Mar 29, 2017



OPINION

Us or the war machine

An upcoming Charlottesville conference highlights the importance of whistleblowers when addressing the corruption present in military contracting

YOU MAY have heard something about a budget crisis in Washington this summer. Were you aware that in the midst of it the House of Representatives passed a military spending bill larger than ever before?

U.S. military spending across numerous departments has increased dramatically during the past decade and now makes up about half of federal discretionary spending. Yet the Defense Department has not been fully audited in 20 years, and as of 2001 it could not account for $2.3 trillion out of the $10 trillion or so it had been given during that time. More recently, President Obama has been waging his "days, not weeks" war in Libya for months without a dime appropriated by Congress, relying instead on the loose change lying around at the Pentagon.

The United States could reduce its military spending by at least 80 percent and still be the world's top military spender. If the purpose of all this profligacy were truly defensive, wouldn't a military merely as large as any other country's do the job? When little cuts around the edges were forced into the discussion, wouldn't the top priorities for elimination be unpopular wars, foreign bases, nuclear weapons and space weapons rather than health care for veterans? If something shameful were not motivating our self-destructive imperial overreach, wouldn't the wonders of market competition be given a chance, instead of the current practice of handing out cost-plus contracts to cronies for jobs they are never expected to complete?

Paying our debts\nWhen someone inside the military contracting process gives us a peak at what is done with half our income taxes, we owe that person a debt of gratitude. And the person who has opened the widest crack in the wall of secrecy around Pentagon spending in recent years is probably Bunnatine "Bunny" Greenhouse, who will be speaking in Charlottesville along with more than 20 other experts Sept. 16-18.

In February 2003, just before the United States invaded Iraq, Greenhouse, the chief contracting officer for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, found herself in a Pentagon meeting discussing the terms of an Iraq contract to be awarded to Halliburton, the company for which then-Vice President Dick Cheney had served previously as CEO. Greenhouse whispered to the general running the meeting that she objected to the presence of several Halliburton representatives in the room, and when they had left she recommended against awarding the company a $7 billion emergency, no-bid contract for five years. While it was ludicrous to pretend that a contracting "emergency" would last that long, Congress has continued ever since to fund our wars with off-the-books "emergency supplemental" bills.

Despite Cheney's claim to the contrary on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sept. 14, 2003, he had been involved in creating that Halliburton contract. This is shown by an email that Time Magazine published in June 2004, as well as by the testimony of political appointee Michael Mobbs. Mobbs had worked with Halliburton to create the need for the contract and then to fill it, much as then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney had, years earlier, created needs for Halliburton's services that he had then been able to fill as its CEO.

Cheney hired Halliburton to recommend privatizing military services with a company like Halliburton. Halliburton, in turn, hired Cheney to share in the spoils. And then Cheney, while still receiving deferred compensation from Halliburton, made sure his company continued to rake in the profits. This chutzpah was matched only by the Halliburton drivers hauling empty trucks across Iraq and reporting that they had transported "sailboat fuel."

Greenhouse's resistance to the corrupt cronyism that predated and outlasted Cheney cost her the job of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers chief contracting officer. This summer she finally was awarded $970,000 in restitution. If that award legitimizes Greenhouse's concerns in the eyes of many, so much the better. We really should not need a stamp of approval from our government, however, before approving of serious criticism of governmental wrongdoing.

The Greenhouse effect\nThe lesson that Greenhouse would have us learn is not that the system finally worked, but that it is fundamentally broken. Our representative government is under the thumb of the military-industrial complex of which President Eisenhower warned 50 years ago this year. "In my actions, there were no thoughts of repercussions," Greenhouse said. "My thoughts were about doing the right things for the best interest of the government."

Greenhouse eventually sent a letter to then-Acting Secretary of the Army Les Brownlee, which somehow ended up in the hands of Congressional staffers who in turn shared it with media outlets. Greenhouse said she has no knowledge of how the letter got to Congress, which suggests the possible existence of another whistleblower. Such anonymous whistleblowers deserve our thanks as well.

"The following Monday after the letter was received," Greenhouse said, "Lieutenant General [Carl] Strock, in his introductory statements in our weekly Directors and Office Chiefs Meeting, stated: 'I understand we have a whistleblower in our midst, but don't worry about it because the system will take care of itself.' ... He was letting my fellow SES [Senior Executive Service] and Senior Leaders know that he felt that I was a 'skunk in the park,' which elevated their fears and their treatment of me. My top secret clearance was taken away. I was moved to a cubicle in Civil Works where I was placed on an over-hire position unknown to me."


Published August 31, 2011 in Opinion









The Cavalier Daily welcomes thoughtful, respectful and relevant comments that contribute to a public dialogue. In order to maintain a high level of discourse, all comments must be approved by our moderator. For more information, view our full comment policy.

Commentary

Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed

Dimitris Dafalias
(12/31/69 7:00pm)
Report
Comment

I'm afraid the answer it's not us and it never will be!Unless we all wake up-and i mean ALL(like 280 mns in your case)and going out in the streets.Congrats to people as the mentioned above!They're real (American)heroes and patriots!


Sean
(12/31/69 7:00pm)
Report
Comment

Wasn't your hero Barack Obama supposed to fix all of this in 2009?

I agree that the former administration spent too much and was corrupt in the distribution of some contracts, but is the former Vice President almost three years removed still responsible for the CONTINUING graft at the pentagon?

Does it matter to any of his cult followers that the CURRENT president is the first president ever who is a criminal under the War Powers Act?


Joel Taubman
(12/31/69 7:00pm)
Report
Comment

I am befuddled with how a UVA Grad school grad who claims to know so much about government could confuse half of the discretionary budget with half of the total budget. The non-discretionary budget might be an important thing to address. Maybe...


David Swanson
(12/31/69 7:00pm)
Report
Comment

yes obama worse than bush\nyes nondiscretionary spending exists -- at least for the moment\nsee you all at http://mic50.org\ndavid


Joel Taubman
(12/31/69 7:00pm)
Report
Comment

I hope I can comment twice. Quick facts:\nIn 1970, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid consumed about 20% of the US budget while Military spending consumed 39%.\nToday, Military spending is at the budgetary low of 16%, while the above 'non-discretionary' programs consume over 40%.


David Swanson
(12/31/69 7:00pm)
Report
Comment

I keep trying to get a comment past moderation here. One more try: \nDimitris I hope to see you at the conference.\nSean when a column criticizes someone severely does that make that person the author's hero? Yes of course Obama is worse on war powers than Bush, but that doesn't transform Bush into a saint any more than Bush's arrival erased Clinton's crimes.\nJoel I'm sorry you've fantasized that I denied the existence of nondiscretionary spending. It really does exist -- at least until the Super Committee has its way with it.


Darryl Crouch
(12/31/69 7:00pm)
Report
Comment

Some nice comments from all. It's good to see Americans really thinking about meaningful events regardless of viewpoints. But as a bridge to Mr.Swanson's article and some comments, the question should be asked from any point of view is, "how is the US really benefiting or better as the world's most expensive military?" The US expenditure on defense is more than 40% of total defense spending of the world. Does this mean Brazil's and Australia's defenses are highly inadequate? For Joel, good comparison. How much of the non-discretionary spending increase is a result of inflation and population increase? The discretionary spending is what the US really can control. So with defense increases,does this mean the US has been under greater military attack? The main foe of the past decade has no Navy or Air Force, nor collects defense revenue from taxation. So how much would the US need to spend if it faced a major opponent with those capabilities? Vietnam and Afghanistan have two similarities. The US is way more advanced and expensive in military might, but both wars have been extended indicating excessive military spending does not yield greater benefit to the final outcome.



All Content © Copyright 2017, The Cavalier Daily


Powered by powered by SNworks Solutions by The State News