Should Three Officers Who Failed To Halt The Construction OF A New Command Center In Afghanistan Now Be Held Accountable?

2015-05-23T00:03:14-04:00

The U.S. Government's Afghanistan spending watchdog is recommending disciplinary measures for two Army Generals and a Colonel, alleging that they were derelict in not stopping the construction of a $36 million command center at Camp Leatherneck; a facility that was ultimately never used and most likely never will be for it's intended purpose of coordinating and directing U.S. combat operations in southwestern Afghanistan. What say you? Should Senior Officers be held liable for wasteful government spending on projects they have direct oversight for? Why or why not?

SIGAR: 3 Army officers should be disciplined over $36M command center

The U.S. government’s Afghanistan spending watchdog has recommended that three senior Army officers — a lieutenant general, a major general and a colonel — be disciplined for their role in the construction of a $36 million Camp Leatherneck command center that has never been used.

Response by SSG James Doherty made May 23 at 2015 12:14 AM

2015-05-23T00:14:27-04:00

Do what your rank can handle. I don't think many ranks can handle fraud waste and abuse. I say they work off the debt inside the command center they built.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 23 at 2015 12:16 AM

2015-05-23T00:16:31-04:00

Having only two actual choices for this is wrong in my opinion. As military leaders we do not live in a world of absolutes. We live in the gray areas we are forced to make decisions with incomplete information.
Is this wrong, what we spent this money on? You're damn right. Should people be held accountable? Yes. Should we roast these three individuals over the coals for making the decisions that they did with incomplete information? No way.

Response by SGT David T. made May 23 at 2015 12:38 AM

2015-05-23T00:38:53-04:00

Construction contracts are rather complex things. Once the contract is awarded and the work commences it is difficult to stop it. The contracting officer must conduct a cost benefit analysis to determine the best COA if the requirement is no longer needed. If it is cheaper to terminate the contract then thats the option they go with, however in a multimillion dollar construction project the costs for teminating will most times exceed the cost of completion. This is because in addition to paying for all the work completed, we also have to pay for removal of the materials purchased by the contractor as well as any tertiary costs incurred by the contractor. In this scenario the contractor did what they were obligated to do so we cannot punish them in anyway. These knee jerk reactions I see online regarding this show how little the contracting process is understood and how little people read the federal acquisition (FAR).

Response by SGT Michael DeLaGarza made May 23 at 2015 12:41 AM

2015-05-23T00:41:29-04:00

With all the facts not present, Trying and Convicting them on a website is ludicrous. Once all the facts are presented in a court of law and those responsible are properly charged then yes if convictions are warranted then they should be fully prosecuted. But until then everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Response by SPC Angel Guma made May 23 at 2015 12:47 AM

2015-05-23T00:47:44-04:00

Sir-

Why stop with those 3? They weren't the people who managed the whole occupation. This is just pinning the tail on scapegoats. Prosecute them, prosecute all who made similar 'blunders'. If not, leave them alone.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made May 23 at 2015 12:58 AM

2015-05-23T00:58:55-04:00

We are supposed to be a good steward of the People's money. 36 million could have paid the salaries of lots and lots of War Fighters.

Response by COL Charles Williams made May 23 at 2015 1:03 AM

2015-05-23T01:03:14-04:00

That depends. This about the harder right over the easier wrong. Lying can be an act or an omission. I say yes, solely based on the information I have seen, which is what the media wants us to see.

While complex SGT David Thomas MAJ Private RallyPoint Member Leaders, especially senior officers, have a duty to provide due diligence, and to be good stewards of US tax dollars. If they in fact knew, we would never use it, and it would be a waste of US tax dollars, then they should have made that known. I don't buy keeping quieting was the best option.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made May 23 at 2015 1:26 AM

2015-05-23T01:26:31-04:00

If the funds were appropriated and had to be used, fine. But it should have been used for something more worthwhile. We should be better stewards our our tax dollars

Response by CPL Jay Freeman made May 23 at 2015 1:54 AM

2015-05-23T01:54:41-04:00

Question to ask
1 when where the plans made?
2 how long did it take to build at what phase of building was it?
3 what information did they have?
4 how many people / soldiers need to be told to stop before pvt Joe snuffy got the word to stop? We all know it has to go threw a lot of pepper work to start a project and unless you are general Patton there is no high ranking general who will leave his ac/ heated office to stop a project. Just saying.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made May 23 at 2015 1:56 AM

2015-05-23T01:56:40-04:00

Why should we hold generals responsible when we don't hold congress responsible?

Response by CW3 Stephen Mantie made May 23 at 2015 3:38 AM

2015-05-23T03:38:07-04:00

Where do we draw the line on wasting money in Afghanistan? The kind of Fraud Waste and Abuse I was exposed to by the Ministry Of Defense was likely way more then 36 million. The ANA have billions, yes billions of dollars worth of vehicles and equipment that they cannot maintain. They receive repair parts for no apparent reason. Once a vehicle is demolished they continue to leave it on their books so they can keep the fuel the authorization. The extra fuel that they have is soldi to the Taliban. They do not have the educational background to do so. These three officers are not the problem.I am sure their intentions were to build a building that can be used by both the coalition and Afghan forces.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made May 23 at 2015 5:04 AM

2015-05-23T05:04:22-04:00

Leaders are supposed to set the positive example, not be a negative one.

When junior enlisted screw up they get corrective punishment. Officers should be too. No excuses!

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made May 23 at 2015 6:24 AM

2015-05-23T06:24:44-04:00

Absolutely. The fraud waste and financial abuse in a combat zone can be (already is) limitless if there's no accountability.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 23 at 2015 7:56 AM

2015-05-23T07:56:58-04:00

there are many example of this type of problem. you have a contract to do something and it is done even if half way in you know you are going to be closing up shop before it is done. this is a great example of waste. and all of us should be held accountable for our choices. from PVT on up. Now I will say that this is not the only example there is a theater wide issue about making something as we are pulling out and then never using it.

Response by SSG Adam Wyatt made May 23 at 2015 8:01 AM

2015-05-23T08:01:38-04:00

$36 million is chump change compared to what DoS burns through (for nothing).

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 23 at 2015 8:11 AM

2015-05-23T08:11:27-04:00

This is nothing new or an incident that only occurred in Afghanistan. When I was in Germany back around 2000, the consolidation of US Bases was in full swing. We had a DFAC that we hadn't even broken ground on paid for when we learned our post was being closed. I was told the money had already been appropriated and the contracts signed so it had to be built. We ended up closing the post a few months after the DFAC was finished. Maybe it was just poor judgement on those officers behalf to request a facility of that magnitude in a CZ, but I don't think they should be punished.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 23 at 2015 8:53 AM

2015-05-23T08:53:32-04:00

This is realistic, not sarcastic: If they stopped the project, what would their OERs say?

I am surrounded by people all day everyday who live to be handed control of a project. It is the holy grail of the DA Civilian/DoD Contracting world. If you point out any flaws or concerns with their project, they will come after you hard core.

Money is life in America. If you threaten someone's livelihood by challenging the project that they think will earn them a promotion, raise, or next contract, you will find yourself on the outs. It is not as easy as just speaking up. There is really no reason to think that they didn't speak up or ask questions, but you know as well as I do, sometimes you get told to shut up and color. I think our leadership is more and more being comprised of people who are more willing to go with the flow than fight the system...but that's a different topic.

You cannot punish individuals for functioning within a desperately flawed system. That contract made civilians rich, not Soldiers. We shouldn't take the fall for it.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made May 23 at 2015 9:02 AM

2015-05-23T09:02:16-04:00

Not knowing all the facts I'll hold judgment on these officers. It is the Senior Officers duties and ours to check waste and abuse. Another case of purse strings wide open and no one watching the door. Once a 15-6 is conducted, then maybe things can be hashed out. I know all of us who've deployed have seen bottomless pits. All I can do now is just shake my head.

Response by MAJ Ron Peery made May 23 at 2015 9:02 AM

2015-05-23T09:02:29-04:00

I want more info. Who came up with this project in the first place? Who contracted it? When was the contract signed, and with what company(ies)? What was the completion date in the contract? Was the drawdown/pullout date for US troops in Afghanistan known at the time? Which politicians were involved in pushing this project? Why nail two generals and a colonel, when the project was probably pork for some congressman or senator?

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made May 23 at 2015 9:21 AM

2015-05-23T09:21:56-04:00

What did the actual building contract say?

My guess is that spending watchdog is looking at the big picture without looking at the minutia. Sometimes the momentum of these contracts is so large you cannot stop them.

Response by 1LT Kathleen Heisler made May 23 at 2015 10:03 AM

2015-05-23T10:03:40-04:00

I vote yes because it was a big waste of money and are they not capable to
Explain the situation to Congress

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made May 23 at 2015 10:32 AM

2015-05-23T10:32:13-04:00

I don't think the high brass has the authority or power to stop these projects. I voted "No. Once Congress appropriates funds for a project, the law requires the project to be completed." I don't think the government goes around canceling contracts. That would cause a law suit.

Response by SFC Jeff Gurchinoff made May 23 at 2015 10:44 AM

2015-05-23T10:44:56-04:00

I've served at Leatherneck (running convoy's between Kandahar leatherneck and Dwyer) I saw this "Ark" as it was being constructed. I also served at Bagram in RC East in two different positions, logistic acquisition and fuel management. I've sat in on many JARBs, (Joint Acquisition Review Boards) FARBs (Flight line acquisition review boards?) and whatever other acronym based funding meetings could be dreamt up. Sometimes commanders had direct control of funds other times they did not. The bulk of the operational budget in Afghanistan when I was there was locked (Untouchable) the remainder (scraps) were fought over by Colonels and the occasional SFC. Just like fuel at one point I was responsible for 2/3 of the fuel (much of it being stolen) by the 700 contracted Afghani trucks operating loosely under 7 subcontracted companies I was in charge of. I pinpoint identified theft and withheld millions in payments to these companies due to their theft of fuel. After I left it was rumored they were paid anyway. I suppose I should be responsible for that right?

Response by SFC Jeff Gurchinoff made May 23 at 2015 11:33 AM

2015-05-23T11:33:53-04:00

The military operates in a fluid environment of gains and losses. Frequently, units are relocated on the battlefield to maintain proper command and control. This is not a new concept. If conditions have never been put in place to identify this as a possible condition of a contract (the ground your contracted plan to build on we no longer care about or control)

Then we as a country and our elected leaders at all levels have done an immense disservice to the American taxpayer and their limited resource {money} This is not just a military problem either. It happens in every federal agency, every state, and at all levels of government.

The very fact any leader can wave his/her hand and appropriate more or print more currency should be considered a huge red flag.

This is not the fault of three officers it is the fault of our corrupt system working against us.

We (taxpayers) are the crop- elected officials harvest our fruit (money) and live lavish lives at our expense.

If you look beyond this simple metric, you give elected officials more credit that they deserve.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 23 at 2015 12:31 PM

2015-05-23T12:31:21-04:00

For those of you requesting more retails and background, this 10 July 2013 story from the Washington Post underscores both the elaborate scope and size of this facility as well as the Marine Corp's adamant claims that was both unnecessary and a waste of resources as they continued to reduce their footprint in Helmand Province at the time this project was initiated.

A brand-new U.S. military headquarters in Afghanistan. And nobody to use it.

The building was completed this year at a cost of $34million. But as the military draws down, it will sit empty.

Response by MAJ James Woods made May 23 at 2015 1:20 PM

2015-05-23T13:20:55-04:00

Hell yeah they should be held liable if the evidence seems it. And so should any politician and lobbyist that further pushed the contracts.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made May 23 at 2015 1:35 PM

2015-05-23T13:35:05-04:00

The real answer is "It Depends". I was a construction contracting officer for a long time. A war zone is a very fluid thing. There likely was a tactical "we don't need it" and then a strategic question to answer along the line of "given termination costs, are we better off doing it given we're a 40/60 crap shoot on some options we want to keep open?".

CENTCOM had their say and it trailed off in the DC area. I'd need a lot deeper look than accusatory pundits to make a call on the woulda, coulda, shoulda aspects.

We do build things that in retrospect don't pan out. We just try to make that not happen too often. Sometimes we build things to retain options down the road that we then don't use but at the time needed the viability of the option. Warfighting is never a cost optimal process.

That said, take it in perspective with the overall program. We're talking a small amount. If you really want to see BS construction, take a look at what the UN does under it's politically motivated agenda.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made May 23 at 2015 1:43 PM

2015-05-23T13:43:08-04:00

There should definitely be people held accountable for this.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 23 at 2015 6:01 PM

2015-05-23T18:01:59-04:00

Just add it to the cost of other items that were never used. Or hell, what about all the equipment that was turned in to be destroyed? Where is the uproar for this and who should be held accountable for the wasteful destruction of this equipment?

Response by CPT Arch Nissel made May 23 at 2015 6:30 PM

2015-05-23T18:30:04-04:00

Prosecution of the the three and others in the chain for waste should be a requirement

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made May 23 at 2015 9:20 PM

2015-05-23T21:20:25-04:00

In the budget world "valid requirements" drive the need for money. Since the Iraqi military said they don't want it "becoming an unnecessary requirement", the construction should have never been started.

Response by MSgt Kevin Willoughby made May 24 at 2015 3:10 AM

2015-05-24T03:10:44-04:00

Early on in my career, I was informed that according to law with government contracts the money has to be spent. At least in the case of construction and other similar ventures. I questioned that in BRAC and similar situations. It was explained to me that the government does this continued construction/spending to stabilize the economy with jobs and revenues. I understand that portion of it. One thing I never understood was the continuance of the specific construction if the base was being sold/closed or the obsolete nature of the project. If the law does say the money still has to be spent, why not take the time to research a viable source/outcome of the money to be spent? I always thought that if the base was to continue, or the government/military had other interests in the community, then spend the same money on another needed project that would stimulate the local economy or job creation initially invested in. Any thoughts on that line of thinking?

Response by CH (MAJ) William Beaver made May 25 at 2015 7:35 AM

2015-05-25T07:35:36-04:00

Sadly, if you dig deeper, I believe they think we will be there to use it one day. At least the way things have been going.

Response by SPC Eddie Espejo made May 25 at 2015 7:41 AM

2015-05-25T07:41:30-04:00

just another example of endless examples of wasteful spending when the money could have been used for homeless vets here at home. but it seems not to matter since the federal reserve can get money printed at the drop of a hat. but thats another story

Response by Capt Richard I P. made May 25 at 2015 7:58 AM

2015-05-25T07:58:09-04:00

Haha I remember these. The Marines who owned leatherneck constantly asked for construction to be cancelled. I'm sure the investigation knows more than I do about who could have stopped this, but whoever could have definetly should have.

Response by SFC Jason Hodge made May 25 at 2015 6:29 PM

2015-05-25T18:29:29-04:00

Without all the information as to the facts of the issue and not being able to read the 15-6, its impossible to make a decision based on only what we have been given through the media and word of mouth. Generally decisions of this magnatude are not soley up to 3 individuals, many have their fingers in it and many are responsible for the out come. At face value I would have to say with limited information, no.

Response by SPC David S. made May 26 at 2015 3:14 AM

2015-05-26T03:14:51-04:00

Not so sure about SIGAR and if there aren't other issues at play as McCaskill also ousted Arnold Fields, who was in-charge of investigating corruption from the United States back in 2011. John Sopko was appointed in 2012 by Obama and has since declared the reconstruction of A'stan a disaster claiming no leadership and no planning - You would think that the Sec. of State would be an integral part of this process as reconstruction being the final process of most treaties. 2014 Kerry took over so I'm not so sure he is to blame as this should have been if nothing a work in progress. To me it looks as if the Hillary machine is clearing the table and using others to take credit for her failures. It seems she was preoccupied in getting Bill speaking engagements rather than focused on an exit strategy via reconstruction. This to me is just another chapter in the Senior leadership purge by the democratic party. I wonder is McCaskill was seeking the head of Clinton with all the failures the State Department had in Afghan Police training in using DynaCorp - we are talking a half billion. I think McCaskill is being bullied to be a team player on the Clinton 2016 camp. From saying you don't want your daughter near Bill to being the first to support Hillary something is up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-van-buren/billions-wasted-again-sta_b_1513328.html

http://theweek.com/articles/463089/why-claire-mccaskill-endorsing-hillary-clinton-early

Billions Wasted, Again: State Likely to Give Up on Costly Efforts to Train Iraqi Police

The New York Times reports that the State Department, in the face of massive costs and Iraqi officials who say they never wanted it in the first place, slashed and may soon dump entirely "a multi

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2015 10:27 AM

2015-05-26T10:27:13-04:00

I do think someone should answer for it. Thats 36 million taxpayer dollars wasted...money we can use here....when i was deployed we had nothing...we built our own living area...tents, motorpool, mechanic shop, fixed our ouw blown up trucks, shower, laundrymat, TOC, ran electric, wired generater, installed air, ran our own internet...with no help from anyone. Yeah we are engineers (hooooah) but i think it made us stronger and more independent. The things people can do without "alot" of money, help, and a little motivation is astonishing. Wish we had 36 million...we wouldve built another KAF.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2015 10:33 AM

2015-05-26T10:33:01-04:00

If they started this on my FOB...guaranteed we wouldve finished it between missions, fobbits, and those awesome seabees...wouldve been awesome to have a damn PX or rec room or even a decent weight room.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made May 26 at 2015 12:25 PM

2015-05-26T12:25:04-04:00

Speaking as a past pay agent, project officer, there is more to this story and wish to read all the details before agreeing to anything. So will they go after the officers for the decision to implement the wearing of the Soviet style ACU, or the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) expenses? All things compared looks more like these three officers have become some one scapegoats.

Response by CDR William Sheedy made May 27 at 2015 7:06 PM

2015-05-27T19:06:51-04:00

This is one of those ugly, 'It Depends', answers that everyone has a reason why they are right. Sure, some officers did not see the need for the building and they feel justified in their counsel to stop the project. owever, other Officers (or our civilian leadership) had the responsibility to look at the strategic or operational value of the project(s) and trying to predict how long our presence in Afghanistan was truly going to be. In the end, we didn't need the project but I will challenge folks to think about what we would need to do if our course of action changed and we remained in the theater. If that course of action had been put into effect, the decision to complete the building would have looked brilliant as it would have provided better, more hardened facilities to fall in on and a small price to pay for security and personal safety of our troops... Instead, we have the 20-20 hindsight that appears to make this a complete waste of funds... Not an easy issue and we all need to look at all sides of this Gordian knot before passing judgment.

Response by SFC Kenneth Hunnell made May 28 at 2015 4:46 AM

2015-05-28T04:46:04-04:00

At what point in the process was it deemed, the would not be needed.
I do not believe a crystal ball was issued with those stars.
Politics, playing the blame game

Response by MSgt Bruce Cooper made May 29 at 2015 9:29 AM

2015-05-29T09:29:51-04:00

I think it goes much higher. Why make them the scapegoats? Why are we in Afghanistan anyway? Who told us to go in? How much money are we wasting in the war on terrorism? Terrorism needs to be dealt with in a harsh way, get the media out of our way so we can get the job done. We need to hold politicians responsible, not make scapegoats out of our servicemen.

Response by SGT Allen D'Aoust made May 29 at 2015 10:15 AM

2015-05-29T10:15:55-04:00

Congress needs to be held accountable, why can't everyone understand that and not re-elect them to office.

Response by SSG Pamela Smejkal made Jun 11 at 2015 11:40 AM

2015-06-11T11:40:23-04:00

Personally I am baffled with all the building in a combat zone. There should have been Nothing built except runways. This is not how we trained, ever. To blow into a country build bases and walk away...someone needs to be held responsible. I'm floored looking at these photos. Cubicles, theatre seats... Really?! This is waste of the HIGHEST power. Bet your home station doesn't have it this good.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Oct 22 at 2015 10:36 AM

2015-10-22T10:36:27-04:00

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member - I don't believe enough information has been provided to make an educated judgment about this.

There are many reasons the construction could have been allowed to continue. What penalties would accrue by cancellation? They could actually be more than the actual cost of construction. What agreements had been made with the host country that could not be breached? Was there consideration given for potential future use if the situation in Afghanistan changed in our favor or in case of commitment of more troops at a later date.

It is easy to see something like this and make a knee-jerk opinion without knowing all the facts that impacted the decision.

Case in point ... My dad was the commanding officer of Fort Polk in the early 60's, when it was being closed down. At the same time it was being closed, new facilities were being constructed. Even though I was but a child at the time, it appeared to me to make no sense and I remember asking my dad about it. He told me that it was actually less expensive to continue the construction than to stop it due to default penalties, etc. As it turned out, Fort Polk never actually totally closed and, instead, was reopened into a robust, important posting of an Army division there.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Oct 22 at 2015 10:43 AM

2015-10-22T10:43:16-04:00

Once a contract has been awarded, it is cheaper for the government to let the construction be finished rather than halt it. Something similar happened in the early-90's in Orlando, FL when the former Naval Training Base in Orlando was closed; contracts for the construction of buildings had been awarded and the construction had begun, but rather than pay out "fines" to the contractors, the government just let them finish building structures that would never house/train a single Sailor. My father lives about 2 miles from the old base and while it was still functioning I would hit the BX for smokes when I visited him.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Oct 22 at 2015 11:20 AM

2015-10-22T11:20:01-04:00

If there is proper investigation of this and wrongdoing is found, certainly. Normally, when the need for a project is established and contracted, it can be stopped with appropriate cancellation charges.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 30 at 2015 9:36 PM

2015-10-30T21:36:03-04:00

The cardinal rules for federal budgeting are: Purpose, Time, and Amount. They had no purpose for the construction, so they broke a law.

Response by SGT Brad Simpson made Apr 12 at 2018 2:18 AM

2018-04-12T02:18:44-04:00

Don't know the regulations on this nor any details about if they formally protested or objected to this going forward. Did the mission objectives change after construction started and were they always in the loop of they did. To many questions to answer objectively but it does piss me off that we're going to leave this for those who plot against us.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2018 5:35 AM

2018-04-12T05:35:57-04:00

Sometimes it’s easier to go along to get along. There isn’t enough info to know if they knew it wasn’t going to be used. I would think the building still may have some value. The DOD is a slow moving giant.