DoD defends sexual assault policies

The National Security Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on sexual assault in the military. The hearing sought to ensure that that the Department of Defense has adequate policies and oversight mechanisms in place to prevent, treat and punish sexual assaults.

The DoD established the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) after a similar Congressional hearing in 2004, and the director of the organization was subpoenaed to speak today. Michael Dominguez, principal deputy undersecretary for defense from the DoD was present at the hearing, however the director of the SAPRO did not show up. Chairman Waxman and other members of the subcommittee chastised Dominguez and the DoD for disregarding Congressional subpoena and asked Dominguez what the DoD is trying to hide by not allowing the Director of the office in question testify. Waxman then dismissed the DoD officials from the hearing, without allowing them to testify, in light of their inappropriate actions.

41 percent of female veterans seen by military doctors say they were victims of sexual assault while in the military and 29 percent reported being raped during their military service, said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Cali.). According to Department of Defense reports, in 2006 2,947 sexual assaults were reported, 73 percent more than in 2004. Since the creation of the SAPRO, the DoD has initiated training and improved reporting of rapes and sexual assaults but has inexplicably failed to track prosecution rates or how victims are faring within the military service, Harman said.

“Women serving in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq,” Harman said.

Harman is introducing legislation calling on the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to end assault and rape in the military, to encourage and increase investigations and prosecutions.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) reintroduced the Military Domestic and Sexual Violence Response Act, which acts to bring military laws up to par with civilian laws in the cases of sexual assault. The DoD must do more to ensure that American civilians serving in Iraq and Afghanistan receive the same protections as service members, she said.

Not up to par: Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan

The Senate Appropriations Committee added another chapter to the ongoing investigation of defense contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. A panel of witnesses testified about missing funds, additional oversight, and personnel improvements associated with contractors hired by the Department of Defense.

$71 billion of the $450 billion the Defense Department allocated for the Iraq War has been used for nearly 98,000 contract actions, said Gordon England, Deputy Secretary of Defense. According to England, since 2003, Defense oversight and the Government Accountability Office have performed over 300 audits related to terrorism investigations, and the Army reviewed more than 18,000 contract actions carried out in Kuwait between 2003-2006, which settled claims and saved the government over $10.4 million.

Despite these accomplishments, said Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), tens of billions of dollars have been lost, and American weapons have ended up in enemy hands. "Billions of dollars. How many minutes have passed since Jesus Christ was born? A billion, so that's a lot of money," said Chairman Byrd.

“I’d like to see some people go to jail,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). But England insisted that contractor oversight has evolved since the beginning of the two conflicts. The Defense Department is wiser because of audits and independent studies, England said.

The contractors are working hard; some have died, said Gen. Benjamin Griffin, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Materiel Command. Gen. Griffin said that having more personnel with expertise is essential for meeting the needs of the Army and private contractors.

Military going soft

Panelists discussed “Humanity as a Weapon of War,” a new report on the military's role in humanitarian assistance written by Reuben Brigerty, at the Center of American Progress. Brigerty, Director of the Sustainable Security Program at CAP, said decisions being made at the Pentagon suggest the military is realizing that force alone is not an effective strategy in warfare.

Brigerty said his paper outlines the US military’s shift from a direct line of approach in times of conflict, a “kill or capture” technique, to a softer approach that recognizes the causes of insurgencies and works to alleviate them. He said the Department of Defense is beginning to see that humanitarian efforts are not only moral undertakings, but also national security operations. According to Brigerty, the US military benefits from humanitarian ventures by showing American goodwill to skeptical populations and by planting people in the field that can observe local sentiment. He also said the US public must realize, despite written evidence, that US security interests rely on diplomacy and the military equally.

Elisabeth Kvitashvili, deputy assistant administrator at the U.S. Agency for International Development, expressed discomfort with the military’s role in humanitarian efforts. She said USAID has called upon the military in the past to assist in a supportive role and added that civilian agencies like USAID and the Department of State should continue to lead development efforts. Kvitashvili said workers at the DoS and USAID have been trained development methods and that large-scale military participation in humanitarian assistance may cause recipients of aid to doubt the neutrality of non-military organizations.

Boeing protest heard loud and clear

The House Armed Services Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces met to discuss the contract award protest filed to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) by Boeing and the future of the KC-135 aerial refueling tanker. Ranking committee member Jim Saxton (R-Nj.) said that he was not going to advocate Boeing or Northrop Grumman, the Los Angeles based corporation that secured the 35 million dollar contract from the Department of Defense (DOD). Boeing filed a protest with the GAO after they lost the contract to Northrup Grumman.

Deputy General Counsel for the GAO, Daniel Gordon testified. He said that Boeing raised a number of challenges to the contract between the DOD and Northrop Grummon. As a result the AGO conducted a five-day hearing, in which 11 witnesses from the DOD testified. At that point, Gordon said, it was understood that the air force made numerous errors that could have affected the outcome between Boeing and Northrop Grumman.

Saxton said that the most important thing is that the aging aerial refueling tankers are replaced. He said that it is imperative to get new tankers out to the “war fighters” as soon as possible.

KBR loses $1 billion and one loyal public servant

Charles M. Smith revealed the incompetency of Kellogg, Brown, and Root (KBR), a contracting company in Iraq, and the failure of the Defense Contract Auditing Agency (DCAA) to remedy the situation. In front of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, Smith, former Chief of the Army Field Support Command Division, said he believes his questioning of KBR led to his termination.

Smith estimates that while he was in charge of the KBR Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) over $1 billion dollars was misappropriated by KBR. The DCAA questioned KBR about cost estimations, and the Department of Defense settled nearly all of these investigations in favor of KBR, said Smith.
In some instances, the government used taxpayer dollars to pay for thousands of meals that troops did not receive. $1 billion was originally estimated for dining facility costs, but the DCAA questioned $200 million of it.

According to Smith, the DCAA was supposed to withhold 15 percent of payments to KBR until KBR reevaluated some its inaccurate cost estimations, Smith said, but the 15 percent withhold was waived and never applied. Soldiers did not receive adequate ice plants in theatre. KBR was supposed to construct the plants according to a set of standards, but failed to meet them.

Smith was told his 31 year career was ended because he was too worn out from the war atmosphere, could not maintain construction according to the cost provisions, and was not meeting Gen. Norman Johnson’s standards. Chairman Byron Dorgan (D-N.D) acknowledged Smith’s years of service and cited the shame of a faithful public servant being fired for such a reason.