Veteran journalist and military affairs author George Wilson writes in a commentary in the June 5 issue of National Journal about the Defense Department’s continuing and decades long failure to be financially accountable. Wilson focuses on some of the consequences of this incompetence and, more importantly, a way out of the mess, which was recently articulated by Mr. Kwai C. Chan, a veteran of the GAO and the inspector general at EPA. Copies of Wilson’s commentary and Chan’s report are provided.

It is not that the Department of Defense cannot pass an audit; it is un-auditable; it literally aspires to improve to the point where it can be audited and fail. Because of such problems, the Defense Department does not know how much it owes to contractors, whether they have been paid once or twice or not at all and whether the goods and services contracted for have all been delivered and, if so, where they are. As to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon cannot reliably discern what units need supplies, where they are in the supply chain, and whether items that should have been delivered have been delivered. It is quite literally a mess worse than the Enron scandal.

The solution to this decades long problem – one that seems so intractable – may be simpler than people might imagine. The CFO of the Defense Department, the comptroller, should be given by Congress every authority and dollar amount she requests to bring the department into compliance with generally accepted accounting principles. If she fails to bring the department into compliance in a specified period of time, she should be replaced. Further, a special counsel-like panel of independent government experts, including accountants, should be appointed to oversee and confirm the progress, if any. Accountability is the key.

These failings are summarized in George Wilson’s June 5, 2006 commentary in National Journal. More details are provided in a report released by Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities and written by a veteran of government service, Mr. Kwai C. Chan.

The Wilson Commentary is available by clicking here.
http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/column.pdf

The Chan report on DOD financial management is available by clicking here.
http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/chan%20report%20on%20DoD%20FM.pdf

Financial Management in the Department of Defense



Winslow T. Wheeler

Director

Straus Military Reform Project

Center for Defense Information

202 797-5271 in DC

301 840-8992 in MD

'Twould seem this item is an indictment of the financial ineptitude of the Department of Defense, a civilian agency within the Executive Branch of the United States government which, as one of its functions, has administrative oversight of the U.S military, eh? In reality methinks it has absolutely nothin' to do with U.S. Military Issues, does not even mention or refer to the U.S. military and so I'm wonderin' why it, like a few others recently, was posted here?

Anybody got a clue?

I will weigh in here. Civilian control of the military is vested in the Department of Defense under the Constitution (previously the war department). Almost everything the civilians do affects the military because THEY CONTROL THE MILITARY, ITS BUDGET, ITS R&D capabilities; ITS JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS; ITS PROCUREMENT POLICIES; ITS BASE OPERATIONS; BRAC; PAY; BENEFITS; TRAINING; PLANNING; ETC. Civilian control is the very heart of the DOD and its not all about the conduct of foreign policy. There is an axiom that is well known in the Washington establishment which is: He who controls the process, controls the outcome. That's a fact. Further, The only reason DOD and its hundreds of thousands of employees is located in Washington DC is because of the budget process and the Congress. The only reason the military contractors have their offices in Virginia is because of the budget process and its proximity to the civilian control of DOD. The military industrial complex is a military issue, like it or not. It runs independently of foreign policy and national defense concerns. These issues are appropriately located in this thread devoted to the Military, and not elsewhere.

Methinks you might wanna go back and check again. The Constitution says no such thing!

Civilian control of the military is specifically vested by the Constitution in the President as Commander in Chief. Although it grants him the power to create agencies and positions within the Executive Branch to which he may administratively delegate duties the responsibilities are still his.

Might be you should read what you're refencin', eh? Article II Section 2 specifically states "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.", but makes no mention of the Department or Secretary of War or Defense!

The National Defense Act of 1947 created the Executive Branch position of Secretary of Defense and, amongst his other duties, placed him in a position of civilian supervision, but not command of the military. Civilian command and control of the military resides solely in the realm of the President. SecDef's specific responsibilities towards the military were and are limited by law to the fields of acquisition, technology & logistics, comptroller, intelligence, personnel & readiness, and policy, but not the actual war fightin' at all.

Durin' my short 30 years service I learned a few things 'bout the military chain of command. One important thing I learned is that operationally each of the service chiefs and regional commanders answers to and has direct access to the President. When exercisin' this access they should, as a courtesy, probably inform their respective service secretary and/or the SecDef as appropriate but 'tis not chiseled in stone, eh?

So, by your reasoning, should we expect to see all articles 'bout Presidential actions, whether or not they're specifically pertainin' to the military, in this section too? I sure hope not!

BTW, some of the stuff you indicated these Executive Branch silly villians control for the military are really controlled by Congress, eh? Methinks you'll find that in the Constitution too.

I'm sorry, and mean no disrespect, but you can't toss stuff out there like this and not expect it to be challenged when someone recognizes it as bein' wrong. Bet on it that that's exactly what I'll keep doin' here, eh?

He who controls the budget controls the outcome. And the President appoints the Secretary of Defense confirmed by the Congress. The Bush White House has controlled all of the appointments in DOD. I don't profess to be a constitutional expert on the "chain of command" and my comments don't speak to that in any event. You miss the point all together. In any event, this thread will continue to post articles with particular bearing on the budget, Secretary Rumsfeld's plans to reorganize the military services, R&D programs, and other DOD related issues.

As you yourself note, "Civilian command and control of the military resides solely in the realm of the President. SecDef's specific responsibilities towards the military were and are limited by law to the fields of acquisition, technology & logistics, comptroller, intelligence, personnel & readiness, and policy, but not the actual war fightin' at all." comments didn't relate to "actual war fightin' at all." But without acquisition, technology, logistics, comptroller, intelligence, personnel, readiness, policy and budget - there wouldn't be a military service.

Not only does the Constitution direct civilian control of the military through the President, but Congress directed the formation and operations of a civilian-conrolled Department Of Defense through Title 10, The Goldwater-Nichols Act. The initial article and all comments are "U.S. Military Issues" as far as I can determine.

DoD has a difficult time "Balancing their Checkbook" for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the complexity associated with military operations. The DoD's prime mission is to "Kill People and Break Things!" The desired goal here is "Effectiveness" not "Efficiency."

Under SECDEF Rumsfeld, there is a conscious effort to make the Services "Purple Suit" and consolidate "like" functions, e.g., finance and personnel. An ultimate "vision" could be to transfer all aircraft to the Air Force and transfer all the boats to the Navy.

Convergeance of seemingly duplicative DoD processes would disregard the history, tradition, and unique capabilities of individual DoD organizations, e.g., Marine Corps, Navy, Army, and Air Force. Inter-Service rivalry is seen as "healthy competition" that can only strengthen combined arms operations. Such consolidations would also require update of Titles 10, 31, 40, and 50, which probably won't happen anytime soon.

A Final Note: All US citizens should perform at least two years of public service and learn the true meaning of citizenship. Passing Congressman Rangle's Universal National Service Act of 2006 (H. R. 4752) would be a step in the right direction.