic industrial base," asked Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.).
Sure, Senator. Your constituents in Everett will get another shot at that aerial refueling tanker contract they lost to the Airbus consortium.
In one 2005 example
In one 2005 example highlighted by the center, Richard J. Millies, then a senior Pentagon official overseeing foreign weapons sales, and his wife flew first-class to Saudi Arabia. They spent eight days there enjoying camel races, banquets and a musical production. The entire $24,000 tab was paid by the oil-rich Saudis, a major buyer of U.S.-made military gear.
Millies no longer works as deputy director of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency; he is vice president of international strategy and business development at BAE Systems, a major defense contractor. Millies defended the visit as an important opportunity to exchange information. Turning down the invitation, he said, would have offended the Saudis.
“Hospitality is very important in Arab cultures,” he told the center. (Please hold all giggles until the end)
Kay Cannon, the agency’s general counsel, said Millies’ trip was “thoroughly vetted and approved.”
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/06/ap_pentagon_travel_061009/
Re: the article cited in
Re: the article cited in Boon's CO post above:
If you think that FMS is where the major corruption and/or cost control problems are happening in the acquisition/procurement process, then you're not being serious.
This isn't to defend any improprieties like those highlighted in the link above, obviously, but the waste and graft associated with legislative involvement in the procurement process dwarfs whatever leaks come from DoD personnel accepting gifts of foreign travel. (And if we want to start in with that, how about Congressional staff taking international trips on foreign governments' dime?)
That said, I agree with Winslow Wheeler that DoD should be paying for this stuff to avoid even the sniff of impropriety.
Chris you are entirely
Chris you are entirely right. Both are wrong, but one is measured in millions, the other in billions or even tens of billions, though it should be pointed out the recent spate of articles on the corruption and waste in contracting activities in Iraq can be measured in the billions as well. I just found it interesting that just after I read this here, I turn to the Times and along comes this.
But I wouldn't say the cost of these junkets is limited just to the costs of these extra benefits. The true cost, IMO, has to include the programs they pitch back to the former employers/employees to the detriment of other, more needed programs that don't have the political clout, or which aren't needed but our taxpayer dollars get used for anyway. Until the contracting and the justice system takes these employment and post-employment conflicts of interest seriously, it won't change. The only big one in recent years I can think of was the Boeing Tanker deal a few years ago. There have been a few corruption cases from Iraq, but they haven't, so far as I know, been focused on the system, just a few individuals. It's almost like the Alien hatchlings. The money is so interwined with our political and governmental systems, it's become a part of the way things are done, although, the shenannigans of the MI complex aren't a recent development. Civil War procurement could range from horrendous to flat out negligent homicide, and I'm sure more than one Roman Legionaire literally got shafted by a poorly crafted Pila. I don't know though where, or from whom, the change can come from and who can actually carry through with it.
Boondoggle -- I think the
Boondoggle -- I think the only meaningful change to the process would be to nationalize the defense industry, removing the financial incentives for legislators to favor companies that bring jobs or facilities to their districts.
That said, nationalizing the defense industry would be a pretty horrible idea.
Chris, I've been reading the
Chris,
I've been reading the work of friends at Transparency International's Defence Against Corruption project--I'm not done so don't have more to add, but since we're on the topic and it's interesting: http://www.defenceagainstcorruption.org. I'm just leafing through one on "Building Integrity and Reducing Corruption Risk in Defence Establishments: Ten Practical Reforms."
Thanks for the tip, Lil.
Thanks for the tip, Lil.
Add your comment