DoD is unable to account for 96% of 9 billion dollars in Iraq reconstruction funds.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**CT GAMER**

ShumaGorath wrote:
US 'fails to account' for Iraq reconstruction billions

A US federal watchdog has criticised the US military for failing to account properly for billions of dollars it received to help rebuild Iraq.

The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction says the US Department of Defence is unable to account properly for 96% of the money.

Out of just over $9bn (£5.8bn), $8.7bn is unaccounted for, the inspector says.

The US military said the funds were not necessarily missing, but that spending records might have been archived.

In a response attached to the report, it said attempting to account for the money might require "significant archival retrieval efforts".

Reconstruction money
The funds are separate from the $53bn allocated by the US Congress for rebuilding Iraq.

Much of the money came from the sale of Iraqi oil and gas, and some frozen Saddam Hussein-era assets were also sold off.

The money was in a special fund administered by the US Department of Defense, the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI), and was earmarked for reconstruction projects.

But the report says that a lack of proper accounting and poor oversight makes it impossible to say exactly what happened to most of it.

According to the report, the Pentagon is unable to fully account for $8.7bn of funds it withdrew between 2004 and 2007, and of that amount it "could not provide documentation to substantiate how it spent $2.6bn".

Past mismanagement
The audit blamed the inability to account for the money on a number of factors.

Notably, it said that most defence department organisations which received DFI funds failed to set up US Treasury Department accounts for the money as required.

It also said that there was no central organisation within the defence department which was charged with overseeing how the funds were accounted for or spent.

"The breakdown in controls left the funds vulnerable to inappropriate uses and undetected loss," the report said.

This is not the first time that allegations of missing billions have surfaced in relation to the US-led invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.

In 2005, the inspector general criticised the Coalition Provisional Authority, the US-led occupation administration, for its management of an $8.8bn fund that belonged to the Iraqi government.

A criminal investigation conducted led to the conviction of eight US officials on bribery, fraud and money-laundering charges.

The latest audit does not include allegations of criminal conduct.

Man, that military sure is efficient!

Rebuild? I thought you said "rebomb", we spent it on more munitions to "free" the Iraqi people ...

**youbedead**

ShumaGorath wrote:
youbedead wrote:
sebster wrote:
youbedead wrote: it does, the vast majority of the us militerys might will never be used, its the same way with every military in history, they sacrifice efficiency for effectiveness.

So again they are effective, no military has or will ever be efficient

Yes, and if anyone was ever silly enough to claim to set about making them efficient, they'd end up with an army that was incredibly fragile (because redundancy is inefficient) and spent a load of it's time saying "that thing you want us to do is not something we can do (because versatility is inefficient).

But none of that has anything to do with why people like to think the military is efficient. They like to think that government is bad and wasteful but rah-rah army is awesome. They believe this because social services and road construction is boring, but tanks are awesome*.

It's like explaining to someone that katanas aren't actually super awesome swords that can totally cut a tank in half - you're arguing with the fanboy part of the brain and wasting your time.

*To some extent they're right - tanks are awesome.

Exactly chose one

Efficient or effective

I prefer effective

At this point with two failed wars on our hands I'm not sure why. We sure did spend a lot of money.

I don;t think the war was ever winnable, we would have to remove the incentive for the terrorists. But we went in assuming that we could just occupy the country make a new government and call it a day.

**halonachos**

We won the war, we're just trying to get Afghanistan and Iraq to handle the terrorists. We dethroned the Taliban from running a country and Saddam is six feet under along with a lot of his regime so I would dare say that we did win the wars.

Then again it all depends on a person's definition of winning.

It also depends on how intent a person is on derailing a thread about the DoD not tracking its money.

**Stormrider**

The awesome government beuracracy at work.

**Marshal2Crusaders**

Why do you guys even talk to Shuma? Do you talk to the weird kid in your classes? Dont talk to the weird kid on the internet either.

**ShumaGorath**

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Why do you guys even talk to Shuma? Do you talk to the weird kid in your classes? Dont talk to the weird kid on the internet either.

I thought you stopped posting.

**Khornholio**

RandyMcStab wrote:Haliburtan?

Seconded. Someone ought to check under Darth Cheney's mattress.

**Grignard**

Stormrider wrote:The awesome government beuracracy at work.

Government is certainly, due to its large size, capable of bureaucratic blundering, but before the inefficiency of the big bad government gets blamed, I think a hard look needs to be taken at these private contractors, and not just as it pertains to the Iraq war. As someone who works in government, I can assure you that contracting out labor or materials is a constant, sometimes large, leak in money. The other day I was ordering lab supplies and I had to pay 300 dollars for an item that a competitor had for 30 because of contractual obligations. This is happened several times, though not nearly as bad as that time. Having talked to other people, I don't believe my experience is singular.

Private industry is always willing to hose the government then complain about paying too much taxes because of government inefficiency and overspending. Charming people these are.

**Stormrider**

Grignard wrote:
Stormrider wrote:The awesome government beuracracy at work.

Government is certainly, due to its large size, capable of bureaucratic blundering, but before the inefficiency of the big bad government gets blamed, I think a hard look needs to be taken at these private contractors, and not just as it pertains to the Iraq war. As someone who works in government, I can assure you that contracting out labor or materials is a constant, sometimes large, leak in money. The other day I was ordering lab supplies and I had to pay 300 dollars for an item that a competitor had for 30 because of contractual obligations. This is happened several times, though not nearly as bad as that time. Having talked to other people, I don't believe my experience is singular.

Private industry is always willing to hose the government then complain about paying too much taxes because of government inefficiency and overspending. Charming people these are.

Quite right Grignard, watching local road construction projects take years and years smells of the same problem. I just find it amusing that people in this country want the government to handle more facets of their lives. Our government is a ponderous juggernaught and needs to be reined in before it collapses from insolvency.

**Frazzled**

Grignard wrote:
Stormrider wrote:The awesome government beuracracy at work.

Government is certainly, due to its large size, capable of bureaucratic blundering, but before the inefficiency of the big bad government gets blamed, I think a hard look needs to be taken at these private contractors, and not just as it pertains to the Iraq war. As someone who works in government, I can assure you that contracting out labor or materials is a constant, sometimes large, leak in money. The other day I was ordering lab supplies and I had to pay 300 dollars for an item that a competitor had for 30 because of contractual obligations. This is happened several times, though not nearly as bad as that time. Having talked to other people, I don't believe my experience is singular.

Private industry is always willing to hose the government then complain about paying too much taxes because of government inefficiency and overspending. Charming people these are.

Wait you're blaming the company and not the government bastard who should be fired for defining and signing the contract?

**Da Boss**

I think the blame goes in all directions, like lovely spreadable blame jam.
I always used to wonder how the cost of the war was so astronomically high, guess I know now.
Woulda been a lot cheaper to wait a bit and see what the story was with those WMDs, eh?

**Frazzled**

Da Boss wrote:I think the blame goes in all directions, like lovely spreadable blame jam.
I always used to wonder how the cost of the war was so astronomically high, guess I know now.
Woulda been a lot cheaper to wait a bit and see what the story was with those WMDs, eh?

if they had WMDs there would not have been a war. thats kind of the point. Once you have nukes then its too late to stop them.

**Grignard**

Stormrider wrote:
Grignard wrote:
Stormrider wrote:The awesome government beuracracy at work.

Government is certainly, due to its large size, capable of bureaucratic blundering, but before the inefficiency of the big bad government gets blamed, I think a hard look needs to be taken at these private contractors, and not just as it pertains to the Iraq war. As someone who works in government, I can assure you that contracting out labor or materials is a constant, sometimes large, leak in money. The other day I was ordering lab supplies and I had to pay 300 dollars for an item that a competitor had for 30 because of contractual obligations. This is happened several times, though not nearly as bad as that time. Having talked to other people, I don't believe my experience is singular.

Private industry is always willing to hose the government then complain about paying too much taxes because of government inefficiency and overspending. Charming people these are.

Quite right Grignard, watching local road construction projects take years and years smells of the same problem. I just find it amusing that people in this country want the government to handle more facets of their lives. Our government is a ponderous juggernaught and needs to be reined in before it collapses from insolvency.

I think a better idea would be to stop contracting out labor and goods and stop privatizing government responsibilities. There is no reason to ship samples across the country when you could make an initial investment and do them in house.

**CT GAMER**

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Why do you guys even talk to Shuma? Do you talk to the weird kid in your classes? Dont talk to the weird kid on the internet either.

This is Dakka. Technically we are all "the weird kid on the internet".

Toy soldiers don;t make anyone cool.

I'm just sayin...

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:
Da Boss wrote:I think the blame goes in all directions, like lovely spreadable blame jam.
I always used to wonder how the cost of the war was so astronomically high, guess I know now.
Woulda been a lot cheaper to wait a bit and see what the story was with those WMDs, eh?

if they had WMDs there would not have been a war. thats kind of the point. Once you have nukes then its too late to stop them.

Except the fact that Saddam "had them" was the primary reason for going to war.

**CT GAMER**

ShumaGorath wrote:

Except the fact that Saddam "had them" was the primary reason for going to war.

That and fattening the stock portfolios of clan Bush and the associated good 'ol boys network...

**Da Boss**

Hee hee hee, "sock portfolios"

**CT GAMER**

Da Boss wrote:Hee hee hee, "sock portfolios"

Well Jr. was about as smart as a "sock puppet", but anyways...

**youbedead**

Da Boss wrote:I think the blame goes in all directions, like lovely spreadable blame jam.
I always used to wonder how the cost of the war was so astronomically high, guess I know now.
Woulda been a lot cheaper to wait a bit and see what the story was with those WMDs, eh?

Mmmmh blame jam

**Stormrider**

Grignard wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
Grignard wrote:
Stormrider wrote:The awesome government beuracracy at work.

Government is certainly, due to its large size, capable of bureaucratic blundering, but before the inefficiency of the big bad government gets blamed, I think a hard look needs to be taken at these private contractors, and not just as it pertains to the Iraq war. As someone who works in government, I can assure you that contracting out labor or materials is a constant, sometimes large, leak in money. The other day I was ordering lab supplies and I had to pay 300 dollars for an item that a competitor had for 30 because of contractual obligations. This is happened several times, though not nearly as bad as that time. Having talked to other people, I don't believe my experience is singular.

Private industry is always willing to hose the government then complain about paying too much taxes because of government inefficiency and overspending. Charming people these are.

Quite right Grignard, watching local road construction projects take years and years smells of the same problem. I just find it amusing that people in this country want the government to handle more facets of their lives. Our government is a ponderous juggernaught and needs to be reined in before it collapses from insolvency.

I think a better idea would be to stop contracting out labor and goods and stop privatizing government responsibilities. There is no reason to ship samples across the country when you could make an initial investment and do them in house.

It's always been made by independent contractors because the expense of our government trying to manufacture every solitary piece of equipment would be outrageous. Not to mention that having competition breeds better products. Sorry, the Government should not be handling the production of every piece of equipment, they should approve it, but not be making it. This has been the way our military has been supplied for quite some time.

**ShumaGorath**

Stormrider wrote:
Grignard wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
Grignard wrote:
Stormrider wrote:The awesome government beuracracy at work.

Government is certainly, due to its large size, capable of bureaucratic blundering, but before the inefficiency of the big bad government gets blamed, I think a hard look needs to be taken at these private contractors, and not just as it pertains to the Iraq war. As someone who works in government, I can assure you that contracting out labor or materials is a constant, sometimes large, leak in money. The other day I was ordering lab supplies and I had to pay 300 dollars for an item that a competitor had for 30 because of contractual obligations. This is happened several times, though not nearly as bad as that time. Having talked to other people, I don't believe my experience is singular.

Private industry is always willing to hose the government then complain about paying too much taxes because of government inefficiency and overspending. Charming people these are.

Quite right Grignard, watching local road construction projects take years and years smells of the same problem. I just find it amusing that people in this country want the government to handle more facets of their lives. Our government is a ponderous juggernaught and needs to be reined in before it collapses from insolvency.

I think a better idea would be to stop contracting out labor and goods and stop privatizing government responsibilities. There is no reason to ship samples across the country when you could make an initial investment and do them in house.

It's always been made by independent contractors because the expense of our government trying to manufacture every solitary piece of equipment would be outrageous. Not to mention that having competition breeds better products. Sorry, the Government should not be handling the production of every piece of equipment, they should approve it, but not be making it. This has been the way our military has been supplied for quite some time.

Competition is a rare thing in military and civilian contracting.

**Stormrider**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
Grignard wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
Grignard wrote:
Stormrider wrote:The awesome government beuracracy at work.

Government is certainly, due to its large size, capable of bureaucratic blundering, but before the inefficiency of the big bad government gets blamed, I think a hard look needs to be taken at these private contractors, and not just as it pertains to the Iraq war. As someone who works in government, I can assure you that contracting out labor or materials is a constant, sometimes large, leak in money. The other day I was ordering lab supplies and I had to pay 300 dollars for an item that a competitor had for 30 because of contractual obligations. This is happened several times, though not nearly as bad as that time. Having talked to other people, I don't believe my experience is singular.

Private industry is always willing to hose the government then complain about paying too much taxes because of government inefficiency and overspending. Charming people these are.

Quite right Grignard, watching local road construction projects take years and years smells of the same problem. I just find it amusing that people in this country want the government to handle more facets of their lives. Our government is a ponderous juggernaught and needs to be reined in before it collapses from insolvency.

I think a better idea would be to stop contracting out labor and goods and stop privatizing government responsibilities. There is no reason to ship samples across the country when you could make an initial investment and do them in house.

It's always been made by independent contractors because the expense of our government trying to manufacture every solitary piece of equipment would be outrageous. Not to mention that having competition breeds better products. Sorry, the Government should not be handling the production of every piece of equipment, they should approve it, but not be making it. This has been the way our military has been supplied for quite some time.

Competition is a rare thing in military and civilian contracting.

How do you figure? Have you seen some of the prototype AR's that the DoD is looking at as a possible replacement for the M-16?

**ShumaGorath**

Stormrider wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
Grignard wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
Grignard wrote:
Stormrider wrote:The awesome government beuracracy at work.

Government is certainly, due to its large size, capable of bureaucratic blundering, but before the inefficiency of the big bad government gets blamed, I think a hard look needs to be taken at these private contractors, and not just as it pertains to the Iraq war. As someone who works in government, I can assure you that contracting out labor or materials is a constant, sometimes large, leak in money. The other day I was ordering lab supplies and I had to pay 300 dollars for an item that a competitor had for 30 because of contractual obligations. This is happened several times, though not nearly as bad as that time. Having talked to other people, I don't believe my experience is singular.

Private industry is always willing to hose the government then complain about paying too much taxes because of government inefficiency and overspending. Charming people these are.

Quite right Grignard, watching local road construction projects take years and years smells of the same problem. I just find it amusing that people in this country want the government to handle more facets of their lives. Our government is a ponderous juggernaught and needs to be reined in before it collapses from insolvency.

I think a better idea would be to stop contracting out labor and goods and stop privatizing government responsibilities. There is no reason to ship samples across the country when you could make an initial investment and do them in house.

It's always been made by independent contractors because the expense of our government trying to manufacture every solitary piece of equipment would be outrageous. Not to mention that having competition breeds better products. Sorry, the Government should not be handling the production of every piece of equipment, they should approve it, but not be making it. This has been the way our military has been supplied for quite some time.

Competition is a rare thing in military and civilian contracting.

How do you figure? Have you seen some of the prototype AR's that the DoD is looking at as a possible replacement for the M-16?

And yet one company has produced every m-series AR the U.S. military has used for 40 years despite numerous competitions for its replacement and many superior weapons displayed. Military development "competition" is a shell game that looks good on TV but rarely happens in reality. The no bid contract has become the standard for largescale subcontracting.

**Stormrider**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
Grignard wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
Grignard wrote:
Stormrider wrote:The awesome government beuracracy at work.

Government is certainly, due to its large size, capable of bureaucratic blundering, but before the inefficiency of the big bad government gets blamed, I think a hard look needs to be taken at these private contractors, and not just as it pertains to the Iraq war. As someone who works in government, I can assure you that contracting out labor or materials is a constant, sometimes large, leak in money. The other day I was ordering lab supplies and I had to pay 300 dollars for an item that a competitor had for 30 because of contractual obligations. This is happened several times, though not nearly as bad as that time. Having talked to other people, I don't believe my experience is singular.

Private industry is always willing to hose the government then complain about paying too much taxes because of government inefficiency and overspending. Charming people these are.

Quite right Grignard, watching local road construction projects take years and years smells of the same problem. I just find it amusing that people in this country want the government to handle more facets of their lives. Our government is a ponderous juggernaught and needs to be reined in before it collapses from insolvency.

I think a better idea would be to stop contracting out labor and goods and stop privatizing government responsibilities. There is no reason to ship samples across the country when you could make an initial investment and do them in house.

It's always been made by independent contractors because the expense of our government trying to manufacture every solitary piece of equipment would be outrageous. Not to mention that having competition breeds better products. Sorry, the Government should not be handling the production of every piece of equipment, they should approve it, but not be making it. This has been the way our military has been supplied for quite some time.

Competition is a rare thing in military and civilian contracting.

How do you figure? Have you seen some of the prototype AR's that the DoD is looking at as a possible replacement for the M-16?

And yet one company has produced every AR the U.S. military has used for 40 years despite numerous competitions for its replacement and many superior weapons displayed. Military development "competition" is a shell game that looks good on TV but rarely happens in reality.

That's becasue Colt has the contract, and until the rifle is replaced, they aren't going to lose it. It's not like they make a crap product either, the Colt Civilian AR is built Mil-Spec too.

I really liked the XM8 until the polymer handles on it would melt after only a little prolonged firing.

**Frazzled**

Wait, you think there's a superior weapon to a Colt?
Blasphemer!

Shuma is correct in much of their procurement however. In this matter the military is no different than the rest of the government (fed/state/local). You show me a major contract, I'll show usually no more than 2 bidders.

But again who's fault is that?

Back in the day HP would never submit bids. They didn't want to tailor products/services to each individual dork wanting a contract. They would do a nice take it or leave proposition. I don't know if that hs changed or not.

**Stormrider**

Frazzled wrote:Wait, you think there's a superior weapon to a Colt?
Blasphemer!

Shuma is correct in much of their procurement however. In this matter the military is no different than the rest of the government (fed/state/local). You show me a major contract, I'll show usually no more than 2 bidders.

But again who's fault is that?

Back in the day HP would never submit bids. They didn't want to tailor products/services to each individual dork wanting a contract. They would do a nice take it or leave proposition. I don't know if that hs changed or not.

Not Colt, but a replacement for the M-16/M4. I have a Colt AR-15 with 16in Heavy Barrel. Great gun, wouldn't leave home without it if I could.

**LordofHats**

ShumaGorath wrote:And yet one company has produced every m-series AR the U.S. military has used for 40 years despite numerous competitions for its replacement and many superior weapons displayed. Military development "competition" is a shell game that looks good on TV but rarely happens in reality. The no bid contract has become the standard for largescale subcontracting.

Kind of jumping to a conclusion there. The M4 is still in use despite the production of newer better weapons because the cost of replacing the M4 is huge. You have to buy a lot of guns, train everyone to use them, set up the new support systems to maintain the rifles. New military equipment is never cheap. That's why we went from the M16 to the M4. The cost of the new weapon was little more than buying the guns. All the training and support was pretty much already there. No point doing that till it's absolutely necessary. And I'll point out that there has only been one real competition to replace the M4, of which the M8 was the product but the XM8 program wasn't up to par and greatly exceeded its budget. Most other "competitions" have been less competitions and more show case events for the military to examine how the technology is developing. Scoping the field so to speak.

The reason you don't get many contractors bidding in military projects is because making stuff military grade is ludicrously expensive. Only a few companies actually have the resources and expertise to do it. While there is certainly favoritism and obvious underhanded dealings going on in contracting, it's not as big as you make it out. It happens more in the fields of intelligence gathering and special projects than it does in basic weapons production.

**ShumaGorath**

LordofHats wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:And yet one company has produced every m-series AR the U.S. military has used for 40 years despite numerous competitions for its replacement and many superior weapons displayed. Military development "competition" is a shell game that looks good on TV but rarely happens in reality. The no bid contract has become the standard for largescale subcontracting.

Kind of jumping to a conclusion there. The M4 is still in use despite the production of newer better weapons because the cost of replacing the M4 is huge. You have to buy a lot of guns, train everyone to use them, set up the new support systems to maintain the rifles. New military equipment is never cheap. That's why we went from the M16 to the M4. The cost of the new weapon was little more than buying the guns. All the training and support was pretty much already there. No point doing that till it's absolutely necessary. And I'll point out that there has only been one real competition to replace the M4, of which the M8 was the product but the XM8 program wasn't up to par and greatly exceeded its budget. Most other "competitions" have been less competitions and more show case events for the military to examine how the technology is developing. Scoping the field so to speak.

The reason you don't get many contractors bidding in military projects is because making stuff military grade is ludicrously expensive. Only a few companies actually have the resources and expertise to do it. While there is certainly favoritism and obvious underhanded dealings going on in contracting, it's not as big as you make it out. It happens more in the fields of intelligence gathering and special projects than it does in basic weapons production.

I was simply responding to his counterpoint of the "replacement" of the U.S. military AR, which has been a single companies product for almost half a century. His was a very bad example of military "competition". No bid contracting is most rife in security and reconstruction fields, or at the very least thats where it's most visibly prevalent right now.

**Frazzled**

Indeed, plus an M4 is effectively an M16. I'd bet good money a lot of those are refurbished M16s (freely admit could be wrong here). Drop the plastic and get a nice tac scope and voila M4!

**LordofHats**

ShumaGorath wrote:
I was simply responding to his counterpoint of the "replacement" of the U.S. military AR, which has been a single companies product for almost half a century. His was a very bad example of military "competition". No bid contracting is most rife in security and reconstruction fields, or at the very least thats where it's most visibly prevalent right now.

This is true in a lot of cases but even then, there are only so many companies that can do whatever task needs to be done (and only so many willing to enter a war zone to do it). When you've only got three companies to chose from, the Government can save money by just picking one, giving them an offer, and seeing if they bite. That's good way of handling the hiring of contractors... on paper... Sadly it's kind of evolved to the point where a lot of contractors have continually been picked for doing the same jobs. In some cases it's just that they get the job done right, in others bribery or favors are involved. It's an environment prone to abuse and where corruption can grow easily.

Most contractors do just fine. They actually help local economy in some places because for some jobs they hire locals to do the labor (construction for example). But every now and then you get someone who comes along and thinks he can swipe some cash.

In the case of this missing money it's hard to know if contractors were involved. It honestly could have been an accounting error. 8.7 is a rather big accounting error, but it isn't outside the realm of possibility. If contractors had the money there should be a record of which contractors. Documents don't just disappear, so either someone tossed them in the shredder, lost them (unlikely), or call me crazy but it's entirely possible the DoD knows exactly where the money went and just doesn't want to talk about it