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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.