| Wednesday, December 7, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, Moqtada asks  'what withdrawal,' DoD tells a Congressional Subcommittee that "we're spending  money that we're not watching," January 4th four IG positions go vacant and the  White House is making no effort to fill them, attacks on electricity  transmission towers in Iraq, the White House condemns statemenst Syrian  President Bashar al-Assad makes in an exclusive interview with ABC News' Barbara  Walters, and more.   "This is the sixth hearing addressing the accountability of tax dollar in  war zones," declared US House Rep Jason Chaffetz as he brought to order the  hearing into Iraq and Afghanistan this morning.  Chaffetz is the Chair of the  House Oversight and Government Reform's National Security Subcommittee.   Appearing before the Subcommittee was the Defense Dept's Inspector General  Gordon S. Heddell, the State Dept's Deputy Inspector General Harold Geisel, the  acting inspector general of US AID Michael Carroll, the acting inspector general  for the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction Steven J. Trent  and the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen.   Subcommitee Chair Chaffetz summarized the fraud and abuse problems early  on,, "In October, the full committee heard testimony from the Commission on  Wartime Contracting about its final report.  The Commissioners allege that  between $30 and $60 billion dollars had been lost in Iraq and Afghanistan due to  waste, fraud and abuse in the contracting process. According to the Commission,  this was due to ill conceived projects, poor planning and oversight, poor  performance by contractors, criminal behavior and blatant corruption.  This is  unacceptable.  And while some may agree or disagree with our engagements in Iraq  and Afghanistan, it is universally unacceptable to waste tax payer money."     Early on, he also noted a serious failure on the part of the White  House.   Subcommittee Chair Jason Chaffetz:  Before recognizing Ranking  Member [John] Tierney, I'd like to note that the Defense Dept, State Dept, USAID  and SIGAR will not have IGs in January.  In May of this year, I wrote the  President asking him to move without delay to appoint replacements.  That letter  was signed by Senators [Joe] Lieberman, [Susan] Collins, [Claire] McCaskill and  [Rob] Portman, as well as [House Oversight Committee] Chairman [Darrell] Issa  and Ranking Member [Elijah] Cummings and Ranking Member Tierney.  I'd like to  place a copy of htis record into the record.  Without objection, so ordered.  To  my knowledge, the President has yet to nominate any of these replacements, nor  has he responded to this letter.  I find that totally unacceptable.  This is a  massive, massive effort.  It's going to take some leadership from the White  House.  These jobs cannot and will not be done if the president fails to make  these appointments.  Upon taking office, President Obama promised that his  administration would be "the most open and transparent in history." You cannot  achieve transparency without inspectors general.  Again, I urge President Obama  and the Senate to nominate and confirm inspectors general to fill these  vacancies  and without delay.   The public face of reconstruction in Iraq has been the Speical Inspector  General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen. We'll note the following from his  opening statement.    SIGIR Stuart Bowen:  First, I am concerned about maintaining  SIGIR's ability to get the information we need to complete ongoing audits and  investigations and to continue to provide the kind of comprehensive Quarterly  Report coverage that the Congress has come to expect from us. The State  Department recently instituted a new bureaucratic process, requiring the  channeling of information that we request from the Embassy through Foggy Bottom  offices.  This process inevitably will cause delays, impede our capacity to deal  directly with the individuals in Iraq responsible for providing the necessary  data, and thus reduce our  responsiveness. Symptomatic of this bureaucratic  development, one of my investigators, working jointly with the FBI on a criminal  case, recently was refused information by the State Department regarding a  potential subject (who is a State employee). State directed my investigator to  use the "audit process" to obtain this investigative information. Worse, he was  challenged as to whether the information, which he had requested in good faith,  was even related to "reconstruction funding." This development is just the  latest quandary in a predicament-filled year, during which the State Department  has repeatedly raised fallacious objections to varying SIGIR requests. I thank  the Chairman and Ranking Member -- and the full Committee's leadership -- for  their steadfast support of our oversight mission; but these recent issues  underscore  the reality of the continuing oversight challenges that confront us. 
   You can't do oversight without the staff.  Or, as Stuart Bowen noted during  questioning, "You have to be there, to do the work."  On that topic, we'll note  this exchange from the hearing.   Chair Jason Chaffetz:  I'd now like to recognize myself for five  minutes and Mr. Heddell, let's start with you.  The Defense Contracting Auditing  Agency, I know is a little bit outside of your lane but I would appreciate it if  you would offer a perspective.  The Commission on Wartime Contracting had  indicated that there were some 56,000 -- 56,0000 -- contracts behind in terms of  auditing these contracts.  Why is that?  How can that be? How is it that DoD can  be so far behind in this?  Sorry, your microphone please.   DoD IG Gordon Heddell: Mr. Chairman, my office has actually done a  lot of work with respect to DCAA.  I would just say generally, first off, that I   think that they probably are under-resourced and need help in that respect but  historically DCAA has been a very challenged organization.  They do a tremendous  amount of work for a lot of agencies -- not just inside the Department of  Defense but outside the Department of Defense.  In the last three to four years,  the DCAA has undergone some sweeping changes as a result of some fairly  significant criticisms of their leadership, of their processes, and-and not  meeting expectations. As a result of that, it has new leadership today with Pat  Fizgerald who was the Director of Army Audit. And Pat has taken on a gigantic  job.  And with the work that my office has done to try to help them identify  vulnerabilities in their mangagement, in their processes and how to be an  effective organization, for the last two years, their focus has been -- and this  is Gordon Heddell talking --  more internal than external. So while, under ideal  circumstances, they would have been focusing outward, doing great work, doing  lots of audits with very experienced and good leadership, they've had to focus  inward to correct management deficiencies and vulnerabilities.  I think that's  partially a result of this backlog in audits, not entirely.   Chair Jason Chaffetz:  And-and my understanding is we've been  participating in a lot of wars and spending a lot of money and a lot of  resources, as that expenditure has gone up, help me understand what's happening  with the actual auditors themselves because you have been appropriated more  money.   DoD IG Gordon Heddell:  Absoultely.  In fact, I've been a very  fortunate organization.  In the last three or four years, the DoD Office of  Inspector General has been plussed up some $87 million, Mr. Chairman. I doubt  that any other IG can say that, so I'm very fortunate. The Congress has been  very supportive of me. And for that matter, so has the Department of  Defense.   Chair Jason Chaffetz: But have you been spending that  money?   DoD IG Gordon Heddell: No.  The problem there is that the budget,  the $87 million in plus ups that I have received have not been annualized. And  what that means is that although I'm very fortunate to get these plus ups, I'm  not able to use that money to hire permanent staff.  So I can hire contractors,  I can -- I can do other things with that money but I cannot, because it's not  being annualized by the Department, I cannot run the risk of hiring people and  then having to RIFF them [lay them off] the following year for fear that I don't  have enough money in my budget to pay them.  It's a problem.   Chair Jason Chaffetz: Of that $87 million that you've gotten, how  much did you actually spend?   DoD IG Gordon Heddell:  Well we have spent almost all of it because  --   Chair Jason Chaffetz:  But you're hiring outside contractors to do  --   DoD IG Gordon Heddell:  Yes, sir.  We're hiring outside  contractors.  We're creatively doing work that is positive and meets the needs  of both the Congress and the Department and the American people.  But, for  instance, you know one of the -- in the early 2000s, there's two things that  happened that have come to haunt us today. One is that while we sent our  military forces into southeast Asia to fight two wars, there was a mistaken  belief by many of the civilian agencies that they could fight those two wars in  the continental United States, my own organization being one of those.  And it  wasn't until three of four years ago that we came to the realization you cannot  do that, that you must be present, and you have to have the people in place, you  have to have the footprint. The second thing that happened is that the  Department of Defense's budget doubled to about $650 billion dollars.  And at  the same time, the contract -- Aquistion and Contract Management Workforce, in  fact, was reduced in size meaning that we lacked thousands and thousands of  needed contracting specialists that are not there to oversight these contracts,  that are not there to raise their hand and say 'stop the assembly line.'  We're  spending money that we're not watching.  We're not surveillling it.  So those  are the two major issues.   Subcommittee Chair Jason Chaffetz: Well thank you, I appreciate  that.  I think this highlights a mulit-billion dollar problem and challenge that  we certainly need to address and fix because I think there is a definite need  that is pervasive in the Congress -- both in the House and the Senate -- to make  sure that these types of functions are in place.  But the way that the money is  appropriated is obviously falling short and failing.     Now we're going to fall back to the December 1st snapshot  to note the November 30th hearing of the  House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia  hearing:   Ranking Member Gary Ackerman:  He [Bowen] has testified before  other bodies of Congress, he has released written quarterly reports, as well as  specific audits and the message is the same: The program for which the  Department of State officially took responsibility on October 1st is nearly a  text book case of government procurement -- in this case, foreign assistance --  doesn't buy what we think we're paying for, what we want and why more money will  only make the problem worse.  Failed procurement is not a problem unique to the  State Department.  And when it comes to frittering away millions, Foggy Bottom  is a rank amateur compared to the Department of Defense. As our colleagues on  the Armed Services committees have learned, the best of projects with the most  desirable of purposes can go horribly, horribly off-track; and the hardest thing  it seems that any bureaucracy can do is pull the plug on a failed initiative.   How do we know the Police Development Program is going off-track?  Very simple  things demonstrate a strong likelihood of waste and mismanagement.  Number one,  does the government of Iraq -- whose personnel we intend to train -- support the  program? Interviews with senior Iraqi officials by the Special Inspector General  show utter disdain for the program. When the Iraqis suggest that we take our  money and do things instead that are good for the United States, I think that  might be a clue.   Ackerman went on to note how "the program's objectives remain a  mushy bowl of vague platitudes" and how  it had "no comprehensive and detailed  plan for execution, there is no current assessment of Iraqi police force  capability and, perhaps most tellingly, there are no outcome-based metrics.   This is a flashing-red warning light."     We dropped back because this issue was also raised in today's  hearing.     US House Rep Raul Labrador: Mr. Bowen, right now the police  development program is the administration's largest foreign aid project for Iraq  going forward.  And there's some evidence that the Iraqis don't even want this  program. So have you or your staff asked the Iraqi police forces if they need  the $500 million a year program that the Obama administration is planning to  spend on the police development program?   SIGIR Stuart Bowen: Yes, Mr. Labrador, we have and we reported on  that in our last quarterly report noting that the senior official at the  Ministry of the Interior, Senior Deputy Minister al-Assadi said "he didn't see  any real benefit from the police development program." I addressed that with him  when I was in Iraq a couple of weeks ago and I asked him, "Did you mean what you  said?"  And his response was, "Well we welcome any support that the American  government will provide us; however, my statements as quoted in your recent  quarterly are still posted on my website."   US House Rep Raul Labrador: So why is the administration still  spending $500 million a year to provide this program?   SIGIR Stuart Bowen: There's a beliff that security continues to be  a challenge in Iraq, a well founded belief, I might add, given the events of  this week. Killings of pilgrims again, on the way to Najaf, on the eve of  Ashura. The focus though on trying to address those problems has been a widely  scattered, high level training program involving about 150 police trainers who,  as we've seen again this week, are going to have a very difficult time moving  about the country.    US House Rep Raul Labrador: So what other problems have you found  with the police development program, if any?   SIGIR Stuart Bowen: Several.  Well, Mr. Labrador, we pointed out in  our audit that, one Iraqi buy-in, something that the Congress requires from  Iraq, by law, that is a contribution of 50% to such programs,has not been  secured -- in writing, in fact, or by any other means. That's of great concern.   Especially for a Ministry that has a budget of over $6 billion, a government  that just approved, notionally, a hundred billion dollar budget for next year.   It's not Afghanistan.  This is a country that has signficant wealth, should be  able to contribute but has not been forced to do so, in a program as crucial as  this.   US House Rep Raul Labrador: I know I've run out of time but, Mr.  Geisel, do you have any comments on this?   Deputy Inspector General for US State Dept Harold Geisel: Well, of  course, first of all, I'm not going to second guess my friend and colleague on  what his people found.  And, of course, the people you need to bring up here are  the people from the State Department to comment on what he found.  I do -- I saw  that the Department published a document -- a 21-page document that includes  goals and measures of performance for the police development program but it's my  friend's baby, not mine.     After that bit of hot potato, the next big issue was returning to the lack  of nominees to fill the soon to be vacant oversight roles.   US House Rep Raul Labrador: One of the things that's most  frustrating to me as a freshman in Congress is that there are some things that  both sides agree on that we need to be working on and yet we're not doing them.   I look at the Oversight Committee, here, I don't think there's a lot of  difference.  There might be some small differences between the two sides, but it  seems like we can identify some things like the $500 million that we're going to  spend on the Iraq police force that they don't even want, that we should be  finding things in common that we could be saving on.  I want -- if we could put  on that transparency here on President Obama. And I'm not saying this, I'm not  using this to embarrass anybody, but President Obama has said on his website  that he's committed to making his administration the most open and transparent  in history.  He wants a window for all Americans into the business of  government.  And that's something that I want. I actually agree with him on this  issue.  Yet this panel is representing the IG offices principally responsible  for overseeing tax payer money in Iraq and Afghanistan and, as of January 4th of  next year, four of the five offices will not have an IG.  I'm concerned about  that.  I want everybody to comment, do you know whether the President has  nominated anyone to fill these vacancies?  If so, who has been nominated?  Have  you made any recommendations? And do you think the absence of permanent IGs will  actually harm our efforts in oversight?  And anyone can take this  question.     DoD IG Gordon Heddell:  I-I certainly would like to comment. Number  one, I don't know the names, Congressman Labradour, of anyone who might have  been nominated or who is being considered to be nominated. Number two, I can  tell you that the confirmation -- the nomination and confirmation process that  we have is cumbersome and slow and it has an adverse impact on the leadership of  these organizations. Number three, when I took over as the acting inspector  general in July of 2008, the DoD IG had -- at the very top -- been vacant for so  many years -- over the past 10, 12 years, you can't imagine. And so to run an  organization using an acting inspector general as the leader is foolhardy.  You  can do it for a few months, but you cannot succeed over years and decades and  that is what has happened.   US House Rep Raul Labrador: Does anybody know why that has  happened?  Is there any reason why?  It seems like both sides would agree that  we need a robust IG in all of these agencies.  Does anybody have any comments on  that?  Mr. Carroll?   US AID acting IG Michael Carroll: I can't comment on what the White  House is doing but I just want to assure you on behalf of the USAID IG that one  of the great things about working for Don Gambatesa, it was truly a partnership  between him and I, so as I moved into the acting role, other than the fact that  it's a bit of a work load issue for me, the work goes on and the leadership  philosophy continues and so I just want to assure the Subcommittee that-that  there'll be no-no degredation in our effectiveness or what our work is going to  be for as long as it takes the President to make a decision on the IG  job.     Meanwhile  Al  Mada reports  that Moqtada al-Sadr declared (in his online  column to followers) that, "I do not know of a withdrawal of the occupation" in  reply to a question about celebrations taking place in Iraq as US forces are  repostured. Related, Jim Michaels (USA Today) interviews  US Lt Gen  Robert Caslen about the current status of the Iraqi forces and quotes Caslen  stating, "That leaves a significant training gap in the Iraqi security forces.  Iraqi security forces are going to have to address how to meet that training gap  in the future." reports Al Rafidayn notes  Nouri al-Maliki  is scheduled to visit DC next week and meet with members of the US  administration. Al Mada  states  he will be leading a delegation and notes that Abbas  al-Bayati, MP with the National Alliance is insisting that Nouri cannot enter  into any agreement on his own. Rumors continue that Nouri al-Maliki will  ask Gulf countries to patrol Iraqi air space (since its own air force is not  prepared for the job yet and won't be until 2014 at the earliest). Kitabat reports  the rumors as truth  and part of a plan -- by Iraq and other Gulf states, according to the newspaper  -- for this Gulf air force to patrol the entire region. That seems very  unlikely. Setting aside the various conflicts Nouri has with Saudi Arabia and  other neighbors, it seems highly unlikely that Iraq would agree to such a deal  which, in 2014, would no longer be necessary but would be very difficult to get  out of. Al Mada reports  that government  sources are denying any plan to enter into an agreement with Gulf region  countries to have them protect Iraqi air space. In other news, Al  Mada reports  that the Christian bloc in Parliament has  declared that there is no need for "international forces" in any disputed  territories. "International forces" most likely means both the US and NATO. Last  week, Iraqi Christians were targeted in northern Iraq. Alsumaria TV reports  that the Union  of Kurdistan Islamic Clerics is rejecting the charges that incendiary language  by one of their members led to the attacks.   In the Middle East, Iran borders Iraq on the east. AFP notes  an attack in north east  Iraq which claimed 1 police officers life and left two more injured as  powerlines supplying electricity to Iraq from Iran's Kermanshah were sabotaged.  Deutsche Presse-Agentur notes , "Iraqi  Electricity Ministry spokesman Museb al-Madras said the attack on Tuesday in  Baquba, 60 kilometres east of Baghdad, targeted pylons that are part of a  network that brings in some 400 megawatts of Iranian power annually. " In  addition, Aseel Kami, Kareem Raheem, Fadhil al-Badrani and  Rania El Gamal (Reuters) report  another attack was planned but  prevented, "In the vast western Anbar province, the Iraqi army defused bombs  planted around a power plant early on Wednesday, local army sources said. The  attackers had tied up the guards and took their weapons, the sources said."  Reuters notes today's violence in  Iraq alrso includes 1 police officer shot dead in Falluja, a Kirkuk sticky  bombing which claimed the life of 1 person, a Kirkuk roadside bombing which  injured an official with "Iraqi Railways Company," a Baghdad roadside bombing  which claimed the life of 1 police officer and left three more injured, an  attorney shot dead in Mosul, a Jurf al-Sakhar sticky bombing which injured a  worker with the National Security Ministry, a Jurf al-Sakhar roadside bombing  whcih injured one person and, dropping back to last night, 1 peshmerga shot dead  in Kirkuk. Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) examines  today's violence and sees three deaths  as potentially linked and a disturbing  portent of the future for Iraq, "Maj. Gen. Jamal Taher Baker, Kirkuk's  provincial police chief, says these attacks were carried out by militant groups  linked to al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's former regime to derail any easing in  the dispute in Kirkuk, which has pitted local communities against one another.  The day's violence came after at least four people were killed and 45 others  wounded over the previous 10 days in roadside bombings and mortar attacks  targeting members of the Shiite Turkmen community in and around Kirkuk,  according to local police."  Oil-rich and disputed Kirkuk, long predicted to be  a flashpoint in Iraq, Dagher notes, is rumored to be drawing in Iranians and  Turkish operatives to foster more violence.   Turkey borders Iraq from the north and in addition to purchasing  electricity from Iran, Iraq is conducting business with Pakistan and India. Khalid al-Ansary (Bloomberg News) reports  that Iraq's  purchased 30,000 tons of rice from India and 90,000 from Pakistan and that Iraq  is predicted to produce 250,000 tons of rice this year (basically a fifth of  what Iraq is expected to consume in 2012). While Iran borders Iraq from  the east, Turkey borders it from the north and Jordan borders it from the  southwest. MENAFN News notes  that Jordan is  requesting that Iraq help them with an alternative trade route for their exports  to Turkey and Europe should Syria close their borders. (Syria borders Iraq on  the northeast and is directly north of Jordan.) In addition, Omar Obeidat (Jordan Times)  reports :Owners of cargo trucks are mulling using Iraq  as an alternative transit route to Turkey and Europe as just a few trucks enter  Syria per day due to the turbulence in the northern neighbour. According to  Mohammad Dawood, president of the Jordan Truck Owners Association (JTOA), over  the past two weeks Jordanian trucks carrying vegetables and other goods to  Turkey and Europe have "rarely" travelled through Syria due to the ongoing  instability.
 He told The Jordan Times over the phone on Saturday that  although Syrian authorities are not banning the entry of Jordanian cargo trucks  through their land, owners and drivers are reluctant to enter the violence-hit  country. On the topic of Jordan, Aswat al-Iraq  notes, "The number of Iraqis in Jordan has  recently dropped down to 195,000, according to the Iraqi Embassy in Amman on  Sunday."
 
   ABC's Barbara Walters: Mr. President, you have invited us to  Damascus and you have not given an interview to the American media since this  crisis began. What is it you want us to know?    Syrian President Bashar al-Assad: I would like to reiterate what I  used to say after 11th of September, to every American delegation I met, first  of all I think the American people, people should know more about what's  happening beyond the ocean, second the American media I would like them to tell  only the truth about what's happening in the world, and for the American  administration. Don't look for puppets in the world.    Walters: Don't look for puppets?    Assad: Only deal with administration that, on people that can tell  you know about the truth, because what's happening in the world now is taking  the world toward chaos, what we need now is we need to deal with the reality. So  the message now is about the reality.    Walters: Tell me what the reality here is your country is. What is  the reality?    Assad: It's too complicated, it takes hours to talk about... so  let's be specific.    Walters: Not long ago you were widely seen as a fresh pragmatic  leader, a doctor whose life was in healing people, now sir, much of the world  regards you as a dictator and a tyrant. What do you say to that?    Assad: What's important how the Syrian people look at you, not how  you look at yourself. So I don't have to look at myself. This is... second, it's  about the system. You have a dictator and you have dictatorship, there's a big  difference between the two, dictatorship is about the system, we never said we  are democratic country, but we're not the same, we-- we are moving forward in,  in reforms, especially during the last nine month, so I think we are moving  forward, it takes a long time, it takes a lot of maturity to be full fledge  democratic country, but we are moving that, that direction, for me as a person,  whatever I do should be based on the will of the people, because you need  popular legitimacy and this is against dictatorship for person.             And turning to  veterans issues, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the  Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and her office  notes: |