Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
unhappycamper
unhappycamper's Journal
unhappycamper's Journal
October 30, 2012
Iraqis stand at the site of a bombing that targeted police in Fallujah, 40 miles west of Baghdad, Iraq, in this May 2010 file photo.
Is the detritus of the Iraq war harming the babies of Fallujah?
By Dan Murphy, Staff writer / October 29, 2012
Anecdotal tales of inexplicable sickness and deformities have abounded in Iraq for years. In their broad brushstrokes, they seem plausible. The first Gulf War had littered much of Iraq with depleted uranium from the armor-piercing bullets the US used to destroy Saddam Hussein's retreating columns in1991. (The Monitor's Scott Peterson traveled around Baghdad with a Geiger counter in 2003 and found plenty of "hot spots" more than a decade later).
The country's health and sanitation had collapsed during the decade of international sanctions that followed that war, and the stresses of daily life, with new deprivations heaped on the state terror Hussein relied on to retain power, soared. A population that lives in fear is always a less healthy one, and the fright of average Iraqis only grew after the US-led invasion of 2003, with the thunder of "shock and awe" soon replaced by a sectarian civil war that claimed more than 100,000 lives and saw tens of thousands of Iraqi families uprooted from their homes.
But at the same time, a tearful anecdote told of a sickly child, with blame laid on unknown toxins, wasn't proof. It's natural for people to see causes and patterns in essentially random events. As a reporter, perhaps to my shame, I pushed aside pursuit of stories about cancer clusters or surges in childhood illness, since the reality of people's suspicions was unknowable, absent scientific study.
Now, unless a new study published in The Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology is found to be flawed in some way (it looks solid to this admittedly unprofessional eye), we may have a "known known" about the effect of extended war on the health of children: in Fallujah, which saw probably the fiercest sustained combat of the Iraq war, there was a surge in birth defects after the combat in 2004 that persists to this day. In the southern city of Basra, a hospital there reported a similar surge in birth defects following the bombing campaign at the start of the war, according to the study, which was funded by the University of Michigan's department of obstetrics and gynecology.
Is the detritus of the Iraq war harming the babies of Fallujah?
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/1029/Is-the-detritus-of-the-Iraq-war-harming-the-babies-of-FallujahIraqis stand at the site of a bombing that targeted police in Fallujah, 40 miles west of Baghdad, Iraq, in this May 2010 file photo.
Is the detritus of the Iraq war harming the babies of Fallujah?
By Dan Murphy, Staff writer / October 29, 2012
Anecdotal tales of inexplicable sickness and deformities have abounded in Iraq for years. In their broad brushstrokes, they seem plausible. The first Gulf War had littered much of Iraq with depleted uranium from the armor-piercing bullets the US used to destroy Saddam Hussein's retreating columns in1991. (The Monitor's Scott Peterson traveled around Baghdad with a Geiger counter in 2003 and found plenty of "hot spots" more than a decade later).
The country's health and sanitation had collapsed during the decade of international sanctions that followed that war, and the stresses of daily life, with new deprivations heaped on the state terror Hussein relied on to retain power, soared. A population that lives in fear is always a less healthy one, and the fright of average Iraqis only grew after the US-led invasion of 2003, with the thunder of "shock and awe" soon replaced by a sectarian civil war that claimed more than 100,000 lives and saw tens of thousands of Iraqi families uprooted from their homes.
But at the same time, a tearful anecdote told of a sickly child, with blame laid on unknown toxins, wasn't proof. It's natural for people to see causes and patterns in essentially random events. As a reporter, perhaps to my shame, I pushed aside pursuit of stories about cancer clusters or surges in childhood illness, since the reality of people's suspicions was unknowable, absent scientific study.
Now, unless a new study published in The Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology is found to be flawed in some way (it looks solid to this admittedly unprofessional eye), we may have a "known known" about the effect of extended war on the health of children: in Fallujah, which saw probably the fiercest sustained combat of the Iraq war, there was a surge in birth defects after the combat in 2004 that persists to this day. In the southern city of Basra, a hospital there reported a similar surge in birth defects following the bombing campaign at the start of the war, according to the study, which was funded by the University of Michigan's department of obstetrics and gynecology.
October 30, 2012
American Practical Politics
L'Orient Le Jour, Lebanon
By Christian Merville
Translated By Keegan Robertson
25 October 2012
Edited by Kathleen Weinberger
Have you heard of Afghanistan?
I pose this question simply because during the last head-to-head Monday night in Boca Raton, Florida, the two American presidential candidates barely mentioned the subject. It must be said that, 12 days prior, Joe Biden concluded the discussion on this topic by slinging, in an exasperated tone, at his adversary Paul Ryan: “But we are leaving. We are leaving in 2014, period,” before adding: “We're going to be saving over the next 10 years another $800 billion. We've been in this war for over a decade. The primary objective is almost completed. Now all we're doing is putting the Kabul government in a position to be able to maintain their own security. It's their responsibility, not America's.”
So, mission accomplished? Come on. The goals for U.S. involvement were the following: to eliminate the Taliban, definitively remove al-Qaida from the country, establish a viable government and finally set up security forces capable of enforcing law and order. Commentators and analysts are unanimous in recognizing that no point on this roadmap has been met, despite an impressive military deployment of the most powerful country in the world, supported by its allies; despite the hundreds of billions squandered; despite dozens of plans, some honorably ambitious, others simply bizarre, to eradicate poppy cultivation, promote women’s education or hygiene of the populace. Washington will have lost 2,000 of its boys in this asymmetrical confrontation, which has caused additional thousands of injuries. The world has lost its last illusions of the capacity of the only superpower to enforce Pax Americana in the foothills of the Hindu Kush.
~snip~
Rather than preemptively attacking this serious problem, America has chosen to avoid the issue. The U.S. is working to repatriate its 68,000 GIs, but is leaving in place a contingent of 15,000 to 25,000 men to support the state. This will give Afghanistan the freedom to make its own decisions while promising (in concert with other countries) a gold mine of $16 billion until 2015. Finally, the decision has been made to continue to train the armed forces of President Hamid Karzaï at the risk of seeing multiplied defections and “green-on-blue attacks” (those recruits who turn their arms against their trainers).
American Practical Politics
http://watchingamerica.com/News/180232/american-practical-politics/American Practical Politics
L'Orient Le Jour, Lebanon
By Christian Merville
Translated By Keegan Robertson
25 October 2012
Edited by Kathleen Weinberger
Have you heard of Afghanistan?
I pose this question simply because during the last head-to-head Monday night in Boca Raton, Florida, the two American presidential candidates barely mentioned the subject. It must be said that, 12 days prior, Joe Biden concluded the discussion on this topic by slinging, in an exasperated tone, at his adversary Paul Ryan: “But we are leaving. We are leaving in 2014, period,” before adding: “We're going to be saving over the next 10 years another $800 billion. We've been in this war for over a decade. The primary objective is almost completed. Now all we're doing is putting the Kabul government in a position to be able to maintain their own security. It's their responsibility, not America's.”
So, mission accomplished? Come on. The goals for U.S. involvement were the following: to eliminate the Taliban, definitively remove al-Qaida from the country, establish a viable government and finally set up security forces capable of enforcing law and order. Commentators and analysts are unanimous in recognizing that no point on this roadmap has been met, despite an impressive military deployment of the most powerful country in the world, supported by its allies; despite the hundreds of billions squandered; despite dozens of plans, some honorably ambitious, others simply bizarre, to eradicate poppy cultivation, promote women’s education or hygiene of the populace. Washington will have lost 2,000 of its boys in this asymmetrical confrontation, which has caused additional thousands of injuries. The world has lost its last illusions of the capacity of the only superpower to enforce Pax Americana in the foothills of the Hindu Kush.
~snip~
Rather than preemptively attacking this serious problem, America has chosen to avoid the issue. The U.S. is working to repatriate its 68,000 GIs, but is leaving in place a contingent of 15,000 to 25,000 men to support the state. This will give Afghanistan the freedom to make its own decisions while promising (in concert with other countries) a gold mine of $16 billion until 2015. Finally, the decision has been made to continue to train the armed forces of President Hamid Karzaï at the risk of seeing multiplied defections and “green-on-blue attacks” (those recruits who turn their arms against their trainers).
October 29, 2012
U.S. Army Prepares For Full-Rate AH-64E Production
By Amy Butler
October 26, 2012
The U.S. Army has officially designated the newest version of its Apache helicopter the E model, and service officials are planning to issue a contract to Boeing to begin full-rate production.
The full-rate production decision issued in August is “probably the single largest decision for this program since Block Is and Block IIs went into production,” says Col. Jeff Hager, the Army’s Apache project manager. The forthcoming contract will include 48 aircraft per year for the U.S. Army for two years as well as 48 foreign sales orders. The anticipated production rate will be four per month for the Army with three monthly for international customers during full-rate production. The Army plans to buy 690 total.
However, the specter of sequestration — mandated spending cuts set to take place Jan. 1 if the government does not strike a debt-reduction deal — has prompted Hager to begin examining various production rates as Apache would likely suffer a reduction along with other defense projects.
The first AH-64E was delivered to the Army last November, and production has ramped up since to about three deliveries per month in Boeing’s Mesa, Ariz., factory, says David Koopersmith, Boeing’s vice president of attack helicopters. The team briefed reporters on the status of the program at this week’s annual Association of the U.S. Army conference here.
unhappycamper comment: Let's talk dollars.
When I buy a new car, I like to know how much stuff costs: paint job, fog lights, bigger engine, leather interior, navigation system, sunroof, etc. etc.
When I try to find out the cost of military hardware, the price list just isn't available. "Trust me" is not acceptable from a car salesman, nor should it be for MIC salesmen. So we do the best we can.
Wikipedia is notoriously low on the price of military hardware. Since this thread is about the AH-64E let's focus on that. Wikipedia sez:
AH-64A: US$20 million (2007),
AH-64D (AH-64A upgrade): US$18 million (2007)[4]
OK, the AH-64D costs $20 million + $18 million = $38 million dollars. So how much does the AH-64E cost? However much it is, the US Army is planning on buying/upgrading 690 of them. Too bad we don't know what the AH-64E costs.
Here's just two examples of Wikipedia's cost numbers:
Wikipedia sez the F-22 is "US$150 million (flyaway cost for FY2009)". Time magazine (link:http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1912203_1913322,00.html) sez the F-22 costs $350 million dollars each.
Here's another example: Wikipedia sez "US$218 million (flyaway cost for FY2007)". Time magazine (link:http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1912203_1913322,00.html) sez the C-17 costs $318 million dollars each.
U.S. Army Prepares For Full-Rate AH-64E Production
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_10_26_2012_p03-01-511015.xmlU.S. Army Prepares For Full-Rate AH-64E Production
By Amy Butler
October 26, 2012
The U.S. Army has officially designated the newest version of its Apache helicopter the E model, and service officials are planning to issue a contract to Boeing to begin full-rate production.
The full-rate production decision issued in August is “probably the single largest decision for this program since Block Is and Block IIs went into production,” says Col. Jeff Hager, the Army’s Apache project manager. The forthcoming contract will include 48 aircraft per year for the U.S. Army for two years as well as 48 foreign sales orders. The anticipated production rate will be four per month for the Army with three monthly for international customers during full-rate production. The Army plans to buy 690 total.
However, the specter of sequestration — mandated spending cuts set to take place Jan. 1 if the government does not strike a debt-reduction deal — has prompted Hager to begin examining various production rates as Apache would likely suffer a reduction along with other defense projects.
The first AH-64E was delivered to the Army last November, and production has ramped up since to about three deliveries per month in Boeing’s Mesa, Ariz., factory, says David Koopersmith, Boeing’s vice president of attack helicopters. The team briefed reporters on the status of the program at this week’s annual Association of the U.S. Army conference here.
unhappycamper comment: Let's talk dollars.
When I buy a new car, I like to know how much stuff costs: paint job, fog lights, bigger engine, leather interior, navigation system, sunroof, etc. etc.
When I try to find out the cost of military hardware, the price list just isn't available. "Trust me" is not acceptable from a car salesman, nor should it be for MIC salesmen. So we do the best we can.
Wikipedia is notoriously low on the price of military hardware. Since this thread is about the AH-64E let's focus on that. Wikipedia sez:
AH-64A: US$20 million (2007),
AH-64D (AH-64A upgrade): US$18 million (2007)[4]
OK, the AH-64D costs $20 million + $18 million = $38 million dollars. So how much does the AH-64E cost? However much it is, the US Army is planning on buying/upgrading 690 of them. Too bad we don't know what the AH-64E costs.
Here's just two examples of Wikipedia's cost numbers:
Wikipedia sez the F-22 is "US$150 million (flyaway cost for FY2009)". Time magazine (link:http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1912203_1913322,00.html) sez the F-22 costs $350 million dollars each.
Here's another example: Wikipedia sez "US$218 million (flyaway cost for FY2007)". Time magazine (link:http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1912203_1913322,00.html) sez the C-17 costs $318 million dollars each.
October 29, 2012
In this May 26, 2006 file photo, Army Lt. Gen. William E. Kip Ward, is given the oath of four-star General by Command Sgt. Major Mark Ripka, right, at Fort Myer, Va. An investigation found that Ward used government funds to pay for personal travel expenses.
Accusations against generals cast dark shadow over Army
By Ernesto Londoño, Published: October 27
The accusations leveled against three Army generals over the past six months are as varied as they are striking, the highest-profile of a growing number of allegations of wrongdoing by senior military officials.
A one-star general was flown home from Afghanistan this spring to face criminal charges, including sexual assault. A four-star general formerly in charge of the increasingly vital Africa command was accused of financial mismanagement, accepting inappropriate gifts and assigning staff personal tasks.
And a three-star general who oversees the U.S. Missile Defense Agency was described in an inspector general report as an abrasive and verbally abusive boss.
The investigations have become an embarrassment for the Army, raising questions about how thoroughly the military has screened senior leaders before putting them in crucial assignments.
Accusations against (3) generals cast dark shadow over Army
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2012/10/27/a43bf66a-1f8e-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_story.htmlIn this May 26, 2006 file photo, Army Lt. Gen. William E. Kip Ward, is given the oath of four-star General by Command Sgt. Major Mark Ripka, right, at Fort Myer, Va. An investigation found that Ward used government funds to pay for personal travel expenses.
Accusations against generals cast dark shadow over Army
By Ernesto Londoño, Published: October 27
The accusations leveled against three Army generals over the past six months are as varied as they are striking, the highest-profile of a growing number of allegations of wrongdoing by senior military officials.
A one-star general was flown home from Afghanistan this spring to face criminal charges, including sexual assault. A four-star general formerly in charge of the increasingly vital Africa command was accused of financial mismanagement, accepting inappropriate gifts and assigning staff personal tasks.
And a three-star general who oversees the U.S. Missile Defense Agency was described in an inspector general report as an abrasive and verbally abusive boss.
The investigations have become an embarrassment for the Army, raising questions about how thoroughly the military has screened senior leaders before putting them in crucial assignments.
October 29, 2012
Pentagon inspector starts criminal probe of contractor
4:26 PM, Oct 28, 2012
~~snip~
The Defense Criminal Investigative Service has an ongoing investigation of Leonie Industries. That probe followed a USA TODAY story in February that found the owners of the company had failed to pay $4 million in taxes on time. The inspector general's office, in an Oct. 24 letter to Rep. Hank Johnson, a Georgia Democrat and member of the armed services committee, announced that it would examine the misinformation campaign.
~snip~
"In light of the recent admissions by the minority owner of Leonie Industries, the on-going investigation will also address the company's role in the series of web sites used in an effort to discredit two USA TODAY journalists to determine if any company resources or personnel were involved," John Crane, an assistant inspector general, wrote to Johnson.
The investigation could result in the company being excluded from federal contracting. In June, the Pentagon retained Leonie's services for another year at the cost of $60 million. The company produces leaflets and broadcasts urging Afghans to support their government and eschew the Taliban. Leonie has received at least $120 million in Pentagon contracts since 2009.
"I applaud the Defense Department for expanding their investigation to include the online dirty tricks campaign," Johnson said in a statement. "Journalists investigating government contractors should never be met with efforts to intimidate or discredit them. When that occurs, all our liberties are threatened."
Pentagon inspector starts criminal probe of contractor
http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/usatoday/article/1662153?odyssey=modPentagon inspector starts criminal probe of contractor
4:26 PM, Oct 28, 2012
~~snip~
The Defense Criminal Investigative Service has an ongoing investigation of Leonie Industries. That probe followed a USA TODAY story in February that found the owners of the company had failed to pay $4 million in taxes on time. The inspector general's office, in an Oct. 24 letter to Rep. Hank Johnson, a Georgia Democrat and member of the armed services committee, announced that it would examine the misinformation campaign.
~snip~
"In light of the recent admissions by the minority owner of Leonie Industries, the on-going investigation will also address the company's role in the series of web sites used in an effort to discredit two USA TODAY journalists to determine if any company resources or personnel were involved," John Crane, an assistant inspector general, wrote to Johnson.
The investigation could result in the company being excluded from federal contracting. In June, the Pentagon retained Leonie's services for another year at the cost of $60 million. The company produces leaflets and broadcasts urging Afghans to support their government and eschew the Taliban. Leonie has received at least $120 million in Pentagon contracts since 2009.
"I applaud the Defense Department for expanding their investigation to include the online dirty tricks campaign," Johnson said in a statement. "Journalists investigating government contractors should never be met with efforts to intimidate or discredit them. When that occurs, all our liberties are threatened."
October 29, 2012
Afghanistan war in new phase -- with no decisive end in sight
October 28, 2012 |
By Robert Burns
KABUL, Afghanistan -- A new chapter of the war in Afghanistan is opening with a slimmed-down Western force doing more advising than fighting, a resilient Taliban showing little interest in peace talks, and Americans tempted to pull the plug on a conflict now in its 12th year.
A decisive end seems nowhere in sight.
The allied offensive that just ended, spearheaded by an influx of 30,000 U.S. troops, hammered the Taliban in its southern strongholds. Yet the insurgency persists as the American-led international military coalition hands off security responsibilities to the Afghans before exiting in two years.
"We are probably headed for stalemate in 2014," said Stephen Biddle, a George Washington University political science professor who has advised U.S. commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Afghanistan war in new phase -- with no decisive end in sight
http://www.freep.com/article/20121028/NEWS07/310280224/Afghanistan-war-in-new-phase-with-no-decisive-end-in-sightAfghanistan war in new phase -- with no decisive end in sight
October 28, 2012 |
By Robert Burns
KABUL, Afghanistan -- A new chapter of the war in Afghanistan is opening with a slimmed-down Western force doing more advising than fighting, a resilient Taliban showing little interest in peace talks, and Americans tempted to pull the plug on a conflict now in its 12th year.
A decisive end seems nowhere in sight.
The allied offensive that just ended, spearheaded by an influx of 30,000 U.S. troops, hammered the Taliban in its southern strongholds. Yet the insurgency persists as the American-led international military coalition hands off security responsibilities to the Afghans before exiting in two years.
"We are probably headed for stalemate in 2014," said Stephen Biddle, a George Washington University political science professor who has advised U.S. commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq.
October 28, 2012
on edit to add: Here's a link to the documents --> http://www.aclum.org/policing_dissent/documents
Policing Dissent
on edit to add: Here's a link to the documents --> http://www.aclum.org/policing_dissent/documents
October 28, 2012
Courtesy of 11th Street Bridge project - Federal funding is projected to fall short in repairing roads and bridges and meeting other transportation needs.
Burden for rebuilding infrastructure may fall to states
By Ashley Halsey III, Published: October 27
Maryland needs more than $100 million a year to fix bridges. Virginia needs $125 million a year to repave crumbling roads in suburban Washington. The District needs $806 million to replace a rusting bridge across the Anacostia River.
The bill for all that, and more, eventually will land on taxpayers’ doorsteps. But the postmark won’t read “Washington.” Instead, the tax bill will come from state or local governments struggling to fill the growing void in federal funding.
~snip~
Infrastructure has been the elephant in the room in Washington for years. Only a few of the people running for office this year have mentioned it, and none of them have embraced it.
The reason was captured by a single sentence in the Standard & Poor’s report: The “country has a $2.2 trillion backlog of infrastructure projects.”
For The We-Built-It-Crowd: Burden for rebuilding infrastructure may fall to states
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/burden-for-rebuilding-infrastructure-may-fall-to-states/2012/10/27/df8c0bdc-16e8-11e2-9855-71f2b202721b_story.htmlCourtesy of 11th Street Bridge project - Federal funding is projected to fall short in repairing roads and bridges and meeting other transportation needs.
Burden for rebuilding infrastructure may fall to states
By Ashley Halsey III, Published: October 27
Maryland needs more than $100 million a year to fix bridges. Virginia needs $125 million a year to repave crumbling roads in suburban Washington. The District needs $806 million to replace a rusting bridge across the Anacostia River.
The bill for all that, and more, eventually will land on taxpayers’ doorsteps. But the postmark won’t read “Washington.” Instead, the tax bill will come from state or local governments struggling to fill the growing void in federal funding.
~snip~
Infrastructure has been the elephant in the room in Washington for years. Only a few of the people running for office this year have mentioned it, and none of them have embraced it.
The reason was captured by a single sentence in the Standard & Poor’s report: The “country has a $2.2 trillion backlog of infrastructure projects.”
October 28, 2012
Pentagon Withholds $47 Million From Lockheed on F-35
By Tony Capaccio
October 26, 2012
The Pentagon is withholding $46.5 million from Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT ), its biggest contractor, because of continued flaws with a business system used to track costs and schedules for the F-35 fighter.
The money held back was assessed against two F-35 production contracts and a smaller development agreement with the Israeli Air Force that's managed by the U.S. The funds equal 5 percent of periodic billings against the contracts for reimbursement of money spent by the company performing the work.
The F-35 has been criticized by Pentagon officials and lawmakers for test-performance failings, delays and its ballooning cost. At an estimated $395.7 billion for eventual production of 2,443 planes, the cost is up 70 percent, adjusted for inflation, from the $233 billion projected when Lockheed Martin won the program from Boeing Co. (BA ) in late 2001.
The funds being withheld won't be released until all the deficiencies in the system used by Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth, Texas-based Aeronautics unit "are corrected and the system regains approval status" from the Defense Contract Management Agency, Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said in an e-mailed statement.
Pentagon Withholds $47 Million From Lockheed on F-35
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-26/pentagon-withholds-47-million-from-lockheed-on-f-35Pentagon Withholds $47 Million From Lockheed on F-35
By Tony Capaccio
October 26, 2012
The Pentagon is withholding $46.5 million from Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT ), its biggest contractor, because of continued flaws with a business system used to track costs and schedules for the F-35 fighter.
The money held back was assessed against two F-35 production contracts and a smaller development agreement with the Israeli Air Force that's managed by the U.S. The funds equal 5 percent of periodic billings against the contracts for reimbursement of money spent by the company performing the work.
The F-35 has been criticized by Pentagon officials and lawmakers for test-performance failings, delays and its ballooning cost. At an estimated $395.7 billion for eventual production of 2,443 planes, the cost is up 70 percent, adjusted for inflation, from the $233 billion projected when Lockheed Martin won the program from Boeing Co. (BA ) in late 2001.
The funds being withheld won't be released until all the deficiencies in the system used by Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth, Texas-based Aeronautics unit "are corrected and the system regains approval status" from the Defense Contract Management Agency, Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said in an e-mailed statement.
October 28, 2012
A Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) report singled out a $78 million contract to build a garrison for the Afghan National Army as of particular concern.p.
Shades of Iraq in Afghanistan? Problems with shoddy contracting work
By Dan Murphy, Staff writer / October 26, 2012
SIGAR, the US government body assigned to audit and oversee US spending on reconstruction projects in Afghanistan, has released the latest in a series of reports detailing contractor failings with minimal accountability in Afghanistan.
The report out today focuses on $72.8 million contracted to DynCorp international by the Army Corps of Engineers to build "Camp Pamir" for the Afghan National Army in Kunduz Province, which is meant to house 1,800 Afghan soldiers. The specifics of the report are reminiscent of dozens of previous reports on US contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade. In Iraq, contracting problems were apparent almost from the start of the war. (I wrote in June 2004 on shoddy school reconstruction in Iraq.)
When the inspector general for Iraq reconstruction closed up shop, its final report fretted that "billions" of US taxpayer money may have been wasted while enriching contractors. That there are major problems in Afghanistan as well has been long understood.
So the latest report is just a reminder that huge amounts of money have been wasted for a decade and that administrations – both Democrat and Republican – have failed to plug the leaks. The same defense and development contractors' names come up again and again on these reports and individual contracts get black marks for poor execution, but when its time to start passing out money again, they remain at the front of queue.
unhappycamper comment: Way to go, DynCorp!
Shades of Iraq in Afghanistan? Problems with shoddy contracting work
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/1026/Shades-of-Iraq-in-Afghanistan-Problems-with-shoddy-contracting-workA Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) report singled out a $78 million contract to build a garrison for the Afghan National Army as of particular concern.p.
Shades of Iraq in Afghanistan? Problems with shoddy contracting work
By Dan Murphy, Staff writer / October 26, 2012
SIGAR, the US government body assigned to audit and oversee US spending on reconstruction projects in Afghanistan, has released the latest in a series of reports detailing contractor failings with minimal accountability in Afghanistan.
The report out today focuses on $72.8 million contracted to DynCorp international by the Army Corps of Engineers to build "Camp Pamir" for the Afghan National Army in Kunduz Province, which is meant to house 1,800 Afghan soldiers. The specifics of the report are reminiscent of dozens of previous reports on US contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade. In Iraq, contracting problems were apparent almost from the start of the war. (I wrote in June 2004 on shoddy school reconstruction in Iraq.)
When the inspector general for Iraq reconstruction closed up shop, its final report fretted that "billions" of US taxpayer money may have been wasted while enriching contractors. That there are major problems in Afghanistan as well has been long understood.
So the latest report is just a reminder that huge amounts of money have been wasted for a decade and that administrations – both Democrat and Republican – have failed to plug the leaks. The same defense and development contractors' names come up again and again on these reports and individual contracts get black marks for poor execution, but when its time to start passing out money again, they remain at the front of queue.
unhappycamper comment: Way to go, DynCorp!
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 16, 2005, 11:12 AMNumber of posts: 60,364
