The Pentagon Labyrinth

More documents

Recommendations

Info

34 | Congressional Oversight: Willing and Able or Willing to Enable? started opposing the Indochina War during his fellow Democrat Lyndon Johnson’s administration, there can be intra-party oversight. It can be tricky, but it can and has been done. Sometimes, oversight is planned to attack political opponents; sometimes it is for reasons of conscience; in either case you have an opportunity to conduct a competent, even fair and objective, investigation. However, if there turns out to be no legitimate basis for pursuing the investigation, you will have to be prepared to tell your political masters that the cupboard of evidence is bare. In the event that they want to proceed nonetheless, you have a legitimate ethical problem on your hands and will have to decide if you want a career as a political hack or a professional. Next, consider the staff you are working with, and yourself. Is anyone interested in working in a senior position in the Pentagon? In the defense industry? Members of Congress and committee staff directors beware! If you wish to perform defense oversight but if any of your staff is interested in working in the Pentagon or for the defense industry, you should reassign, or better yet fire, them. Their career ambitions will mean they will undermine your investigation by bad mouthing it to others, slow rolling your efforts, declaring the information you want unobtainable, and generally working more for the targets of your investigation than with you. If it is you who wants a job in the Pentagon or defense industry, you need to resolve your moral quandary. Typically, a Hill staffer will try to have it both ways, but if you have gotten this far in this handbook, you should know you need to make some decisions. If your intent is to be a sell out, everyone will benefit if you do so sooner rather than later. Genuine staff blood lust for an investigation is necessary but insufficient. Have you or your staff done a successful investigation before? By “successful” I mean, someone was indicted, a program was killed, a manager was fired or resigned, or at least a witness left the hearing very, very unhappy. Certainly, staffers who have limited experience can learn, but it improves your chances for success to have someone around who has already demonstrated skill. The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) offers an entire course on the conduct of oversight. Find a link for this useful opportunity at http://www.pogo.org/cots/. Last, consider the background expertise you or someone working with you needs. It would be nice to have a retired military pilot, for example, conduct an investigation on a military aircraft, but it is not essential. It is much better to score high on the factors above (willingness and skill) and have a military pilot or aircraft designer source to talk to.
Winslow T. Wheeler | 35 Staffers for the congressional defense committees and for the individual members on those committees frequently score poorly on the most important staff quality measures discussed above. Although they may have technical knowledge, they frequently yearn for jobs in the Pentagon, or as temporary detailees (“military fellows”) from the Pentagon, already have them. 8 Many others shun standard oversight ideas, such as inviting witnesses to hearings who have contrary knowledge or points of view; case in point, the Petraeus hearing described above. In sum, in the defense world on Capitol Hill, you are working in a hostile environment. Hold your enemies close; hold your friends closer. 9 Precaution #2: The Least Important Issue May Be the Subject of Your Investigation. As they say, DOD is a “target rich environment.” Almost any subject you select will command millions or billions of dollars and/or hold American lives at stake. No subject is too mundane. Major scandals have occurred on the subject of travel vouchers, credit cards, and the proverbial DOD hammer and coffeemaker. The key is to follow the matter to its origin. That a hammer cost $400 dollars in the 1980s made for some excited press articles, but explaining how that came to be (and complied with DOD purchasing regulations) reveal important insights about the nature of the Pentagon problem. Pick a subject that you, better your member of Congress, are interested in, but remember: how effectively you chase down the origin of the problem, rather than how glitzy you describe the horror story you uncover, is the key. Precaution # 3: Your Evidence Is Your Armor: You must be able to rely on your evidence and, just as importantly, know its limitations. Your enemies will attack you at every opportunity; the slightest chink in your data-armor can cause your downfall, especially if that chink is unknown to you. While evidence that has no compromise in its quality is to be desired; it is also rare. Approach the presentation of your evidence with the expectation of a hostile audience. You need to convince the unconvinced and the skeptical, not those already on your side. The case you build up to sway the unconvinced will automatically appeal to those inclined to side with you, and it will fortify your relationship with your staff director or member of Congress. When they see you 8 Act with extreme caution toward any of these “military fellows;” expect your every word and action to be reported back to their colleagues and superiors in the Pentagon. 9 For a description of the hostility toward oversight in Congress’ defense committees, see an example of a courageous staffer working for Sen. William V. Roth, R – Del., in Chapter 1 (“One Staffer, Two Senators, and an Investigation”) of Winslow T. Wheeler, The Wastrels of Defense: How Congress Sabotages U.S. Security (U.S. Naval Institute Press, 2004), 3-8.
Page 2 and 3: The World Security Institute’s Ce
Page 4 and 5: About the Authors Thomas Christie b
Page 6 and 7: security issues for members of the
Page 8 and 9: Table of Contents PREFACE . . . . .
Page 10 and 11: Preface This handbook aims to help
Page 12 and 13: xx | The Pentagon Labyrinth and for
Page 14 and 15: 2 | Why is This Handbook Necessary?
Page 22 and 23: 10 | Why is This Handbook Necessary
Page 24 and 25: Essay 2 “Penetrating the Pentagon
Page 26 and 27: 14 | Penetrating the Pentagon of a
Page 28 and 29: 16 | Penetrating the Pentagon years
Page 30 and 31: 18 | Penetrating the Pentagon Washi
Page 32 and 33: 20 | Penetrating the Pentagon Back
Page 34 and 35: 22 | Penetrating the Pentagon weapo
Page 36 and 37: 24 | Learning About Defense In the
Page 38 and 39: 26 | Learning About Defense with ou
Page 40 and 41: Essay 4 “Congressional Oversight:
Page 42 and 43: 30 | Congressional Oversight: Willi
Page 56 and 57: 44 | Careerism For example, Gen. Ji
Page 58 and 59: 46 | Careerism responsibility for o
Page 60 and 61: 48 | Careerism brigadier general. Y
Page 62 and 63: 50 | Careerism careerist- and agend
Page 64 and 65: 52 | Careerism Accountability Offic
Page 66 and 67: 54 | Careerism 75 percent) are of E
Page 68 and 69: 56 | Careerism In sum, our armed fo
Page 70 and 71: 58 | Careerism institution.” 40 A
Page 72 and 73: Essay 6 “Confused Alarms of Strug
Page 74 and 75: 62 | Confused Alarms of Struggle an
Page 88 and 89: 76 | Follow the Money Why We Spend
Page 90 and 91: 78 | Follow the Money dangerous the
Page 92 and 93: 80 | Follow the Money billion now b
Page 94 and 95: 82 | Follow the Money Clearly, impe
Page 96 and 97:
84 | Follow the Money their behalf.
Page 98 and 99:
Essay 8 “Decoding the Defense Bud
Page 100 and 101:
88 | Decoding the Defense Budget Ta
Page 102 and 103:
90 | Decoding the Defense Budget Fi
Page 104 and 105:
92 | Decoding the Defense Budget In
Page 106 and 107:
94 | Decoding the Defense Budget me
Page 108 and 109:
96 | Decoding the Defense Budget Ot
Page 110 and 111:
98 | Decoding the Defense Budget
Page 112 and 113:
100 | Decoding the Defense Budget T
Page 114 and 115:
102 | Evaluating Weapons: Sorting t
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
114 | Developing, Buying and Fieldi
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Suggested Contacts, Readings and We
Page 140 and 141:
128 | Suggested Contacts, Reading a
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154:
The Pentagon Labyrinth aims to help
show all

The Pentagon Labyrinth

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?