Duckworth and the Auditors II
This press release from Duckworth makes me so sad I pulled down my post on Sweet's review of Obama's new book and posting this instead.
Visit the Army's Website for civilian jobs. I've applied for almost every administrative job in Iraq and Afghanistan since the get go of this war. Sometimes I make the Best-Qualified list for one of them. (Once I made a BQ list of 20 out of at total of 400 applicants for an auditors job with SIG for Iraq .)
But so far I've had no offers. (I've got five out now where my names gone in for selection.) My contribution seems to be I will have set the bottom-of-the-barrel so low, the selecting officers won't have to reach down that far. There's someone better qualified a head of me who's volunteered.
At one point I e-mailed my resume to a friend who was working at a Army Hospital in Iraq, and told him to circulate it around. He wrote back that administrative guys like me were badly needed. He had been to five bases in Iraq and the best supported were run by Halliburton.
Now I read this on Duckworth's site,
Recalling her days in Iraq, Duckworth described tasks soldiers are trained to do, such as laying protective sandbags at the trailers they lived in, that had been outsourced at 80 cents a bag to contractors--who failed to do the job her first three months on site. Military cooks were assigned to stand outside mess halls with clickers counting soldiers going inside--prepared by Halliburton subsidiary KBR at $22 a meal--including steak and lobsters on Sunday nights and three flavors of ice cream, she said.I spent five years with DoD and three of them as auditor. I understand things go wrong with contracts. That there is waste. My boss had uncovered a big construction fraud while in Vietnam while with Defense Audit Service and feared the crooks he uncovered in the Army more than the VC I think. I've heard the stories and read the reports.
But to single out Halliburton, who's employees have given their lives in Iraq, rubs me the wrong way.
Here's a list of of 349 civilian contract employees killed in Iraq to date. You'll find Halliburton people listed here. That's just Iraq. I'm sure if I googled around I'd find more in Afghanistan.
Halliburton's one of the few company's able to go into places like Iraq, Afghanistan, or if need be Darfur, and provide logistical support for critical missions: humanitarian as well as war. Let's not politicize them.
Sure go ahead and investigate. The reality is DoD and GAO do that; and Duckworth's press release is needless. It just politicize procurement and stalls hopes of improvements by paralyzing the auditors; those bean counters with the clickers.
It would be nice to see some acknowledgement of those civilian contractors instead; including the Halliburton people.
Bit of a rant, but when I was an auditor in the early 80s, the USAID lost two auditors in a hijacking in the Middle East (flt from Pakistan to Riyadeh was hijacked to Teheran). The third bean counter survived. I met him at a auditor's meeting and he said they had had their Certified Internal Auditors card's with them. Cards with big CIA letters printed on the face. Those cards enraged the hijackers and they shot his two colleaques in the backs of their heads.
I've googled around for their story and can't even find anything about them. I hate to see the civilian contribution go unnoticed like this.
The DoD IG sent a memo telling us not to carry our CIA member cards overseas by the way.
15 comments:
BB, you need to get some perspective. I think you need to try and drop not only your rep. bias, but your 'in the rear with the gear' bias. Did you actually read the article? Or were there republican talking points distributed for you to go off of? Because when I read the article I found the following information.
1) There is a lot of money being wasted on frivolous things.
2)There should be more effort put into identifying and reducing these costs.
3)These savings should then be used to better protect the soldiers with more and better armor.
How can you argue against that? How can you find that 'sad' ??? Instead of siding with a soldier about soldiers need, you instantly get into a defensive mode about how great contractors are. I appreciate that your a contrator, I personally don't ever want to go over there, but that's great if you do. But you have to be honest with yourself, Halliburton isn't over there for some great moral mission, they are there because they are making truck-loads of money. They were selected because there was no bidding process and the vice president just happened to be a Halliburton 'alumni.'
I think you need to get off your horse soon BB, because its gotten so high that if you fall off, its gonna hurt.
You mention the 349 civilian deaths in Iraq. That's a pretty sad number, but how is Duckworth's plan going to effect that? All she is trying to do is get more protection to slow down the death toll of soldiers which I am sure you are aware is over 7 times higher than the civilian amount. No where in this article did I see place that she criticized the workers themsevles or say that they are doing anything wrong. This part has nothing to do with the release Duckworth made and is a nice attempt at a baseless smear.
You say that Duckworths press release is needless, and that people are already doing what she proposes. Then I ask you, why are we paying for such wastes of money? She mentioned 2 great examples in her release so I won't go back over them. As a taxpayer I am terribly angry that the money being spent on this war isn't for things like protective armor. It is to pay $22 a meal which is way more than even I can afford. (and yes those soldiers do deserve some nice things because of their sacrifice, but as Duckworth clearly stated, they would prefer protection)
BB, your bias is pathetic.
I never believe the press on procurement anymore.
Remember the toilet seats? When Weinberger fired the Admiral at the San Diego Air Logistics Center over it?
Those were toilets on carrier based sub hunters. They were an unusual kind thing fitted into the aircraft.
First thing pilots did with them was rip seat and toilet out of the aircraft because they didn't need the weight on carrier landings. You pee'd out a tub if you had to go instead.
I haven't believed much from Congress or the press on procurement sense. There is waste,, always waste, but when Congress tackles it in the press they usually have it way wrong.
Way wrong on decisions that can get people killed.
Democrats demonized halliburton when in fact that whole logcap process they worked off of was reform itself...and it good one... and they do a pretty good job.
It's just with the political hysteria we have people wasting time with clickers instead...
As for $22 a meal... or the extravagance of what we're feeding... there's a lot of green eye stuff going on here... I'm skeptical if Uncle sam's getting stiffed here.
I think one of the worst things Dems have done is denigrated the defense industry. That's what I think Duckworth is doing here.
It's bad for the country because its not as robust at you might think and it's an industry we need.
A lot of contractors have been killed. I think they should be acknowledged. That's how I feel.
High horse, low horse, I worked in the belly of the horse for a few years and I don't trust the press much with it anymore.
See, BB those are the kinda of comments that you need to have all the time. You actually made sense, didn't usualyl bash democrats, and made points.
One thing I think you need to remember is that Duckworth is stating things she actually experienced. I understand your point of media and politicians blowing things out of proportion. But she has experience first hand about these problems.
I think the problem that most people have with Halliburton is not that they aren't good at a lot of the things they do, but that they got the 'good ole boy' government discount. For the same reasons Rod B. is always under fire, there is not the same tenacity on the federal level for the pay to play operations that go on. I think Katrina was another good example of that with so many no bid contracts.
As for denigrating the defense industry. I agree there's a line we walk. One side is the fact that the government dumps a lot of excess money into the industry. The other is that it provides a lot of economic benefits as far as employment and business revenues. So I agree to a point about what you say, but I think for the most part its the same baseless logic that people use when they say 'you cant be against the war because it hurts out troops morale.' I personally think the industry has skated by for a long time without a whole lot of pressure. Everytime I watch the movie 'The Aviator' I think about that spruce goose. And its a good example. While it provided a lot of good jobs for people, and might have had the potential to be useful, the outcome was that it was entirely useless as far as the government/military was concerned. And I think to this day we still throw a lot fo money at projects that have a pretty low chance of ever being worth a sh**.
Thats jus tmy opinion though.
I think the problem that most people have with Halliburton is not that they aren't good at a lot of the things they do, but that they got the 'good ole boy' government discount.
And that's exactly the idea that should be dispelled... Halliburton got it under Logcap: a contracting vehicle to competitively select before wartime, and name a sole source for wartime... so your not competitively bidding around in the middle of war (when vendors can really hold you to wall).
It's a serious reform and the benefit's been lost in the politics. When it's critized, I get angry because politicians playing games with serious procurment reform.
Duckworth needs to be a uniter, not bring back this old and false argument.
One of the most impressive moments I saw was her second interview at Walther Reed when she said watching the Iraq's celebrate after the elections... her sacrifice wasn't in vain.
Look at that list and you'll see dead Hallibruton employees.. they're some dead kitchen staff too; but I'm not going back to check which vendor.
They deserve some honor; whether there was waste or not... I'd forget the phony Halliburton argument and acknowledge the sacrifice she shares with them.
If she want auditors, she should get elected and send me...I'm still on the d--n list.
BB, that made me chuckle. You should be supporting her and this plan in your own self interest. You would have an increased chance of employment!!!
I get your idea about the Logcap thing. I was not familiar with this and it seems to be a logical system. But I don't know if that necessarily dispells the good ole boy mentality. Because the question remains, why Halliburton? And for a lot of people, the reason that they got the contract, or got to the top of that Logcap list is because of political ties.
Certainly they aren't the only ones, but since they are on the biggest stage they get the most press. I don't know if it's right or wrong. But it is what it is.
I agree that the civilian deaths deserve honor too, but in the Duckworth release, she didn't mention any of that did she? I just don't want to get your personal feelings on this all mixed up with her release and your subsequent complaints.
I agree that the civilian deaths deserve honor too, but in the Duckworth release, she didn't mention any of that did she? I just don't want to get your personal feelings on this all mixed up with her release and your subsequent complaints.
No, she didn't and that bothered me. I want to support her. This Halliburton stuff makes it hard.
I find it hard to support Dems anymore even though I agree with them maybe on more things then I would with Repubs.
Halliburton, Wal-Mart, these all seem like very phony issues... suggest that there's another side i.e more jobs, rational defense contracting, that can be just as progressive or liberal stand to take; and the response is the Ad hominem....
...check my dialogue over with Fran Eaton on her blog where I along with some conservatives argued for dropping don't ask don't tell
No one told me I was pathetic...
I'd don't care what people call me, but let's face it, once the name calling starts, rational debate on issues goes right out the window.
I just say forget, which is what I've done with most Democrats save maybe Pat Perez running for Kane County Sheriff... I'll be meeting him Sunday and blog afterwords on it.
Can we all agree that given a choice between lobster and body armor, the troops would rather have the body armor?
Can we also agree that under the "reformed" system you hold so dear, Bill, somehow lobster made it on the list and body armor didn't?
Clearly, there is room for reform.
BB, I don't feel that rational debate went out the window once I called your bias pathetic. (I am assuming thats what you were referencing at least) I think the mark of a true debatable issue is passionate debate on both sides. And then the mark of good debators is being able to use passion at times, but then compose themselves for the sake of the debate.
I felt like your original post was way off the reservation and my first response showed my emotion, but I think in the subsequent posts we got some points out.
I do want to mention one thing. From my point point of view both halliburton and walmart are important to a lot of people. First off walmart because downstatte lots of employment and lots of purchasing goes on through them. They have an enormous opportunity to improve a lot fo communities and have yet to take a hold of it. With halliburton it is important to lots of folks because it represents their lack of trust in government. Now assuming your right about the earlier argument, apparently all that is needed is some explanation, but that has yet to happen. So i personally see that as an issue that should be discussed so that maybe light can finally be shed on the subject.
Its sad that Duckworth didnt mention the civilian losses, but she also didnt mention a lot of other things. Maybe it was just a matter of getting her message out. She didnt mention 9/11 victims, but that doesnt imply she doesnt care about them. It just says she was putting out political material, and as has been talked about over at cap fax lately, staying on message is more important than covering all bases. I dont know if I think its right, but it is what it is.
"Because the question remains, why Halliburton? And for a lot of people, the reason that they got the contract, or got to the top of that Logcap list is because of political ties."
Political ties, fair enough. But that doesn't take into account two things: the list of vendors that could compete with Halliburton is pretty short to begin with. Perhaps comparable to the list of military aircraft makers - Boeing, McDD, Northrup Grumman, Bell, Sikorsky. Any others? In that short of a field, with that few 'choices', they all have political ties.
number 2, I take Halliburton's competitors to be Dynacorp and Bechtel. Sorry, I think US Corp.s should get prefernce - rules out Bechtel. And guess who had the last logcap? Dyncorp. Who had it before that?
Halliburton. (KBR)
Under Clinton.
In Bosnia.
There were questions, then, too. Bottom line, it's all about oversight - is the Army doing it's job to ensure that deliverables are met?
If you really want to know "hy" do a FOIA on the bidding process for the last Logcap. There has to be a scoring sheet and a paper with narrative citing why Halliburton won. Warning: this may take the fun out of demagogueing Hbn/KBR.
"Can we also agree that under the "reformed" system you hold so dear, Bill, somehow lobster made it on the list and body armor didn't?"
Your lobster is a red herring, and no, I can't agree - until you provide me with proof that no troop in theater had body armor during, say, the first year of this.
You can't.
Troops had armor and vehicles IAW their unit MTOEs. That the Generals didn't recognize and adapt to the threats faced in the 90's and what the threats would be in the 21st c has nothing to do with Halliburton, as much as the Dems would like to spin it. It has everything to do with the army fighting the 'last war' and ignoring the likely deployments and enemies they would face in a post-cold war age. One of the few things Rumsfeld has done right is to try to mold the force into something lighter, faster, and more agile.
It isn't Halliburtons job to provide vehicle armor or body armor, it's the services supply chains. That the generals can talk about a 'frontless' battlespace and not update the force protection to match it is their failing.
if i'm reading these articles correctly, i think duckworth uses kbr as her example because they were the contractors with whom she dealt.
have y'all seen the commercial that vote vets is putting up in virginia? it's pretty amazing.
Didn't the greatest General of the 20th Century, and a Republican President to boot, Dwight D. Eisenhower coin the phrase "Military Industrial Complex" and warn us all about its dangers. Ask ANY soldier, Republican and Democrat alike, and every one will have a long list of legitimate gripes about military contractors.
BB, if your background is what you say it is, you should be supporting what she is proposing, not trying to get a job where you can benefit from this wasteful excess.
Finally, those civilian deaths are very sad indeed and should make us angry - but angry at the companies that left them vulnerable and angry at the terrorists who attack non-combatants.
The fact that Cheney got paid off by Haliburton shouldn't bias you in favor of them.
KBR has been doing contracting for the DOD/ GSA for years. But this shows the bitterness between the contract employees and the military enlisted.
Why are we outsourcing our military?
Shalom,
--- Leland Milton Goldblatt
You mention the civilian losses. Regrettable certainly, but consider how much more they are paid to do these jobs than the military. This is because they assume the risk of death or injury. They are mercenaries. The pay scale differential is one of the grips that the troops have toward the unofficials.
The other thing about the contractors is that there is little oversight over them and many of our troops feel that our guys get hurt when the contractors tick off the locals.
SO OIL WAS THE MOTIVE AFTER ALL?
So we have five new bases in Iraq,
While oil deals are closed with Texan "friends,"
So local domination--deems our pack
Vital to "homeland" interests, though pretends
That hostile crew of Cheney with his cohort
To purposes of moral altitude
Vociferously broadcast; while to that flowchart
Of oil and revenues none does allude.
Diminishing this resource, so this plan,
Destabilizing first of all Iraq,
Comes into focus: an American
Dominion in the Mid-East none can block.
(Can there be possibly another motive,
Or reason for events as they compound?
Meanwhile the faithful light a penny votive
Beneath Christ´s portrait yet who makes no sound.)
The military bases will
Provide a place from which to kill
Iranians--so unperplexed
Administration dons see next--
As even busier than Heathrow
These hooligans demand a free throw
(Destabilizing all the region´s
A plan our Clan can pledge allegiance
To underneath the name of God;
So is the screed and wil be scrod).
Post a Comment