Hmmm… This is under that Rumsfeld guy who’s running those wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with equal success, right?
The U.S. military`s supply system has been broken for a decade and a half, and experts warn it may stay that way for years to come.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office has labelled the Department of Defense`s supply management as a high risk area for 16 years. But although everyone agrees it needs urgent reform there is no real sign of that happening yet.
[…]
Voinovich, who is chairman of the subcommittee, said a GAO study had found inadequate logistics support that led to supply shortages during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The GAO report was titled ‘High-Level Commitment and Oversight Needed for DOD Supply Chain Plan to Succeed.’‘As a result, the war reserves did not have enough vehicle generators, tracks for tanks, body armor, lithium batteries, ready-to-eat meals, tires and up-armored high-mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles and kits to meet the demands of the field,’ he said.
Dave, if you’re going to interject your spin into a story at least pick something that backs it up: The article clearly indicates that this has been an issue since the end of the Cold War, and is to blame on both parties. If you’re going to blame it on 6 years of Rummy, it gets to be blamed on 8 years of Clinton as well.
What I find interesting is that this seems to be a favorite issue of low-rung representatives to harp on, but never moves up the food chain. Why? My guess is that no one wants to fight the military over their budget on an issue where the military can just ask for more cash or threaten to fire soldiers.
“If you’re going to blame it on 6 years of Rummy, it gets to be blamed on 8 years of Clinton as well.”
OK. No problem. But, if I bought a house six years ago with a broken sidewalk to my front door and don’t fix it, does that mean I escape responsibility if someone slips and breaks a leg today? I don’t think so.
No argument from me on that point, but then you’ve got to pick your poison: Fewer troops in a time of war, or a military budget increase to setup a proper supply channel.
For all concerned, the head-in-the-sand position seems to be the path of least resistance.
Fewer troops in a time of war, or a military budget increase to setup a proper supply channel.
How about option “C”? QUIT WASTING MONEY. No more no-bid or cost-plus contracts. Know where the money goes… they currently do not. Allow for more initiative in the ranks… give them a budget, let them spend it how they see fit.
Reinstate the draft and mandatory ROTC.
What does the draft have to do with anything? Believe me, nobody in the military wants there to be a draft. It almosts ruined the services in the 60’s and 70s (with the drug culture of the late 60s that it brought in, and simply because of the hoards of people who just didn’t want to be there).
If you want to look read more about DoD boondoggles and waste, take a gander at the Defense Travel System (DTS). You could have created 10 Expedia.coms for the money that has been thrown down that rat-hole.
Supply’s been a rats ass in the Army since Valley Forge. It only gets better temporarly when a serious shooting war starts (like wwII or the civil war), and that only after the dead heads get booted.
The real problem is the Army and the Congress love to fund sexy high tech and see basic supply as a waste of money.
As an example, I have a younger friend who’s going through basic. She told me that they get something like 25 rounds to qualify with the M16!
Sounds (#6): that’s absurd. If you haven’t gone through and you heard it from such-and such, then you don’t know. Please don’t give misinformation like that out. All you do is make yourself look like a fool and degrade the military. When you QUALIFY, yes you have just a few rounds. Why? Because they want to shoot as accurately as possible. When you’re learning you fire hundreded of well placed rounds down range.
About the article. I say… GREAT JOB for the men and women who defend our country. They are kickin ass and taking names in Iraq, Afganistan, Philipeans, and all over the world. It’s through the dedication of our hard work and commitment that allows us to do this (in spite of what Davey Boy spins – aka: awww… poor little troops don’t have enough supplies (said in a whimpering mannor).
How about option “C”? QUIT WASTING MONEY.
It’s been tried and failed. I have no hope for the Defence Department ever being a budget aware organization, and I don’t know why anyone would. You can either solve problems by reducing spending in certain areas of their budget or increasing the budget as a whole, but its too big of a beast to just “clean up”.
Supply’s been a rats ass in the Army since Valley Forge. It only gets better temporarly when a serious shooting war starts (like wwII or the civil war), and that only after the dead heads get booted.
STA, from what I’ve gathered supply wasn’t an issue during the Cold War, but the post-Cold War budget cuts nailed supply management the hardest (because they want their wiz-bang toys, and they have to fund pensions).
We’re at war with the “Philipeans”?
The “system” has been broken for a long time…
when I was in the Navy e had to sit through annual training on the BOSS program “Buy Our Spares Smart”…
Always showing examples of how excessive charges were reported by Sailors using the “hotline” to call in suspicious prics on spare parts…
Then anytime we questioned jaw-dropping prices for parts in our Nuclear Power and/or Submarine systems – we were given a polite brush-off with reasons why such procurements were covered by contracts which allowed sky-high pricing…
i.e. vendors could figure-in retirement costs of their entire workforce, heating & lighting for their entire factory, etc just for producing a small lot of circuit boards which would be used on the 10 Trident submarines then in existence – as if the vendor’s entire production capacity was dedicated to producing that small lot of circuit boards. 🙁
Disclaimer – I want to see Rumsfeld fired. His views on how to fight an asymmetrical war are failing. That being said:
Someone didn’t read the article very well. Military culture is hard as hell to change, and 15 years is not a lot of time to radically alter the way a giant bureaucracy runs. Even *if* Rumsfeld was competent, he couldn’t fix it in 6 years.
“Military culture is hard as hell to change, and 15 years is not a lot of time to radically alter the way a giant bureaucracy runs. Even *if* Rumsfeld was competent, he couldn’t fix it in 6 years.”
Oh, how true this is. The military is the most tradition driven organization in the entire government, and it’s no trivial task to make any significant changes to the way things are done.
Don (#9), we have a lot of troops over there helping to fight the 4th largest terrorist organist in the world…it’s just not mentioned as much.
SNAFU?
rwilliams254 –
1) I was in the military until medicaled out in 85. When I qualifyed the ammo allotment was 100 rounds (1984).
2) When in Germany in 1985, there were certain items (mostly replacement parts for vehicles) that you could not get at certain bases. Other bases you could. The only difference? Who ran the supply.
Wars are fought, from the stomach of our soldiers.
Food, and supplies to defend themselves is PARAMOUT to getting them HOME, in less then 2 or more pieces.
for all the money that has GONE to the military, in the last, 40 years????
where did it ALL GO??