Good King Barack is toast. The only way he gets another 4 years to finish messing up the country is if the Republican party nominates the most unelectable of the pack of candidates like they did last time.
Warning: Florie and Lyana should sit down before reading :D
I'm not surprised that Palin's gaining on the Jug Eared Messiah, hell, she's even swung my opinion in her favor ... even with the conservation policies she espouses that I despise.
Just please, whatever happens, do NOT make her Secretary of the Interior. [Norton, Kempthorne, and Salazar have done enough damage for the century. Wildlife are NOT husbandry animals to be selectively shepherded solely for human consumption to the near exclusion of apex predators]
If she can resist any more cliche' tossing, making stuff up, poor choices to sponsor, and Alaska Hillbilly vernacular she will be a force to be reckoned with now and thru 2012. The last few times I've seen her interviewed, I liked her. [Lyana and Florie may faint again now.]
It will be interesting to see how this evolves between now and Nov 2012 ... It certainly cannot be any worse than the present condition. Keep the message on the economy ... and, secondarily, the cost & purpose of warfare ... we are wading in deep doo doo now, in control of nothing but official posing.
And we are broke, virtually now, absolutely soon. Not because of everything we've misspent previously, which didn't help, as much as what we're misspending now and the future. Somebody just has to get a grip. Soon.
I doubt she will run for President, but she will be a major influence in anyone's campaign ... keep them on track, if and as necessary.
I also get a big kick out of Ryan's budget and it's detractors. Truth is the Ryan plan is the ONLY Congressional budget proposed in nearly 2 years. TWO YEARS! Piss poor performance for the governmental body that holds the purse strings.
Oh, and a zing back at Lewy's assertion that Boeing is not fully a private enterprise. x( :D
Big whup ... neither is Lockheed-Martin, Electric Boat, and any number of other defense contractors that also build commercial gear.
Re: Boeing ... South Carolina lost the Charleston Naval Base due to BRAC under Clinton and Bush. Major loss of jobs. [ I participated in the distribution of some of their equipment ... e.g., I got it for the Army for free. ] Where was the Executive Branch/NLRB screaming then? Okay, so Boeing is a make up for that, if you will. Mainly, two things make no sense:
1. Boeing's plant in SC is to build a commercial airliner, not military hardware.
2. Washington state did not lose a single job in the SC development, in fact upwards of 2000 were added in Washington in addition to the 1000 in SC. There are NO damages in a criminal or tort sense.
Because a couple Boeing exec's made comments about the labor environment comparison between Washington and South Carolina is NOT a crime, nor a tort given the added jobs in Washington.
I doubt she will run for President, but she will be a major influence in anyone's campaign ... keep them on track, if and as necessary. I think you're absolutely right and she will be a huge asset to the Republican nominee. I'm also on board with you as to govt. so-called "conservation" policies.
Yes, the republicans would do well to keep it on the economy. Nothing drives it home like less change in your pocket.
This latest ATF scandal is another dagger in the heart of Obama's Justice dept. if the effed up media decides to run with it. I'm not holding my breath.
Last night on cable news a senior AFT agent essentially said the same thing I have been saying about who "runs" his agency ... a bunch of know nothings who have executive positions but who never were field agents or even qualified to wear an ATF badge.
Otherwise they would never have approved the guns tracking program. Further he said it is impossible for it to have gone forward without approval on high. He said not seasoned ATF agent would have dreamed up such a screw up.
This "process" posture over "product" results is endemic in government IMO. Any new administration must clean house and promote from within the agencies to fill positions that are needed (and cut the executive slots that are spurious)...no more "philosophical" appointments ... and the executives involved are usually SES ranks (appointed) not civil service grades ... e.g., no real requirement for real experience.
Ari, your right about Lockheed et al - to which you can add GE, all the TBTF banks... I wouldn't be that terribly bent out of shape if the government expropriated some of their earnings (like I said, the stockholders are stooges) because these entities had some substantial chunk of those earnings derived from government actions. My beef is that the nation doesn't benefit, Obama's constituency benefits.
You're completely right about Boeing vs NLRB - even the Washington Post agrees with you!
From the Post:
It [the NLRB] also substitutes the government’s judgment for that of the company. This is neither good law nor good business.
Now the Post recognizes this principle? Now?
When does the WaPo come clean and tell it's readers um, y'know, come to think of it, every f**king this this administration has done falls in the category of "substituting the governments judgment for the company's"... which we, the Washington Post, were totally OK with. Oh noes!
Do you think there's a chance of future admins cleaning house and putting experienced people in place?
In my lifetime or that of my kid ...NO.
Nothing is more difficult to uproot than institutionalized bureaucracy where political benefit supersedes all other considerations ... such as experience and skills in the endeavors managed by senior executives.
Even strong willed libertarians, if elected, get to Washington and become swept up in the illogic to a significant degree. The argument is that you must go along, a bit, to get along and later accomplish something you want.
Right ... the elected leaders are gone in 4 to 8 years on average, along with their cabinets ... but the entrenched professional executives remain until retirement or death.
Nothing can get you fired, or at a minimum purged to "governmental Siberia," than resisting the flow or even just objecting to actions that contravene law.
I retired with a buyout in September 2005, and for good reasons, even altruistic ones, but I'd had a target on my back since February 2004 within the Division level executive service. I'd formally stopped something they wanted, to expand their personal domain, because it was against the law and I was unable, at that time, to conceal who did it to them.
Lewy / Florie ... If you want to see how an honest senior executive can be exiled or fired, for objecting to absurd governmental contracting, Google up some data on Bunnatine Greehouse.
She has had to roll racial discrimination in to her complaint because it is the most powerful accusation you can make in Washington. The real point is much simpler ... she formally objected to contracts she was ordered to sign that were egregious and uncalled for on any legal basis. (Five year "emergency" contracts, when one year covers the "emergency?" )
In my experience in federal acquisition, you might place an emergency order with a favored vendor for a relatively short term, say one year at most. You do it because there is a known track record and capability to deliver in said emergency. For longer terms you have time to send RFQ's out for competitive bids, and the time to evaluate them as to veracity and capability.
Long ago, during severe flooding along the Mississippi in Iowa, we needed huge amounts of sandbags immediately ... and we placed an emergency order with a guy in Georgia, instead of the guy in Iowa who had buildings full of sand bags for a cheaper price, because the guy in Georgia had the ability and means to deliver immediately ... the guy in Iowa just had bags in storage...no trucks and so he bid FOB Shipping Point.
Needless to say, we got worked over the coals for that order (the Iowa guy filed a protest), but the key point was not just availability, but capability to deliver immediately in an emergency. We prevailed. We prevailed partially because it was a short term emergency order that did not prevent to Iowa guy from bidding again, within the next year, on re-stocking sand bags where needed.
I should add, in Bunny Greenhouse's case, as a senior SES executive, the nature of her position as the principle contracting officer required that she actually have the experience and skills acquired over her long career. Reason: she had to rule on contracting actions and could not do so without it.
Because of that, she was vilified because she was less political and crony inclined than fiscal and contracting law inclined. Her travail is a classic case of "go along or else" in the SES environment. If you have the skills you are a danger to the politicians ensconced in the SES and Secretariats. No good deed goes unpunished.
My own "stovepipe" of yore, today is headed by a legion of people who have never, ever, done the work and they are distinctly inclined to berate anyone who knows anything real.
Greenhouse herself made several allegations of wrongdoing, but one of the most sensational charges, initially seeming to back up her concerns, was a Pentagon audit that found that KBR apparently overbilled the government $61 million for fuel in Iraq.
The audit was quelled, however, when the Corps granted KBR a waiver from explaining the apparent discrepancy. The agency said KBR's pricing had been dictated by an Iraqi subcontractor.
I've never heard about this and even I can tell their explanation is shyte.
Wow, that is really ugly, Aridog. I see why you don't think it will change soon. And I suppose this is the same in most high-level government departments, not just the CoE.
It's interesting that Gen. Ballard was unaware of the abuse she was taking, unaware of the rot in the CoE. But I do believe that since her evaluations started going downhill just after his retirement.
I couldn't find much on her since 2005, I guess she's still at her demoted job...
BTW, her family is a sterling example of what good values and hard work can accomplish. Makes me wonder what kids from a similar family background would accomplish today, in this current crap culture of ours, as opposed to doing it in the 60s.
No wonder the left is so worked up about Halliburton. $61,000,000.00 overbilled and that's just ONE contract? Jeez.
Florie ... another example, in the Iraq theater, was/is (I presume), office supplies ... generic plain old office supplies, like a small paper cross-cut shredder for example.
My old Division counter part needed a shredder while stationed in Iraq. What to do? Experienced military people know that anything like that (and most anything else, really) can be acquired through Department of Defense channels via the Defense Logistics Agency offices under various existing DLA contracts. It is a global networked system, usable from anywhere on the planet that you have either telephone or computer connections.
There is a regularly updated DLA manual for use that specifies what can be ordered and how. Even if an item was critical, like a refrigerator for a medical unit to store blood and plasma, it can be "blue streaked" through the system and usually arrive within 24 hours.
So, the guy orders his shredder from DLA and has it shipped to him in Baghdad. Uh-Oh, he was castigated for such effrontery ...e.g., he did not use the anointed in-theater supplier, who was in Kuwait and had a "special" contract with Department of the Army.
How dare an logistician, with experience going back to his days as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam, do such a thing?!! Why would he order from DLA at $178.00 each when he could have ordered the exact same shredder from the Kuwaiti supplier for around $1200.00 each. The very audacity of depriving the Kuwaiti dudes of $1,022.00 profit to spread around, eh?!
It boils down to egregious diplomacy and bribery through military channels ... e.g., shovel money to the locals. Hell, use a pay-loader to push the money on them.
I can assure you that there are many reasons for staying in various wars, and being wanted to stay by some locals, well above and beyond those debated on television or in newsprint.
Follow the money.
Psst: now I need to STFU before I get some gray worsted suits at my door x(
I should add ... the left is only worked up about Haliburton because Haliburton is not THEIR favorite ... .e.g, they have their own favorites. Otherwise, left or right, they do business the same way.
How dare an logistician, with experience going back to his days as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam, do such a thing?!! Why would he order from DLA at $178.00 each when he could have ordered the exact same shredder from the Kuwaiti supplier for around $1200.00 each. The very audacity of depriving the Kuwaiti dudes of $1,022.00 profit to spread around, eh?!
It's beyond discouraging. I feel so angry. I see a glimmer of hope in that enough people right now want to elect those that will slash the budgets of the DoD, entitlement programs, Dept of Edu, EPA, etc - and I mean SLASH - as in forcing them to stop the waste and kickbacks. I think that's the ONLY chance to begin getting expenditures under control. Begin.
And I'm fine with slashing MY medicare/ soc. sec., etc' for which I will be elegible for in just a few years.
Re - the left and Halliburton: Yes, the left are the biggest hypocrites, they don't give a shit about the troops now, they were screaming about them when it was Bush in office. The right is just about as bad, that's why we need more Allen Wests, Paul Ryans, Rubios, etc.
Ari - I have no reason to doubt your narrative - but just to play devil's advocate...
...isn't it conceivable that from time to time it would be of strategic interest to effectively pay off some "friendlies" (and I use that word with a full sense of the ironic potential) with sweetheart contracts like the Kuwaiti dudes?
Who knows - maybe the $1K shredders are a bargain when the consideration paid by said "friendlies" is rolled in. We don't always know what that consideration is.
The conundrum is that the implementation higher level strategy is indistinguishable from corruption and stupidity at the lower levels - and so any system which permits the higher levels substantial degrees of freedom to set policy and act strategically also allows them to act corruptly. Conversely, when everything is always transparent and by the book, the ability of the higher level management (either corporate or political) to react with agility is impaired.
When I was at [big giant chipmaker], I blew the whistle in the opposite direction.
I'd recently left a product division for a corporate architecture lab. My old division planned to introduce a perfectly reasonable product - a profitable one for the division - but I felt it would harm the overall corporate strategy. I documented my concerns and elevated them. My own (lab) management backed me up. It escalated all the way to the CEO.
The CEO stepped in and instructed my old division to cancel the project, and produce a different product which was not as profitable. This violated a number of principles of autonomy; my old division was effectively punished for following their own business sense.
I though I was right at the time. I still think I was right. But I cost a lot of people (General Manager level people) a lot of grief, and needless to say, I never went back to that division - I'd planned only on a short stint in the architecture lab side of things; it became a permanent move.
Also, sometimes a company will pay more for another company than the public market would pay - because that company values the technology the acquisition can bring. In fact there are startups which are simply not viable business in their own right - they'll never break even, and so are worth nothing - (NPV of future earnings == 0) - but certain other companies will pay $40M to get hold of the technology, people, etc.
Price is what you pay. Value is what you get. Life is complicated.
Lewy ... I've heard that devil's advocate argument many times. Fundamentally, it is nonsense. In war you take ground and hold it, denying an enemy their resources, or suffer unnecessary attrition. Nothing some supply peddler in Kuwait helps this effort. Make you armies in to part time diplomats and panderers and you soon have corruption. Think Karzai administration in Afghaniland.
Shoveling money to locals can be done through infrastructure development, the principle purpose of my most recent particular DoD organization. There is no need to play politics with the cost of the military presence otherwise, let alone let their lives be held hostage Pollyanna policy and local corruption ... it is pure BS.
Our military has devolved in to almost a subordinate position relative to NGO's and local contractors. The dependence upon NGO's in particular is downright frightening. Other than MRE's, food is the province of NGO's ... as is base shelter.
This severely cripples our ability to respond rapidly with any semblance of self-sufficiency. When Turkey refused to allow the 4th ID to deploy from their soil at the start of Enduring Freedom, the 173rd Airborne out of Italy had to jump in, literally to take the northern ground away from Saddam. They were on their own, as mobile light infantry, until the 3rd ID hooked up with them from the south. Only then did the NGO's arrive and set up shop, slowly ... e.g., after the shit had already gone through the fan blades.
Modern warfare in the "total" sense was begun by MG Wm T. Sherman in Georgia. You did not see him buying off Confederates on his route to Savannah. You take them under boot, not under wing. Their reliability is only as good as the last dollar you pay them ... they're on "your side" only so long as they believe more is to come. If they defect, they do so with way too much knowledge of your resources.
This is just my opinion, but I will always be suspect of Foggy Bottom policy and politics in warfare.
Lewy ... I need to add to clarify that when you try to run a war by business processes you lose an advantage. It is NOT the same as large corporate structure or operation, nor is military strategy moribund with tactics that never change. The whole of military tactical thinking is fast moving fluid flexible tactical operations.
Unfortunately, Secretary of Defense McNamara began the business operating model with his delusions in Vietnam ... which he argued were based upon his "whiz kid" business approach to organization of logistics in WWII. He was missing his own point ... in WWII he reported to the highest military command, where in Vietnam he was the second highest in that command chain.
The conundrum of "If a fair bit added to something is good, a whole lot is better" doesn't usually play out due to turning a blind eye toward half the problems at hand.
Today piss ants don't seem to fear us....not because we can't crush them, but because we won't, we don't, and we'll begin dickering very soon after the first shot is fired, sometimes even before it. We can be played is the summary.
Ari, again, to be clear: I don't doubt your take on the Kuwaiti situation in particular; you have more first hand information than I do.
And my point is that the tradeoff between command flexibility to implement policy and the ability of folks at the ground level to blow the whistle on corruption is just that - a tradeoff. I'm not saying there's a clear answer.
But the gist of your argument, as I understand it, is that our current policies are wrong. OK, but that supports my argument! If people on the ground can second guess policy and effectively veto it, then command doesn't have freedom to choose and implement policy!
And if you claim (as you might, credibly) But I'm right!, that doesn't matter in the general case. There are plenty of situations, e.g., where there is considerable variability in opinion by the people carrying out ops on the ground - situations where reasonable people might disagree. If everyone has a veto, nobody has control.
In particular, there are situations - IMHO - where the total war / total victory paradigm simply doesn't apply. These situations have been part of US military doctrine for some time.
Executing "small war" operations is costly in that each act is, in isolation, arguably questionable and compromised. It's only the totality of the strategy that makes any sense, if that. You may argue that it's never correct - I don't wish to dispute the issue, only to observe that reasonable and credible people differ in their opinion.
Small war / COIN strategy was, for better or worse, the operating principle in the Iraqi occupation. I think the fairest assessment of that conflict is that it was modestly successful at excessive cost. In Afghanistan, I'm prepared (against my instincts and intuition) to listen to the likes of Petraeus when he argues that success might yet be won there - again, even if he's right, it was at excessive cost.
Obama, however, seems resolved to make that argument academic, and we can expect helicopters to be evacuating our embassy in Kabul in early 2013.
Heh heh. My instinctive flippant response might be that you are arguing that in Realpolitik a dose of greed, corruption and graft is a necessary evil in small war execution. [This knee jerk tendency made me "popular" in staff meetings, as you might imagine :D]
However, this morning I'm more inclined to engage the subject seriously as I don't think you're that cynical. I acknowledge the strong points of your "devils advocate" position. It IS necessary to engage local nationals in commercial service and materials provision when possible (and practical, not just in pure bribery), given our proclivity to fight wars and national building simultaneously. The five year scope of the anecdotal fuel contract implies that obviously...e.g., front the git-go we planned to be there a long time.
That is no excuse for being lazy in acquisition procedures. My view is that it did so at the expense of any real competition, here or abroad, and created vested interests at home and abroad who seek to continue said "war" as "good for business" (theirs). I'm not sure that's what we ought to be doing in the nation building process. No argument that in the middle east "fuel" is a local commodity.
My concern is the over use of NGO's and home or foreign contractors over excessive periods of time. As I have said earlier, it is now institutionalized procedure...e.g., conventional wisdom and all that.
To clarify where my midset comes from vis a vis governmental and military acquisition practices, see Part 8 48 CFR and Subpart 208 DFARS ... now there's some reading that is better than "Ambien", trust me. However, it does show that "commerical" sources are at least 8 levels down the list of required sources.
Now right there I'd raise the question of why the Corps of Engineers was tasked with fuel contracting instead of DESC (Defense Energy Support Command) whose main business is acquisition of fuels, globally, frequently through foreign contractors. Redundancy of sourcing an issue?
DESC is the required military source of fuel supply for quantities over 84,000 gallons per year per delivery location for general and marine motor fuels and power 10,000 gallons per year per delivery location for installation fuels (aka "Posts, Camps and Stations" fuels for heating & power generation and the like).
In other words, sticking just to the Haliburton and myriad sub-contractors to same, anecdotal issue, why was DESC by-passed in favor of a favored political connected NGO?
To be continued .... when all y'all wake back up =))
I could go on with anecdotal stuff, but I'm inclined to protect my own backside a bit. I, too, was quite good at "bending rules" (tried hard not to overtly or covertly not break laws .. there is a difference) ...in to figure 8 pretzel shapes at times.
In each case I had J&A's (Justifications & Analysis) prepared to submit if confronted...and sometimes submitted them as de rigueur with a purchase request. None the less, if I detailed much of my own contrivances I'd be exposing my self to bad stuff ...e.g., fiduciary responsibility does NOT end with retirement or departure in general.
My last act of defiance was 6 months after I retired when I "won" a debate on who had to pay a small amount ($10,000 ... not so small to me) of fuel purchases. I had bent the rules of my stovepipe, but had not broken the law (or Part 48 CFR or Part 208 DFARS) .... the big wheels did break the law by literally erasing the commitments and obligations I'd set in place ... which created the personal debt issue (fiduciary responsibility). They were lazy and my attorneys were able to illuminate that for them. The mouse won.
The mouse also prefers not to revisit any similar issues that might get drummed up by some jerk using Google to read my words now.
Suffice it to say that I am NOT fond of the de rigueur blanket use of NGO's in the military arena. I see it as a weakness, a lazy one at that. We can one day arrive at a point where whole divisions could not move without their NGO's....if we're not already there.
Just to illustrate my disdain for "Washington think" ...although OT to this thread, see Timmy-the-Get's latest lunacy on tax increases.
Agggghhhh. =)) If you can make sense of that, other than pure demagoguery, there is help out there somewhere x(
:-L Er ... one more thing. Some 40 odd years ago while stationed in Korea I did have some responsibility (inspection) for local national contracting for services and some materials used in Ordnance.
In those cases, we did engage local contractors ... however in every case I was familiar with we did so on the basis of cost saving/cost reduction ...e.g., the local prices were cheaper (by far in many cases ...the standard KN industrial labor rate at the time was $0.42 per hour). My role was to assure we got what we specified and paid for, whatever the price.
That's kind of where my irritation at the $1200 shredder comes from ... more costly, not less, so we've apparently gone off the cliff on this.
...you are arguing that in Realpolitik a dose of greed, corruption and graft is a necessary evil in small war execution.
Jeez Ari, you say it like it's a bad thing... :D
One question - your use of the term 'NGO' - this term I've most often heard referred to in the context of non-profit humanitarian groups, but in the context of your comment you seem to be referring to (for profit) corporations - am I missing something?
Finally, I'll cop to some amount of cynicism by putting a conjecture out there, followed by an observation...
'Integrity' is a luxury of the strong... ...and on several fronts, the United States is becoming weaker.
The (Western) Roman Empire added at least a century if not two to its existence by its realpolitik cultivation of the Foederati.
The Romans leveraged an ever diminishing store of core power projection with an ever more tenuous alliance system - it worked (for as long as it did) because the Foederati had an interest in preserving the status quo of the Imperial hegemon.
Rome had a long and proud history of imperial civil service - by the end it was nearly a millenium-long lineage. And by the end it's precepts were honored more often in the breach than in the observance.
Yeah, Lewy, I am expanding the conventional concept of "NGO" to fit the reality ...e.g., for profit corporate entities that act on behalf of the government. All too much these days IMO.
The concept of what is "non-governmental" has gone too far, under OMB Circular A-76 and in general practice. We're one step, a short one, from hiring outright mercenaries ... and in some instances some would say we already are doing so.
Hello Foederati.
I have "talked to much" (for my own good) on the subject, and was in danger of going in to details, by way of example, on what I was doing circa 1969-1971, not to mention since then. Not a bright idea.
I do not have the level of expertise of a John Paul Vann or Daniel Ellsberg, nor did I risk as much ...e.g, for example, Ellsberg, like him or not, had the boots on the ground experience that far exceeded anything I experienced...and he had much higher rank...he knew much more. Nothing revealed back then or recently vis a vis the Pentagon Papers surprises me. Suffice it to say, that I'm a hypocrite at times when I talk about not bending rules to get things done with local national people and forces. But directly, military to military or with local national civilians. No private, unsworn, no oath taken, intermediaries, non-profit or for-profit.
Even then, however, the "NGO" who came in with grand plans were anathema to me. Self interest ahead of national interest. My bias and I admit it. I saw them as folks at cross purposes to me and the national interest (my conceit) ... e.g., not politically accountable in most senses. I still do.
I could even stomach State Department minions who were on the same page, probably because I was a renegade, or lunatic, take your pick ... e.g., I was quite capable of being one who would do the officially unacceptable and risk the fall ...makes you friends at times because it takes the heat off those who have the same interests, but more to lose. Just don't expect them to be there in backup if the fugits hit the fan blades. You make your bed, eyes open, so STFU.
And now, on this topic, I think I have worn it out, so I'll take my own advice.
Good King Barack is toast. The only way he gets another 4 years to finish messing up the country is if the Republican party nominates the most unelectable of the pack of candidates like they did last time.
ReplyDeleteWarning: Florie and Lyana should sit down before reading :D
ReplyDeleteI'm not surprised that Palin's gaining on the Jug Eared Messiah, hell, she's even swung my opinion in her favor ... even with the conservation policies she espouses that I despise.
Just please, whatever happens, do NOT make her Secretary of the Interior.
[Norton, Kempthorne, and Salazar have done enough damage for the century. Wildlife are NOT husbandry animals to be selectively shepherded solely for human consumption to the near exclusion of apex predators]
If she can resist any more cliche' tossing, making stuff up, poor choices to sponsor, and Alaska Hillbilly vernacular she will be a force to be reckoned with now and thru 2012. The last few times I've seen her interviewed, I liked her. [Lyana and Florie may faint again now.]
It will be interesting to see how this evolves between now and Nov 2012 ... It certainly cannot be any worse than the present condition. Keep the message on the economy ... and, secondarily, the cost & purpose of warfare ... we are wading in deep doo doo now, in control of nothing but official posing.
And we are broke, virtually now, absolutely soon. Not because of everything we've misspent previously, which didn't help, as much as what we're misspending now and the future. Somebody just has to get a grip. Soon.
I doubt she will run for President, but she will be a major influence in anyone's campaign ... keep them on track, if and as necessary.
Okay, I'll admit it .... I get a huge kick of how Palin's yanked the media and progressive cords lately. Huge I tell you. Huge.
ReplyDeleteI also get a big kick out of Ryan's budget and it's detractors. Truth is the Ryan plan is the ONLY Congressional budget proposed in nearly 2 years. TWO YEARS! Piss poor performance for the governmental body that holds the purse strings.
ReplyDeleteOh, and a zing back at Lewy's assertion that Boeing is not fully a private enterprise. x( :D
ReplyDeleteBig whup ... neither is Lockheed-Martin, Electric Boat, and any number of other defense contractors that also build commercial gear.
Re: Boeing ... South Carolina lost the Charleston Naval Base due to BRAC under Clinton and Bush. Major loss of jobs. [ I participated in the distribution of some of their equipment ... e.g., I got it for the Army for free. ] Where was the Executive Branch/NLRB screaming then? Okay, so Boeing is a make up for that, if you will. Mainly, two things make no sense:
1. Boeing's plant in SC is to build a commercial airliner, not military hardware.
2. Washington state did not lose a single job in the SC development, in fact upwards of 2000 were added in Washington in addition to the 1000 in SC. There are NO damages in a criminal or tort sense.
Because a couple Boeing exec's made comments about the labor environment comparison between Washington and South Carolina is NOT a crime, nor a tort given the added jobs in Washington.
Unless, we've given up the idea of free speech.
I doubt she will run for President, but she will be a major influence in anyone's campaign ... keep them on track, if and as necessary.
ReplyDeleteI think you're absolutely right and she will be a huge asset to the Republican nominee. I'm also on board with you as to govt. so-called "conservation" policies.
Yes, the republicans would do well to keep it on the economy. Nothing drives it home like less change in your pocket.
This latest ATF scandal is another dagger in the heart of Obama's Justice dept. if the effed up media decides to run with it. I'm not holding my breath.
Re: ATF Scandal
ReplyDeleteLast night on cable news a senior AFT agent essentially said the same thing I have been saying about who "runs" his agency ... a bunch of know nothings who have executive positions but who never were field agents or even qualified to wear an ATF badge.
Otherwise they would never have approved the guns tracking program. Further he said it is impossible for it to have gone forward without approval on high. He said not seasoned ATF agent would have dreamed up such a screw up.
This "process" posture over "product" results is endemic in government IMO. Any new administration must clean house and promote from within the agencies to fill positions that are needed (and cut the executive slots that are spurious)...no more "philosophical" appointments ... and the executives involved are usually SES ranks (appointed) not civil service grades ... e.g., no real requirement for real experience.
I presume he's soon to be toast for his remarks.
Your input just confirms what I strongly suspected, Aridog.
ReplyDeleteDo you think there's a chancd of future admins cleaning house and putting experienced people in place?
Ari, your right about Lockheed et al - to which you can add GE, all the TBTF banks... I wouldn't be that terribly bent out of shape if the government expropriated some of their earnings (like I said, the stockholders are stooges) because these entities had some substantial chunk of those earnings derived from government actions. My beef is that the nation doesn't benefit, Obama's constituency benefits.
ReplyDeleteYou're completely right about Boeing vs NLRB - even the Washington Post agrees with you!
From the Post:
It [the NLRB] also substitutes the government’s judgment for that of the company. This is neither good law nor good business.
Now the Post recognizes this principle? Now?
When does the WaPo come clean and tell it's readers um, y'know, come to think of it, every f**king this this administration has done falls in the category of "substituting the governments judgment for the company's"... which we, the Washington Post, were totally OK with. Oh noes!
floranista said...
ReplyDeleteDo you think there's a chance of future admins cleaning house and putting experienced people in place?
In my lifetime or that of my kid ...NO.
Nothing is more difficult to uproot than institutionalized bureaucracy where political benefit supersedes all other considerations ... such as experience and skills in the endeavors managed by senior executives.
Even strong willed libertarians, if elected, get to Washington and become swept up in the illogic to a significant degree. The argument is that you must go along, a bit, to get along and later accomplish something you want.
Right ... the elected leaders are gone in 4 to 8 years on average, along with their cabinets ... but the entrenched professional executives remain until retirement or death.
Nothing can get you fired, or at a minimum purged to "governmental Siberia," than resisting the flow or even just objecting to actions that contravene law.
I retired with a buyout in September 2005, and for good reasons, even altruistic ones, but I'd had a target on my back since February 2004 within the Division level executive service. I'd formally stopped something they wanted, to expand their personal domain, because it was against the law and I was unable, at that time, to conceal who did it to them.
It is a pernicious system that eats its young.
Lewy / Florie ... If you want to see how an honest senior executive can be exiled or fired, for objecting to absurd governmental contracting, Google up some data on Bunnatine Greehouse.
ReplyDeleteShe has had to roll racial discrimination in to her complaint because it is the most powerful accusation you can make in Washington. The real point is much simpler ... she formally objected to contracts she was ordered to sign that were egregious and uncalled for on any legal basis. (Five year "emergency" contracts, when one year covers the "emergency?" )
In my experience in federal acquisition, you might place an emergency order with a favored vendor for a relatively short term, say one year at most. You do it because there is a known track record and capability to deliver in said emergency. For longer terms you have time to send RFQ's out for competitive bids, and the time to evaluate them as to veracity and capability.
Long ago, during severe flooding along the Mississippi in Iowa, we needed huge amounts of sandbags immediately ... and we placed an emergency order with a guy in Georgia, instead of the guy in Iowa who had buildings full of sand bags for a cheaper price, because the guy in Georgia had the ability and means to deliver immediately ... the guy in Iowa just had bags in storage...no trucks and so he bid FOB Shipping Point.
Needless to say, we got worked over the coals for that order (the Iowa guy filed a protest), but the key point was not just availability, but capability to deliver immediately in an emergency. We prevailed. We prevailed partially because it was a short term emergency order that did not prevent to Iowa guy from bidding again, within the next year, on re-stocking sand bags where needed.
No harm, no foul.
I should add, in Bunny Greenhouse's case, as a senior SES executive, the nature of her position as the principle contracting officer required that she actually have the experience and skills acquired over her long career. Reason: she had to rule on contracting actions and could not do so without it.
ReplyDeleteBecause of that, she was vilified because she was less political and crony inclined than fiscal and contracting law inclined. Her travail is a classic case of "go along or else" in the SES environment. If you have the skills you are a danger to the politicians ensconced in the SES and Secretariats. No good deed goes unpunished.
My own "stovepipe" of yore, today is headed by a legion of people who have never, ever, done the work and they are distinctly inclined to berate anyone who knows anything real.
From the linked article:
ReplyDeleteGreenhouse herself made several allegations of wrongdoing, but one of the most sensational charges, initially seeming to back up her concerns, was a Pentagon audit that found that KBR apparently overbilled the government $61 million for fuel in Iraq.
The audit was quelled, however, when the Corps granted KBR a waiver from explaining the apparent discrepancy. The agency said KBR's pricing had been dictated by an Iraqi subcontractor.
I've never heard about this and even I can tell their explanation is shyte.
Wow, that is really ugly, Aridog. I see why you don't think it will change soon. And I suppose this is the same in most high-level government departments, not just the CoE.
It's interesting that Gen. Ballard was unaware of the abuse she was taking, unaware of the rot in the CoE. But I do believe that since her evaluations started going downhill just after his retirement.
I couldn't find much on her since 2005, I guess she's still at her demoted job...
BTW, her family is a sterling example of what good values and hard work can accomplish. Makes me wonder what kids from a similar family background would accomplish today, in this current crap culture of ours, as opposed to doing it in the 60s.
No wonder the left is so worked up about Halliburton. $61,000,000.00 overbilled and that's just ONE contract? Jeez.
Florie ... another example, in the Iraq theater, was/is (I presume), office supplies ... generic plain old office supplies, like a small paper cross-cut shredder for example.
ReplyDeleteMy old Division counter part needed a shredder while stationed in Iraq. What to do? Experienced military people know that anything like that (and most anything else, really) can be acquired through Department of Defense channels via the Defense Logistics Agency offices under various existing DLA contracts. It is a global networked system, usable from anywhere on the planet that you have either telephone or computer connections.
There is a regularly updated DLA manual for use that specifies what can be ordered and how. Even if an item was critical, like a refrigerator for a medical unit to store blood and plasma, it can be "blue streaked" through the system and usually arrive within 24 hours.
So, the guy orders his shredder from DLA and has it shipped to him in Baghdad. Uh-Oh, he was castigated for such effrontery ...e.g., he did not use the anointed in-theater supplier, who was in Kuwait and had a "special" contract with Department of the Army.
How dare an logistician, with experience going back to his days as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam, do such a thing?!! Why would he order from DLA at $178.00 each when he could have ordered the exact same shredder from the Kuwaiti supplier for around $1200.00 each. The very audacity of depriving the Kuwaiti dudes of $1,022.00 profit to spread around, eh?!
It boils down to egregious diplomacy and bribery through military channels ... e.g., shovel money to the locals. Hell, use a pay-loader to push the money on them.
I can assure you that there are many reasons for staying in various wars, and being wanted to stay by some locals, well above and beyond those debated on television or in newsprint.
Follow the money.
Psst: now I need to STFU before I get some gray worsted suits at my door x(
I should add ... the left is only worked up about Haliburton because Haliburton is not THEIR favorite ... .e.g, they have their own favorites. Otherwise, left or right, they do business the same way.
ReplyDeleteHow dare an logistician, with experience going back to his days as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam, do such a thing?!! Why would he order from DLA at $178.00 each when he could have ordered the exact same shredder from the Kuwaiti supplier for around $1200.00 each. The very audacity of depriving the Kuwaiti dudes of $1,022.00 profit to spread around, eh?!
ReplyDeleteIt's beyond discouraging. I feel so angry. I see a glimmer of hope in that enough people right now want to elect those that will slash the budgets of the DoD, entitlement programs, Dept of Edu, EPA, etc - and I mean SLASH - as in forcing them to stop the waste and kickbacks. I think that's the ONLY chance to begin getting expenditures under control. Begin.
And I'm fine with slashing MY medicare/ soc. sec., etc' for which I will be elegible for in just a few years.
Re - the left and Halliburton: Yes, the left are the biggest hypocrites, they don't give a shit about the troops now, they were screaming about them when it was Bush in office. The right is just about as bad, that's why we need more Allen Wests, Paul Ryans, Rubios, etc.
Ari - I have no reason to doubt your narrative - but just to play devil's advocate...
ReplyDelete...isn't it conceivable that from time to time it would be of strategic interest to effectively pay off some "friendlies" (and I use that word with a full sense of the ironic potential) with sweetheart contracts like the Kuwaiti dudes?
Who knows - maybe the $1K shredders are a bargain when the consideration paid by said "friendlies" is rolled in. We don't always know what that consideration is.
The conundrum is that the implementation higher level strategy is indistinguishable from corruption and stupidity at the lower levels - and so any system which permits the higher levels substantial degrees of freedom to set policy and act strategically also allows them to act corruptly. Conversely, when everything is always transparent and by the book, the ability of the higher level management (either corporate or political) to react with agility is impaired.
When I was at [big giant chipmaker], I blew the whistle in the opposite direction.
I'd recently left a product division for a corporate architecture lab. My old division planned to introduce a perfectly reasonable product - a profitable one for the division - but I felt it would harm the overall corporate strategy. I documented my concerns and elevated them. My own (lab) management backed me up. It escalated all the way to the CEO.
The CEO stepped in and instructed my old division to cancel the project, and produce a different product which was not as profitable. This violated a number of principles of autonomy; my old division was effectively punished for following their own business sense.
I though I was right at the time. I still think I was right. But I cost a lot of people (General Manager level people) a lot of grief, and needless to say, I never went back to that division - I'd planned only on a short stint in the architecture lab side of things; it became a permanent move.
Also, sometimes a company will pay more for another company than the public market would pay - because that company values the technology the acquisition can bring. In fact there are startups which are simply not viable business in their own right - they'll never break even, and so are worth nothing - (NPV of future earnings == 0) - but certain other companies will pay $40M to get hold of the technology, people, etc.
Price is what you pay. Value is what you get. Life is complicated.
Lewy ... I've heard that devil's advocate argument many times. Fundamentally, it is nonsense. In war you take ground and hold it, denying an enemy their resources, or suffer unnecessary attrition. Nothing some supply peddler in Kuwait helps this effort. Make you armies in to part time diplomats and panderers and you soon have corruption. Think Karzai administration in Afghaniland.
ReplyDeleteShoveling money to locals can be done through infrastructure development, the principle purpose of my most recent particular DoD organization. There is no need to play politics with the cost of the military presence otherwise, let alone let their lives be held hostage Pollyanna policy and local corruption ... it is pure BS.
Our military has devolved in to almost a subordinate position relative to NGO's and local contractors. The dependence upon NGO's in particular is downright frightening. Other than MRE's, food is the province of NGO's ... as is base shelter.
This severely cripples our ability to respond rapidly with any semblance of self-sufficiency. When Turkey refused to allow the 4th ID to deploy from their soil at the start of Enduring Freedom, the 173rd Airborne out of Italy had to jump in, literally to take the northern ground away from Saddam. They were on their own, as mobile light infantry, until the 3rd ID hooked up with them from the south. Only then did the NGO's arrive and set up shop, slowly ... e.g., after the shit had already gone through the fan blades.
Modern warfare in the "total" sense was begun by MG Wm T. Sherman in Georgia. You did not see him buying off Confederates on his route to Savannah. You take them under boot, not under wing. Their reliability is only as good as the last dollar you pay them ... they're on "your side" only so long as they believe more is to come. If they defect, they do so with way too much knowledge of your resources.
This is just my opinion, but I will always be suspect of Foggy Bottom policy and politics in warfare.
Lewy ... I need to add to clarify that when you try to run a war by business processes you lose an advantage. It is NOT the same as large corporate structure or operation, nor is military strategy moribund with tactics that never change. The whole of military tactical thinking is fast moving fluid flexible tactical operations.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, Secretary of Defense McNamara began the business operating model with his delusions in Vietnam ... which he argued were based upon his "whiz kid" business approach to organization of logistics in WWII. He was missing his own point ... in WWII he reported to the highest military command, where in Vietnam he was the second highest in that command chain.
The conundrum of "If a fair bit added to something is good, a whole lot is better" doesn't usually play out due to turning a blind eye toward half the problems at hand.
Today piss ants don't seem to fear us....not because we can't crush them, but because we won't, we don't, and we'll begin dickering very soon after the first shot is fired, sometimes even before it. We can be played is the summary.
Ari, again, to be clear: I don't doubt your take on the Kuwaiti situation in particular; you have more first hand information than I do.
ReplyDeleteAnd my point is that the tradeoff between command flexibility to implement policy and the ability of folks at the ground level to blow the whistle on corruption is just that - a tradeoff. I'm not saying there's a clear answer.
But the gist of your argument, as I understand it, is that our current policies are wrong. OK, but that supports my argument! If people on the ground can second guess policy and effectively veto it, then command doesn't have freedom to choose and implement policy!
And if you claim (as you might, credibly) But I'm right!, that doesn't matter in the general case. There are plenty of situations, e.g., where there is considerable variability in opinion by the people carrying out ops on the ground - situations where reasonable people might disagree. If everyone has a veto, nobody has control.
In particular, there are situations - IMHO - where the total war / total victory paradigm simply doesn't apply. These situations have been part of US military doctrine for some time.
Executing "small war" operations is costly in that each act is, in isolation, arguably questionable and compromised. It's only the totality of the strategy that makes any sense, if that. You may argue that it's never correct - I don't wish to dispute the issue, only to observe that reasonable and credible people differ in their opinion.
Small war / COIN strategy was, for better or worse, the operating principle in the Iraqi occupation. I think the fairest assessment of that conflict is that it was modestly successful at excessive cost. In Afghanistan, I'm prepared (against my instincts and intuition) to listen to the likes of Petraeus when he argues that success might yet be won there - again, even if he's right, it was at excessive cost.
Obama, however, seems resolved to make that argument academic, and we can expect helicopters to be evacuating our embassy in Kabul in early 2013.
Lewy.... (and everyone interested)
ReplyDeleteHeh heh. My instinctive flippant response might be that you are arguing that in Realpolitik a dose of greed, corruption and graft is a necessary evil in small war execution. [This knee jerk tendency made me "popular" in staff meetings, as you might imagine :D]
However, this morning I'm more inclined to engage the subject seriously as I don't think you're that cynical. I acknowledge the strong points of your "devils advocate" position. It IS necessary to engage local nationals in commercial service and materials provision when possible (and practical, not just in pure bribery), given our proclivity to fight wars and national building simultaneously. The five year scope of the anecdotal fuel contract implies that obviously...e.g., front the git-go we planned to be there a long time.
That is no excuse for being lazy in acquisition procedures. My view is that it did so at the expense of any real competition, here or abroad, and created vested interests at home and abroad who seek to continue said "war" as "good for business" (theirs). I'm not sure that's what we ought to be doing in the nation building process. No argument that in the middle east "fuel" is a local commodity.
My concern is the over use of NGO's and home or foreign contractors over excessive periods of time. As I have said earlier, it is now institutionalized procedure...e.g., conventional wisdom and all that.
To clarify where my midset comes from vis a vis governmental and military acquisition practices, see Part 8 48 CFR and Subpart 208 DFARS ... now there's some reading that is better than "Ambien", trust me. However, it does show that "commerical" sources are at least 8 levels down the list of required sources.
Now right there I'd raise the question of why the Corps of Engineers was tasked with fuel contracting instead of DESC (Defense Energy Support Command) whose main business is acquisition of fuels, globally, frequently through foreign contractors. Redundancy of sourcing an issue?
DESC is the required military source of fuel supply for quantities over 84,000 gallons per year per delivery location for general and marine motor fuels and power 10,000 gallons per year per delivery location for installation fuels (aka "Posts, Camps and Stations" fuels for heating & power generation and the like).
In other words, sticking just to the Haliburton and myriad sub-contractors to same, anecdotal issue, why was DESC by-passed in favor of a favored political connected NGO?
To be continued .... when all y'all wake back up =))
Continuation ... that isn't :D
ReplyDeleteI could go on with anecdotal stuff, but I'm inclined to protect my own backside a bit. I, too, was quite good at "bending rules" (tried hard not to overtly or covertly not break laws .. there is a difference) ...in to figure 8 pretzel shapes at times.
In each case I had J&A's (Justifications & Analysis) prepared to submit if confronted...and sometimes submitted them as de rigueur with a purchase request. None the less, if I detailed much of my own contrivances I'd be exposing my self to bad stuff ...e.g., fiduciary responsibility does NOT end with retirement or departure in general.
My last act of defiance was 6 months after I retired when I "won" a debate on who had to pay a small amount ($10,000 ... not so small to me) of fuel purchases. I had bent the rules of my stovepipe, but had not broken the law (or Part 48 CFR or Part 208 DFARS) .... the big wheels did break the law by literally erasing the commitments and obligations I'd set in place ... which created the personal debt issue (fiduciary responsibility). They were lazy and my attorneys were able to illuminate that for them. The mouse won.
The mouse also prefers not to revisit any similar issues that might get drummed up by some jerk using Google to read my words now.
Suffice it to say that I am NOT fond of the de rigueur blanket use of NGO's in the military arena. I see it as a weakness, a lazy one at that. We can one day arrive at a point where whole divisions could not move without their NGO's....if we're not already there.
Just to illustrate my disdain for "Washington think" ...although OT to this thread, see Timmy-the-Get's latest lunacy on tax increases.
Agggghhhh. =)) If you can make sense of that, other than pure demagoguery, there is help out there somewhere x(
:-L Er ... one more thing. Some 40 odd years ago while stationed in Korea I did have some responsibility (inspection) for local national contracting for services and some materials used in Ordnance.
ReplyDeleteIn those cases, we did engage local contractors ... however in every case I was familiar with we did so on the basis of cost saving/cost reduction ...e.g., the local prices were cheaper (by far in many cases ...the standard KN industrial labor rate at the time was $0.42 per hour). My role was to assure we got what we specified and paid for, whatever the price.
That's kind of where my irritation at the $1200 shredder comes from ... more costly, not less, so we've apparently gone off the cliff on this.
...you are arguing that in Realpolitik a dose of greed, corruption and graft is a necessary evil in small war execution.
ReplyDeleteJeez Ari, you say it like it's a bad thing... :D
One question - your use of the term 'NGO' - this term I've most often heard referred to in the context of non-profit humanitarian groups, but in the context of your comment you seem to be referring to (for profit) corporations - am I missing something?
Finally, I'll cop to some amount of cynicism by putting a conjecture out there, followed by an observation...
'Integrity' is a luxury of the strong...
...and on several fronts, the United States is becoming weaker.
The (Western) Roman Empire added at least a century if not two to its existence by its realpolitik cultivation of the Foederati.
The Romans leveraged an ever diminishing store of core power projection with an ever more tenuous alliance system - it worked (for as long as it did) because the Foederati had an interest in preserving the status quo of the Imperial hegemon.
Rome had a long and proud history of imperial civil service - by the end it was nearly a millenium-long lineage. And by the end it's precepts were honored more often in the breach than in the observance.
Yeah, Lewy, I am expanding the conventional concept of "NGO" to fit the reality ...e.g., for profit corporate entities that act on behalf of the government. All too much these days IMO.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of what is "non-governmental" has gone too far, under OMB Circular A-76 and in general practice. We're one step, a short one, from hiring outright mercenaries ... and in some instances some would say we already are doing so.
Hello Foederati.
I have "talked to much" (for my own good) on the subject, and was in danger of going in to details, by way of example, on what I was doing circa 1969-1971, not to mention since then. Not a bright idea.
I do not have the level of expertise of a John Paul Vann or Daniel Ellsberg, nor did I risk as much ...e.g, for example, Ellsberg, like him or not, had the boots on the ground experience that far exceeded anything I experienced...and he had much higher rank...he knew much more. Nothing revealed back then or recently vis a vis the Pentagon Papers surprises me. Suffice it to say, that I'm a hypocrite at times when I talk about not bending rules to get things done with local national people and forces. But directly, military to military or with local national civilians. No private, unsworn, no oath taken, intermediaries, non-profit or for-profit.
Even then, however, the "NGO" who came in with grand plans were anathema to me. Self interest ahead of national interest. My bias and I admit it. I saw them as folks at cross purposes to me and the national interest (my conceit) ... e.g., not politically accountable in most senses. I still do.
I could even stomach State Department minions who were on the same page, probably because I was a renegade, or lunatic, take your pick ... e.g., I was quite capable of being one who would do the officially unacceptable and risk the fall ...makes you friends at times because it takes the heat off those who have the same interests, but more to lose. Just don't expect them to be there in backup if the fugits hit the fan blades. You make your bed, eyes open, so STFU.
And now, on this topic, I think I have worn it out, so I'll take my own advice.