Feral Jundi

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Industry Talk: Pentagon Planning More Oversight Of War Zone Contractors

Filed under: Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , , , , — Matt @ 4:15 AM

   Man, I am getting kind of sick of these stories.  How many panels, commissions,  reports and news articles does it take to get these folks off their ass and manage this stuff? How long have we been using contractors in this war, and the Pentagon/government is still trying to figure it out?

   Which leads me to believe that if they can’t even manage contractors, then what does that say about their ability to manage federal workers?  Wait, I already know the answer to that.  I spent plenty of years working for the federal government, and believe me, it does not surprise me that they would be so horrible at managing anything. lol

   Either way, I fully support as I always do, any effort what so ever to get a handle on the whole contracting thing.  Hire more contracting specialists, raise their pay, give them the necessary training, and get them out of the office and into the field to manage this stuff.  If anything, we are all sick of you guys talking about it.  Action speaks louder than words, and we will believe you when we see that action.  So get it done. Pfffft.-Matt

—————————————————————–

Pentagon planning more oversight of war-zone contractors

By Dana HedgpethTuesday, April 20, 2010

The Defense Department said Monday that it plans to improve oversight of contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq by hiring more contracting specialists and providing additional training to government employees who supervise work performed by outside firms.

Pentagon officials told a congressionally appointed panel monitoring federal spending on contracts in the two war zones that years of attrition in the department’s acquisition workforce have hampered oversight, particularly as defense budgets have skyrocketed. The Army’s contracting workforce, for example, is only 55 percent of what it was in the mid-1990s, while the dollar value of contracts overseen has jumped from $11 billion to $165 billion, officials said.

“The Army is reversing this 15-year steady decline in its workforce,” said Lt. Gen. William N. Phillips, principal military deputy to the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology. “We project recovery will take at least 10 years.”

(more…)

Monday, February 22, 2010

Legal News: U.S. Lawmakers Push To Phase Out Wartime Contractors–In The Middle Of A War?

Filed under: Legal News — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 2:42 PM

   Yikes. If these lawmakers were to observe the history of wars in America, they will find that when the war is over, that is when the demand for contractors diminishes and they are naturally phased out.  Until then, this idea of ‘phasing’ out wartime contractors in the middle of a war is just stupid thinking, and dangerous. There is absolutely no way in hell that today’s strategists and war planners will say that ‘removing all wartime contractors in the middle of a war’ is a good idea.  It would severely and negatively impact the war effort, and I want to know what these lawmakers are smoking?

   Another point I want to make is this. Will lawmakers implement a draft in order to increase the numbers of the government or military in order to fill in this gapping hole of manpower they will create?  Or when the war is over, do you guys plan on firing all of these military and federal employees?  Because you are certainly going to have a surplus of government workers and military veterans, all sucking on to the hind tit of the US government, for a long….long….time. Thats unless we plan on fighting a forever war. Remember, contractors were brought in because congress ‘did not’ want to fund a bigger government or bigger standing army during times of peace.   No one could have predicted 9/11 or the global war that came afterwards, and this war is a prime example of what could happen.

   After the first Gulf War, we had thousands of troops, and we performed many of these jobs on the battlefield, which was great.  I should know, I was a veteran of that war.  But guess what?  After that war, and after the end of the Cold War, we as a nation decided to make some cutbacks. Something about how taxpayers don’t like paying for massive standing armies or government institutions that support those standing armies during times of peace. I remember being in the military, and seeing all of these early outs and base closures during the nineties, and it sucked to see.  The message was clear, and that the American people did not want a standing army as large and as expensive as we had during the first Gulf War or during the Cold War, and they were cool with reducing it’s size and cost.

    And thanks to our experience in Vietnam, the draft has become political suicide for whatever President, or party that happens to own congress. No one wants to be the guy that voted for a draft, that forced people to go to war. So what does that leave us?  A smaller army, and smaller apparatus to support it, and a congress and President that does not have the political will to implement conscription for wars. If you want to know how contractors came on to the scene, that is exactly the reason. We are simply filling a demand, in which this nation was not prepared for, or even willing to pay for during times of peace.

   So my message to congress is to get off your ass, and focus on monitoring and managing these contracts.  I don’t know why this is so hard for them–you guys are the paying customer (with tax payer money)–act like it. Legislation like this highlights how absolutely worthless or lazy congress can be sometimes.  Instead of fixing obvious problems with sound legislation or the implementation of current laws, they default to ‘burning down the fort in the middle of the battle’.

    If I were to guess, our enemies are having a pretty good chuckle over this one, and it is embarrassing. We are in the middle of a war for Pete’s sake. –Matt

——————————————————————

US lawmakers push to phase out wartime contractors

February 22, 2010

WASHINGTON — Two lawmakers announced legislation Monday that would force the United States to phase out its controversial use of private security contractors in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Democratic Representative Jan Schakowsky and Independent Senator Bernie Sanders said they planned to introduce the “Stop Outsourcing Security Act” on Tuesday.

“The legislation would restore the responsibility of the American military to train troops and police, guard convoys, repair weapons, administer military prisons, and perform military intelligence,” their offices said.

“The bill also would require that all diplomatic security be undertaken by US government personnel,” they said…

Story here.

 

Friday, February 5, 2010

Legal News: New Legislation–The Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act

Filed under: Industry Talk,Legal News — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 6:10 PM

    Well, we will see how it goes.  I just hope that if this does pass through congress, that those who continue to use the argument that contractors are ‘above the law’ or immune, will finally shut up. We have the MEJA, UCMJ, SOFA’s and MOA’s of other countries and now they want to do CEJA? Phewww, and I am probably missing a few. Maybe the military, congress and countries should look at just enforcing what laws they already have on the books, as opposed to making up new ones all the time? But that would take leadership and effort.

    What I don’t want to see though, are laws that will endanger the lives of contractors or reduce their ability to properly defend  persons or property in this war. Or turn contractors into politically expedient targets of opportunity for unscrupulous politicians or agenda driven folks who could care less about the rights of individuals in my industry. Not to mention that our various enemies throughout this war, will use these laws to their advantage and create all and any situation that will force a violation of these laws.

     Overall, I support any laws that further legitimize this industry, but I am always wary of the final product and how that law is interpreted and used by all.  David Isenberg wrote a story about the CEJA as well, and you can check it out here. –Matt

——————————————————————-

PRICE, LEAHY INTRODUCE BILL TO HOLD AMERICAN CONTRACTORS OVERSEAS ACCOUNTABLE UNDER U.S. LAW

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Washington, D.C. –  Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Congressman David Price (D-N.C.) Tuesday introduced companion bills in the House and Senate to ensure accountability under U.S. law for American contractors and employees working abroad.  The Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (CEJA) will close a gap in current law to make certain that American government employees and contractors are not immune from prosecution for crimes committed overseas.

The legislation follows efforts in previous Congresses by Leahy, Price and others, including then-Senator Barack Obama, to provide for prosecution of violations of U.S. law by Americans working overseas for the U.S. government.  Recent examples, including the violent rape of Jamie Leigh Jones, a contractor with Halliburton, while stationed in Iraq, and the killing of unarmed civilians in Baghdad by private security contractors with Blackwater, have further highlighted the need for this legislation.  Jones testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in October.

(more…)

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Legal News: Congress Investigating Charges of ‘Protection Racket’ by Afghanistan PSC’s

Filed under: Afghanistan,Legal News — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 8:46 AM

   You know, I would first like to see the generals in charge of this war, step up and put a stop to this practice before Congress gets involved.  It is a war after all, and you guys can say ‘hey, this practice stops now, because it directly impacts the war effort and the safety of the troops’. Generals can dismiss folks and end contracts too, and it shouldn’t take a Congressional investigation for that kind of common sense to prevail.

    And I still think we could be using this to our advantage, and using the convoys as bait to draw in the enemy.  If they want to attack convoys, then there should be a counter attack element associated with every convoy, so this practice becomes very hazardous for the enemy. –Matt

——————————————————————

Congress investigating charges of ‘protection racket’ by Afghanistan contractors

By Walter PincusThursday, December 17, 2009

A House oversight subcommittee said Wednesday that it has begun a wide-ranging investigation into allegations that private security companies hired to protect Defense Department convoys in Afghanistan are paying off warlords and the Taliban to ensure safe passage.

“If shown to be true, it would mean that the United States is unintentionally engaged in a vast protection racket and, as such, may be indirectly funding the very insurgents we are trying to fight,” said Rep. John F. Tierney (D-Mass.), chairman of the House oversight subcommittee on national security and foreign affairs.

Two weeks ago, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton described the same situation before a Senate committee while discussing the truck convoys that bring supplies into landlocked Afghanistan. “You offload a ship in Karachi [Pakistan]. And by the time whatever it is — you know, muffins for our soldiers’ breakfast or anti-IED equipment — gets to where we’re headed, it goes through a lot of hands,” she said. “And one of the major sources of funding for the Taliban is the protection money.”

(more…)

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Military News: U.S. Troop Funds Diverted to Pet Projects

Filed under: Afghanistan,Iraq,Military News — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 2:01 PM

   Thanks to Doug for passing on this story.  If this doesn’t make your blood boil, I don’t know what would. –Matt

—————————————————————–

U.S. troop funds diverted to pet projects

October 15, 2009

Shaun Waterman THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, “in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year,” said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, called the transfer of funds from Pentagon operations and maintenance “a disgrace.”

“The Senate is putting favorable headlines back home above our men and women fighting on the front lines,” he said in a statement.

(more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress