Corps estimates of needs in Iraq are called faulty
By Bryan Bender / Boston Globe
WASHINGTON — Marine Corps units fighting in some of the most dangerous terrain in Iraq don’t have enough weapons, communications gear, or properly outfitted vehicles, according to an investigation by the Marine Corps’ inspector general provided to Congress yesterday.
The report, obtained by the Globe, says the estimated 30,000 Marines in Iraq need twice as many heavy machine guns, more fully protected armored vehicles, and more communications equipment to operate in a region the size of Utah.
The Marine Corps leadership has ”understated” the amount and types of ground equipment it needs, according to the investigation, concluding that all of its fighting units in Iraq ”require ground equipment that exceeds” their current supplies, ”particularly in mobility, engineering, communications, and heavy weapons.”
Complaints of equipment shortages in Iraq, including lack of adequate vehicle armor, have plagued the Pentagon for months, but most of the reported shortages have been found in the Army, which makes up the bulk of the American occupation force.
The analysis of the Marines’ battle readiness, however, shows that the Corps is lacking key equipment needed to stabilize Al Anbar province in western Iraq. The province is where some of the bloodiest fighting has occurred in recent months between American-led coalition forces and Iraqi insurgents aided by foreign fighters who have slipped across the border.
The Marine Corps leadership has ‘’understated” the amount and types of ground equipment it needs, according to the investigation, concluding that all of its fighting units in Iraq ‘’require ground equipment that exceeds” their current supplies, ‘’particularly in mobility, engineering, communications, and heavy weapons.”
I’d give the generals a break, it’s tough to know exacly what you will need before you need it. The Marines have their own armories so I would imagine its just a logistics issue now, getting everything shipped over there that they need.
No, those generals had to take the heat for that. It’s part of the job. The deal with the kits that weren’t installed is exactally what I wrote about in the other thread about the effects of shortfalls. There aren’t enough hours in the day to perform the mission and get everything else done. But that’s the military. The generals can’t tell congress that their units didn’t have enough time to hook up the stuff they had…that’s taboo in the military.
In terms of filling out the paperwork, that’s on them. What happens is this: Daily meeting, what are the issues? OK, I don’t want to hear about that every day, do you understand lieutenant colonel? YES SIR.
Then it doesn’t get mentioned for a month and eventually someone notices that something’s wrong. The general has to take the heat.
When you ask for something and don’t get it for long enough, you know not to ask. The conversation I laid out right there is the same when that general talks to his higher up, and that type of a lapse happens because of that very dynamic. Someone in the Pentagon should have stayed up on this, but didn’t, and since it’s the military, there needs to be a fall guy. The generals were tapped for that role, and that’s the way it works.
This from Talkingpointsmemo.com seems to explain some of the problems with privatizing the milatary.
“…we asked just what defense and national security-related services Mitchell Wade’s MZM, Inc. was providing the US government
and whether the fact that Wade had to get Duke Cunningham a house and a boat to secure the contracts tells us anything about the quality of the services Wade’s company provides.
Well, tonight in the San Diego Union-Tribune, Marcus Stern — who broke the story ten days ago — follows up with some very telling details.
One of the contracts Wade seems to have bought his way into is this one …
Counter Intelligence Field Activity, a highly secretive program created in 2002 by a Pentagon directive that focuses on gathering intelligence to avert attacks like the ones on Sept. 11, 2001.
I certainly feel better knowing that MZM’s got that one covered.
And then there’s this (emphasis added) …
Cunningham is on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the defense appropriations subcommittee, which puts him in position to influence the awarding of defense intelligence contracts.
MZM had 56 such contracts totaling $68,645,909 in fiscal year 2004, according to Keith Ashdown, an analyst with Taxpayers for Common Sense. One of those contracts is to provide interpreters in Iraq. For the most part, the contracts were awarded to MZM without competition through a process known as “blanket purchase agreements.””
Maybe the same corruption is getting into other parts of the administrations war effort, and that is why their is not enough support for the troops.
Someone in the Pentagon should have stayed up on this, but didn’t, and since it’s the military, there needs to be a fall guy. The generals were tapped for that role, and that’s the way it works.
Hmmm, you make a compelling argument. Are you saying the generals should be canned over the logistics failure? Demotion? I wonder how many pounds of equipment is used for each soldier in Iraq, any idea?
and whether the fact that Wade had to get Duke Cunningham a house and a boat to secure the contracts tells us anything about the quality of the services Wade’s company provides.
How does a corrupt politician equate to low quality of service by Wade’s company? Have they defaulted on any of the contracts? There is definitely an anti-competitive environment there that is unfare to all companies.
This is what I believe you were getting at with that 3 star general who was busted down and forced to retire. As I perceive things, the difference between him and these generals is they’re still in the chain of command whereas he was done with his assignment in Iraq.
It’s unfortunate, but an intregal part of the military when one chooses it as a career is the fact that at many times you’ll be forced to ‘take one for the team’. I respect the 3-star general who spoke out as much as I do these generals, because it’s the same instinct at play in both cases. They’re putting themselves out there for the sake of their people. They’re sacrificing something for the sake of the whole.
Earlier on in my 2.5 years in Germany I really resented being thrown under the bus, but over time I came to realize that the perception of a leader outside of my chain of command really didn’t matter in the long run. When I had some soldiers under me at the batallion S-1 there were always firestorms on one thing or another, but as long as I took care of it at my level, my superiors were pleased. There were often times when I’d make a concession and feel diminshed, but when there was something I really wanted a higher up to go to bat on for me – they hardly ever turned me down. They recognized my loyalty – and when the politics involved in getting my guys promoted got heavy, I generally got what I wanted.
Every leader, from the corporal or specialist leading a handfull of privates to the sergeant major in charge of a battalion, to the general in front of congress, at some point has to take one for the team. It’s how one manages to handle these situations that earns the respect of those around them. Nothing galvanizes the drive of a subordinate more than when their leader is dealt a bad hand and plays it out with a positive attitude – if that leader has the support of their subordinates – they’ll work themselves to the bone for him.
The officers who report to these generals will recognize what was sacrificed and it will inspire them in some way. Whether that culminates in a dose of realism, or convinces them to devote their energy to doing better when they get there, or even prompts them to focus on advocacy (like the 3 star general did) – it’s all good stuff.
It’s downright un-American. I find that when it comes to Republicans as a whole, their view of the economy is that there should be less of this sort of thing and more competition. But with the ‘neocons’ in charge now, they consistently stray from these ideas.
The Wall Street Journal has been reporting on this dynamic since the war first began. The overcharging of Halliburton and other contractors in Iraq…I know most of what I do about it from reading it there. Those stories unfortunatelly fall in the same pile as the New York Times articles I’ve shared here. They never catch on in the mainstream media.
Right:
The fact that the contractor resorted to allegedly bribing a congressman to get a contract indicates that he did not believe he had the best product or that he knew having the best product would not be enough.
My personal opinion is that people who cheat on one rule generally have less respect for other rules. Which again leads me to believe this contractor probably cuts a lot of corners. That is my opinion no proof but it seems logical.
This is what I believe you were getting at with that 3 star general who was busted down and forced to retire. As I perceive things, the difference between him and these generals is they’re still in the chain of command whereas he was done with his assignment in Iraq.
My point was the busted general acted outside the scope of his duties and paid the professional and political price. So he was good in his duties but poor with codes of conduct.
These other generals, I think your saying, are bad at their jobs because they failed to adequately adjust their logistical needs. It’s kinda the opposite. I see now what your saying about the generals needed to be held accountable for failing to adequately prepare the troops.
I find that when it comes to Republicans as a whole, their view of the economy is that there should be less of this sort of thing and more competition.
Absolutely
The fact that the contractor resorted to allegedly bribing a congressman to get a contract indicates that he did not believe he had the best product or that he knew having the best product would not be enough.
I disagree, I think it means that the contract went to the highest bidder which happened to be Wade. Product quality is irrelevant since the contract is based on who pays the most.
Maybe the contractor was the only bidder but had to pay anyway just to get the contract out of “committee” or he was competing with other contractors from other states who were trying to bribe their own officials.
It would be discovered right away if the products were junk which would put a spotlight on the corruption and neither party wants that so I figure neither would jeopardize their freedom.
My personal opinion is that people who cheat on one rule generally have less respect for other rules. Which again leads me to believe this contractor probably cuts a lot of corners. That is my opinion no proof but it seems logical.
In places like Chicago and New York this kind of thing is seen as just a part of doing business. You pay the mob, you pay the unions, you pay the politicians. It’s possible this contractor thing is seen as a cost just like taxes or electricity. Doesn’t make it right, I just think it has little to do with the actual product.
Right:
Contracts should go to the lowest competent bidder, not the one who is willing to pay the highest bribe. If this is really just the way business gets done as you say, then maybe we need some new people in Washington.
Contracts should go to the lowest competent bidder, not the one who is willing to pay the highest bribe. If this is really just the way business gets done as you say, then maybe we need some new people in Washington.
You are correct. The bidding system needs to be more transparant and people need to really care about corruption.
I think it’s pretty well established that oversight is lacking, and not necessarily an initiative for those who could clean it up. The ethics committee chairman is stepping down, as apparantly no work can get done. I read the story about Abramoff today, the rabbi that hooked him up with fake awards – the money he stole from that indian tribe. It’s the culture that produces people like this. The aide who can’t win an election figures out how the system works, how to set up a shell company, then goes out on their own.
Washington DC is a training center for future crooks. The political price is diminished by the fact that when it’s a Republican involved, the news station that Republicans watch, and the radio they listen to either don’t cover it, or they spin it.
In terms of the defense contracts born with the Afghan and Iraqi wars, they went to friends. The oversite is nonexistant. In fact, when someone points out an egregious wrong done by Halliburton, nothing happens. That woman who worked for the Air Force and was knee deep in corrupt dealings with Boeing is in jail…there are a lot of others out there who should be as well, but if the will is not there to clean it up – nothing will happen. Someone has to mess up pretty bad to get caught.
The Marine generals were victims of circumstance. The fault was taken by them in front of Congress, but I’d bet a dollar to a doughnut that they did ask for that stuff for a while and eventually it didn’t dawn on them to ask again because:
1. They’d been denied so many times
2. They’ve got a war to fight
They took the blame, but there are thousands of military and civilians working in the Pentagon whose job it is to ensure that materials that are ready to be shipped get to the right units. They took one for the team. Someone at the Pentagon should have been up on what they had, what was available and what could have been provided. The generals have enough on their plate.
The Marine generals were victims of circumstance. The fault was taken by them in front of Congress, but I’d bet a dollar to a doughnut that they did ask for that stuff for a while and eventually it didn’t dawn on them to ask again because:
Wow, where did you read this? What happened to them? I haven’t read anything about reprimand or “early retirements.” Who did they ask for stuff from who turned them down? This is light on details and logic but the details should help with the logic :- )
There won’t be a punnishment because it wasn’t their fault.
The facts I do know from being in and spending many months in the field is that every day from squad-platoon-company-batallion-brigade on up, the numbers are compiled and reported. This goes for personell, equipment, ammo…everything. This gets sent to the Pentagon where the allocation of resource process is initiated. If the equipment or materials were available, there should have been a communication from the Pentagon to the commanders in theatre telling them that it was on the way. They’d know it was needed based on the daily readiness reports that they had to refer to.
There’s a system in place. The breakdown of the system happened between the Pentagon and the top level marine commander – and if it was about failing to complete a mission assigned to them, I’d be willing to believe that the commanders were at fault. But an allocation of resource issue is something I’m inclined to believe existed at the Pentagon.
The official at the Pentagon works a shift and goes home, while the commander is in a warzone with a million things going on at once. What the testimony stated was that it was their mistake in that they failed to fill out the proper forms. That’s a beurocratic failure. Either the forms need to be looked at, or removed altogether.
That’s a beurocratic failure. Either the forms need to be looked at, or removed altogether.
One thing the military is great at is paperwork, every vet I know can attest to that. So there should be no real problem for the miltary people then, it’s the clerk’s fault. But, fault is irrelevant, like you say the system needs to be looked at and streamlined.