When in Doubt: Blame B. Clinton

[Dancing David]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703130009

On the March 10 edition of Fox News Watch, in response to criticism that privatization of support staff services at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) contributed to deteriorating conditions and inadequate care, Newsday columnist James P. Pinkerton asserted that "the dreaded privatization at Walter Reed began in the year 2000," when Bill Clinton was president. Pinkerton then asked: "Now who was president in the year 2000? It wasn't George Bush." But actual "privatization" did not begin in 2000. That year, the "process of considering Walter Reed" for public-/private-sector bidding competitions began, according to a March 2 letter from two senior Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The contract with a private firm to operate and maintain facilities at Walter Reed was not entered until January 2006

 

[Darth Rotor]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703130009

The finger points to budgeting and program management, and the actual facilities investment made to the facility over the past 5-10 years. To intelligently discuss this, which the media coverage so rarely does, one would need to do a FOIA request on the Base Operating funds accoutns, the IPL, and the execution of capital accounts, as well as O&M accounts for the same period, to examine those parts of the base identified as requiring investment/rework, execution of routine maintenance, and the annual unfunded requirements line (each installation has them) in detail.

With that info, which the secretary of the Army's office would have access to pretty much coincident with any audit or inspection of the facility, one can assess the pattern of decay, or otherwise.

If (and this is a big if) it was well known that the base was on the short list of "to be turned over to the private sector" as far back as 2000, any long term investment would be seen, from a program management point of view, as having negligible or negative Return Of Investment, a critical metric in decisions to disperse captial and O&M funds in these Base Operating Funds constrained times.

I find the recent decision to fire the Army Surgeon General a rationale one, since it appears (I don't know for sure) that he may have made decisions based on something other than mission. The funds prioritization for medical facilities looks to have ran afoul of money flow capacity at the Secretariat/Congressional interface. The entire time Rummy was Sec Def, he was engaged in a war, and a transformation, with transformation meaning "spend less money and get more/better performance at the same time." If I sound bitter, I am. It happened in my area of interest as well.

DR

 

[pgwenthold]

Even if the privatization was initiated under Bill Clinton, the republicans have been in charge for the last 6 years. It doesn't matter if they caused the conditions, or allowed them to occur through neglect, they are still responsible and no amount of apologetic "we need more information" crap is going to change that.

Just another example of how the congress failed in its oversight of anything in the last 6 years. They have committees that are responsible for checking these types of things. They didn't do their job.

 

[Dancing David]

Bitter goes with the sweet, I have seen a very proseperous community plunged into oblivion by a base closure, it has taken 15 years for them to recover. I am only a little knowledgeable about military things. I know the systems are cool, but I feel the infantry should be better paid, better supported and better listened to.

 

[LawnOven]

I like how in republican world there is like a time vacuum in between 2000 and SH@%-hits-the-fan '07.

 

[hgc]

I like how in republican world there is like a time vacuum in between 2000 and SH@%-hits-the-fan '07.

You like that? Just wait until 2009.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Even if the privatization was initiated under Bill Clinton, the republicans have been in charge for the last 6 years. It doesn't matter if they caused the conditions, or allowed them to occur through neglect, they are still responsible and no amount of apologetic "we need more information" crap is going to change that.

Just another example of how the congress failed in its oversight of anything in the last 6 years. They have committees that are responsible for checking these types of things. They didn't do their job.

I am not sure if you were responding to me. Congress does have a share in the culpability, but so too does the service who runs that facility. They are the executive branch, and are charged with executing. It seems odd, hell, counterproductive and mission limiting, that a policy and priority decision was not made as early as 2004, when it was obvious as hell that the "short war" myth was dead and gone, to reprioritize resources into a treatment facility O&M and Facilities funds. The call to do that would have been initiated by the operators of the facility. What is even stranger is that Walter Reed is frequently visited by Congressional persons. It is in the Army's interest for the entire facility to be, from top to bottom, first rate in all details. The Army, as an institution, knows good and damned well how the Post works, and how Congressmen and their staffs dig into local (within 50 miles of DC) details simply due to their locale.

Strategy? Tactics? Apparently missing. I am surely missing something in this analysis, the inner workings of funding limits and prioritization, but from what I know, what appears to have been the course of action for the past two to three years makes little sense.

Part of the role of Chief of Staff of the Army, and the Army Surgeon General, is perception management. A facility in Washington DC is easily scrutinized by media and Congress. It's right there. Maybe someone did not allocate more resources there due to a sense of "fairness" to other facilities elsewhere in the country.

DR

 

[corplinx]

So Pinkerton's reference on a show that nobody watches is important? Does Pinkerton have a habit of blaming B. Clinton or is this just well poisoning (you know, poisoning the well so that whenever anyone lifts a finger in Clinton's direction people start going "Well, there they go again, can't leave him alone, tried to jail for getting a hummer from a fatty").

 

[This Guy]

Is anyone else bothered by the Haliburton connection to all of this?

"Committee subpoenas former Walter Reed chief"

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/03/Weightmansubpoena/

"The committee wants to learn more about a letter written in September by Garrison Commander Peter Garibaldi to Weightman.

The memorandum “describes how the Army’s decision to privatize support services at Walter Reed Army Medical Center was causing an exodus of ‘highly skilled and experienced personnel,’” the committee’s letter states. “According to multiple sources, the decision to privatize support services at Walter Reed led to a precipitous drop in support personnel at Walter Reed.”

The letter said Walter Reed also awarded a five-year, $120-million contract to IAP Worldwide Services, which is run by Al Neffgen, a former senior Halliburton official."

I hope when the dust settles, we know enough about what really went on here to determine who's guilty and who isn't.

For some interesting reading on Haliburton, from an obviously biased source (but links appear to back up the allegations being made) see -

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/audits.html

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/shareholder2004.html

Or see their homepage for other tidbits -

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Granted the company that appears to me, to have taken over operations at Walter Reed is not a Haliburton company/subsidiary, but the facts that it is headed by an ex-Haliburton Exec, and that the apparent consequences are similar to what Haliburton is often accused of (poor results for a lot of money) just sends a bit of a tingle up my spine.

But, maybe I'm drawing conclusions that are not warranted.

 

[pgwenthold]

I am not sure if you were responding to me. Congress does have a share in the culpability, but so too does the service who runs that facility.

We don't know that. They are the ones for which we need to know all the details of what they had available. We need to know budget allocations and expenditures.

All we know at the end is that the facility has been in terrible shape. I don't know whether it was because of lack of appropriate funding or mismanagement. What I do know is that despite it being in disrepair, the republican-led congress did nothing to find out why, or fix it. It was well within their ability to investigate the conditions within to determine how they could be improved.

The only possible excuse is ignorance, and, indeed, the recent claims are that the soldiers only went to the media after being ignored by the chain of command. So if the chain of command didn't mention it, one could postulate that the congress didn't really know about it.

OTOH, I know the fall elections that Steve Buyer (chair of Veterans Affairs, or something like that) was ripped by veterans for ignoring their concerns. Of course, Buyer still won with 2/3 the vote, so he didn't have to listen to them, so it's possible his apathy was deliberate.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

The Walter Reed fiasco is yet another example of why we need to treat them over there so we don't have to treat them over here.