America’s Secret Empire of Drone Bases

October 24, 2011 by kyle from DMZ.hawaii.org

Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam could start controlling one of the military’s newest and most lethal weapons.The Air Force announced that the base is a candidate to operate Predator and Reaper Aircraft.

[...]

The aircraft would not be assigned to Hawaii, however, they would be controlled from here [...]

If Hickam is selected as a drone base, it would join an invisible empire of drone bases that have multiplied in recent years. Nick Turse has written an excellent expose on the vast network of U.S. drone bases:

Using military documents, press accounts and other open source information, an in-depth analysis by AlterNet has identified at least 60 bases integral to U.S. military and CIA drone operations. There may, however, be more, since a cloak of secrecy about drone warfare leaves the full size and scope of these bases distinctly in the shadows.

Here is “America’s Secret Empire of Drone Bases: Its Full Extent Revealed for the First Time”.

Turse believes that the impending Pentagon budget cuts will mean an increase in the use of drones:

Drones are now the bedrock of Washington’s future military planning and — with counterinsurgency out of favor — the preferred way of carrying out wars abroad.

The global network of more than 1000 U.S. military bases will provide infrastructure for expanding the drone programs:

Earlier this year, an analysis by TomDispatch.com determined that there are more than 1,000 U.S. military bases scattered across the globe — a shadowy base-world that provides plenty of existing sites that can, and no doubt will, host drones. But facilities selected for a pre-drone world may not always prove optimal locations for America’s current and future undeclared wars and assassination campaigns. So further expansion in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia is likely.

What are the Air Force’s plans in this regard? Lieutenant Colonel John Haynes was typically circumspect. “We are constantly evaluating potential operating locations based on evolving mission needs,” he said. If the last decade is any indication, those “needs” will only continue to grow.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

What is the rate of accidents? Civilian casualties? Military.com reports that a military cargo plane was struck by a drone in Afghanistan recently:

A military cargo plane from the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station was damaged when an unmanned drone crashed into it during an Afghanistan mission last month, officials have confirmed.

The C-130 Hercules transport plane, assigned to the 914th Airlift Wing of the Air Force, had to make an emergency landing after it was struck by the drone on Aug. 15, authorities said.

The rapid rise of drones has opened up a can of ethical and legal issues that humanity has yet to reckoned with.

Windfalls of War: Pentagon's No-Bid Contracts Triple in 10 Years of War

Published on Monday, August 29, 2011 by iWatchNews.org

Taxpayer is the loser when Pentagon doesn't require competition among contractors. "The lack of competition is a scandal," says one expert.

by Sharon Weinberger

As U.S. military deaths and injuries from roadside bombs escalated after the invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon rushed to find solutions.

A U.S. Marine prepares for patrol in Marjah, Afghanistan, where a decade of war has meant billions in profits for defense contractors.Todd Pitman/APCompetition is normally the cornerstone of better prices and better products, but the urgency of dealing with improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, has been cited to justify a number of sole-source contracts to companies promising quick solutions over a decade of war.

One such company was Tucson-based Applied Energetics , which markets a futuristic weapon that shoots beams of lightning to detonate roadside bombs. The company won over $50 million in military contracts for their lightning weapon, all without full and open competition, even though there was another company marketing similar technology. Despite test failures, the company, in part thanks to congressional support, continued to get funding.

In August, the Marine Corps, which was on the verge of awarding the company yet another sole-source contract for the lightning weapon, cancelled the latest $3 million deal after the commander of the unit in Afghanistan decided it didn’t meet their needs.

In the meantime, a competitor, called Xtreme Alternative Defense Systems , an Indiana-based firm with its own lightning-based counter-bomb technology, says it’s had good results with only a fraction of the federal funding that Applied Energetics has received—$1.5 million. The company is preparing to test its technology at a military range. “We did our own development based on state grants” and federal funds, says Pete Bitar, the head of the company. “I cashed out my 401(k).”

The bomb fighting contract is a small example of a problem that’s been exacerbated by 10 years of war: awarding contracts without competition. While the Pentagon says its overall level of competition has remained steady over the past 10 years, publicly available data shows that Defense Department dollars flowing into non-competitive contracts have almost tripled since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. According to analysis by the Center for Public Integrity’s iWatch News, the data shows that the value of Pentagon contracts awarded without competition topped $140 billion in 2010, up from $50 billion in 2001.

And despite repeated pledges to reform the process, non-competitive contracts are a hard habit to break. According to federal data, the Pentagon’s competed contracts, based on dollar figures, fell to 55 percent in the first two quarters of 2011, a number lower than any point in the last 10 years since the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

There are a number of legal loopholes that allow the Defense Department, as well as other federal agencies, to avoid competition and to select a single company to provide the desired goods and services. In some cases, there may be only one legitimate supplier of needed goods, or the government can argue that it has “an unusual and compelling urgency,” and that holding a competition would have a detrimental impact on government operations or national security.

But those exceptions have become increasingly abused, according to numerous studies. In fact, an analysis of over a dozen government reports and investigations, and interviews with eight former government officials and experts, found a number of concerns about DOD competition practices — attributable in large part to the past 10 years of war. Those include:

• The use of large umbrella contracts to purchase goods and services that could be competed individually, thus resulting in lower price;
• Justifying sole source contracts by citing an “urgent and compelling need,” when in fact the urgency stemmed from the agency’s lack of planning for requirements that have been known for years.
• Extending large contracts as a “bridge,” rather than re-competing them.
• An overall failure to utilize competition in cases that could result in cost savings and better performance.

These alarming trends have not gone unnoticed. Sole-source and other noncompetitive contracting practices at the Pentagon have been the subject of numerous investigations by the Government Accountability Office, the Defense Department’s Inspector General, and the Commission on Wartime Contracting, among other government watchdogs.

The consequence, according to those investigative agencies and commissions: wasted dollars, lower quality goods and services, and in some cases, outright fraud.

Reports of limited and no-bid contracting, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, captured headlines in the early days of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, when companies like Custer Battles, later convicted of fraud , were given sole-source security contracts for security and reconstruction, including one worth $16.5 million to provide security at Baghdad International Airport. Among the accusations eventually levied against the company, which had no prior track record, was that it charged grossly inflated prices, in part by using fictitious companies to “lease” equipment to the government.

In his 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Barack Obama railed against such contracts, accusing them of wasting taxpayer dollars, and promised to rein in such spending.

In 2009, President Obama followed up those campaign promises with a memo directing a broad overhaul of government contracting, including limits to sole-source and non-competitive contracting. “Excessive reliance by executive agencies on sole-source contracts (or contracts with a limited number of sources) and cost-reimbursement contracts creates a risk that taxpayer funds will be spent on contracts that are wasteful, inefficient, subject to misuse, or otherwise not well designed to serve the needs of the Federal Government or the interests of the American taxpayer,” the president wrote in the 2009 memorandum , citing reports by multiple government agencies. Moving back to full and open competition, the memo continued, could save the government billions of dollars. But in two-and-half years, the Obama administration has made no progress in competing military contracts.

Even the Pentagon’s senior leadership has acknowledged the problem: a 2010 memo by Undersecretary Ashton Carter, the Pentagon’s senior procurement official, called for greater competition, along the lines of the earlier Obama memo, and promised the Pentagon would make its contracting process more open to competitive bidding. “Maximize the use of multiple-source, continuously competitive contracts,” a briefing accompanying the memo states.

However, campaign pledges and memos have made little headway in combating the problem. “The lack of competition in the Defense Department is a scandal,” said Charles Tiefer , a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and a member of the congressionally mandated Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The ultimate question is whether non-competitive contracts are due to trends beyond the Pentagon’s control, such as the lack of qualified competitors and the urgency of wartime contracting, or whether they are the result of poor policies and procedures. The Pentagon maintains that its competition rates are lower because of the nature of the things it buys: large weapons and major systems that then have large follow-on contracts that must, by their nature, go to the original supplier. “These high-dollar non-competitive procurements significantly impact the Department's overall level of competition to produce the 61.7 percent competition rate for FY2010,” says Cheryl Irwin, a Pentagon spokeswoman.

The GAO, in multiple decisions, has said that “failure to plan” for a procurement that results in an urgent need does not constitute a basis for a sole source competition, and has, on a number of occasions, sided with protesting companies that argue the only urgency was an agency’s failure to conduct a timely competitive procurement.

One report commissioned by the Pentagon’s Office of Industrial Policy and conducted by the federally-funded Institute for Defense Analyses appears to suggest it’s a systemic problem. “We found that the use of short-term contracts and modifications to fill the gap in services between the end of one contract and the beginning of the next is a significant source of sole source contracts,” the report concluded.

The study, which looked specifically at contracts for services, found that there wasn’t a lack of qualified companies; rather, nearly a quarter of the sole-source awards were justified based on “bridge contracts” that extended existing contracts without competition. “For sole source contracts there does appear to be a problem, not with the industrial base or with competition, but with DOD practices and policies,” the report concluded.

Noncompetitive, sole-source contracts are by no means unique to the Pentagon. Other agencies have been accused of giving short shrift to competition, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which awarded over half of its immediate post-Hurricane Katrina contracts without full competition, according to one congressional report. But based on total dollars, the Pentagon, according to publicly available data analyzed by iWatch News, lags behind all other major departments in competitive contracting. The Pentagon's competition rate of about 61 percent places it will below other agencies. The State Department in 2010 competed almost 75 percent of its contract dollars, the Department of Homeland Security competed almost 77 percent, and the Energy Department competed 94 percent.

Nevertheless, sole source contracts, ranging from training to equipment, continue to be handed out on a near daily basis, often with little explanation beyond a stated “urgent requirement.” On July 18 of this year, DRS Technical Services of Herndon, Va., received a contract worth nearly $20 million for training and mentoring Afghan police.It was the only bid solicited for the contract, according to the Pentagon.

A spokesperson for Army Contracting Command said the sole source contract, which was actually for fielding communications equipment to Afghan police, was due to an “urgent requirement that necessitated an award to the incumbent DRS pending competition.” That same contract was also the subject of a 2009 DOD Inspector General investigation, which criticized the contractor’s and the Army’s inventory controls.

© 2011 Center for Public Integrity

The Imperial Defense of Pentagon Bloat

By David Sirotav from Commondreams.org

Beware the sophistry of budget talking points -- especially those seeking to deter any criticism of defense spending.

That's the lesson of these last few weeks, as establishment Republicans desperately try to thwart both progressives and tea party conservatives who are pressuring Congress to reduce Pentagon bloat.

The latest talking point du jour has been around in one form or another for years. It asks us to forget that a) America spends more on defense than every other major nation combined and b) the Pentagon, whose annual budget is now approaching World War II levels in inflation-adjusted terms, has lost track of trillions of taxpayer dollars. In light of those disturbing truths, we are nonetheless urged by Beltway Republicans to focus on the fact that defense spending is "4.9 percent of our gross domestic product, significantly below the average of 6.5 percent since World War II," as a recent Wall Street Journal editorial proclaimed.

That widely circulated article, aimed squarely at grassroots conservatives, was jointly written by three of the most influential Republican think tanks in Washington -- the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and the Foreign Policy Initiative. And like clockwork, the "percentage of GDP" nugget went from their pen to the GOP's well-oiled media machine.

Within days, RedState.com was bewailing supposedly "historically low (defense) spending" and citing the GDP talking point as a "rallying call." The American Spectator magazine, meanwhile, held up the op-ed as an "important reminder to new Republican congressmen" to refrain from "shortchang(ing) both our troops and American national security." Not surprisingly, that's when the "percentage of GDP" stat began being loyally parroted by establishment Republican voices on talk radio.

At one level, the GDP line is designed to simply avert attention from the $700 billion annual defense bill being, well, $700 billion. That's not only a massive sum, but also comparatively exorbitant. Yes, the Pentagon budget is so outsized that according to former Reagan Pentagon official Larry Korb, "(E)ven if the United States were to cut its (defense) spending in half it would still be spending more than its current and potential adversaries."

But, then, discussing defense spending in GDP argot is more than just distracting. It's dangerously incoherent, or just plain dangerous, because the language implies that military expenditures must increase as the economy expands.

Think about it: From a strictly defensive, protect-the-nation perspective, that assumption makes no sense.

"Does a more prosperous economy increase the risk that we will be attacked by a foreign power or by a terrorist group?" writes Slate's Tim Noah. "Of course not."

He adds that "a growing GDP may increase the level of defense spending we can afford, but it has no bearing on the level of defense spending we actually need."

This is true, except in one disturbing case: if -- but only if -- we assume the economy should grow primarily as a consequence of military dominance.

Herein lies the truly "dangerous" part of the GDP mantra. If Republicans in Washington believe American economic growth should be based on the United States militarily subjugating and exploiting foreign countries, then those Republicans can logically (if abhorrently) insist that Pentagon spending must remain a constant percentage of GDP.

Most elites in the GOP establishment, of course, would never openly admit to believing that our economy should be based on hegemonic conquest. We know this because the GOP establishment expressed unanimous outrage at anyone even vaguely suggesting that America wages war for energy resources.

But maybe that's the unspoken admission in the GDP-themed push for more military expenditures. Perhaps for all of the GOP's outrage at war-for-oil allegations, the Republicans' defense spending rhetoric exposes their truly imperial vision -- one that even the slickest talking points can no longer hide.

Hub for defense plans

Hub for defense plans

Wednesday, 03 February 2010 02:11
by Mar-Vic Cagurangan | Variety News Staff

THE Pentagon discloses its plan to transform Guam into “a hub for security activities” in the Asia-Pacific region as the United States heightens its alert posture to “deter and defeat” regional aggressors.

The Pentagon's 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, released Monday, outlines the United States’ defense strategies that include strengthening of regional alliances and foreign partnerships to maintain an “appropriately tailored military presence that serves a constructive role in maintaining regional stability.”

“To achieve the objectives of the defense strategy, U.S. military capabilities must be postured to defend the United States from external threats, prevail in current conflicts and ongoing operations, deter and prevent adversary aggression and other challenges, assure allies and partners of U.S. security commitments, respond to contingencies, and support security cooperation and capacity-building activities,” the defense review states.

The quadrennial study was released amid the uncertain fate of the 2006 accord between the United States and Japan which involves the relocation of thousands of over 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam.

A component of the Pentagon’s defense posturing plan is to “continue working with Japan to implement the bilateral Realignment Roadmap agreement that will ensure a life-of-the-alliance presence of U.S. forces in Japan and transform Guam, the westernmost sovereign territory of the United States, into a hub for security activities in the region.”

The Pentagon also seeks to “explore opportunities for a more forward-deployed presence that supports increased multilateral maritime security cooperation and enhanced capabilities for assured access to the global commons.”

The United States is enhancing its partnerships and alliances with the Republic of Korea, Australia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Singapore on issues such as counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics, and support to humanitarian assistance operations in the region.

“The United States remains a nation at war. The outcome of today's conflicts will directly shape the global security environment for decades to come, and prevailing in current operations constitutes the department's top priority,” the study says.

The United States has renewed its efforts to wipe out Al Qaeda and Taliban and eliminate their safe havens in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

“By the end of 2010, approximately 100,000 American troops will be fighting to deny the Taliban its goal of overthrowing Afghanistan's government, and by so doing prevent Al Qaeda from reestablishing the safe haven from which it prepared the attacks of September 11, 2001,” the study says.

U.S. Department of Defense requests $427 million for Okinawa relocation

U.S. Department of Defense requests $427 million for Okinawa relocation

February 2, 2010

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of Defense is requesting that $427 million, or approximately 38.4 billion yen, be allocated from the fiscal 2011 federal budget draft to finance the relocation of about 8,000 U.S. Marines stationed in Okinawa to Guam.

The announcement came along with the allocation of $159.3 billion (about 14.3 trillion yen) to fund overseas war expenses. In total, the Pentagon will demand $192.3 billion (about 17.3 trillion yen) for war expenses, including $33 billion from the fiscal 2010 supplementary budget to cover the additional deployment of troops to Afghanistan.

The $427 million is intended to cover the construction of additional facilities at Andersen Air Force Base, and reinforce the pier of Apra Harbor in Guam to accommodate the relocation of the troops from Okinawa Prefecture.

However, congressmen will likely demand that the allocation be deleted from the budget draft if Tokyo further delays a decision on the relocation of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Okinawa beyond May, or makes a proposal unacceptable to Washington.

The administration of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has pledged to make a final decision on the Futenma relocation in the Okinawa Prefecture city of Ginowan by the end of May. The previous Liberal Democratic Party-led administration had agreed with the United States that the base would be moved to an area off Camp Schwab in the prefecture city of Nago.

In the meantime, the total budgetary allocation that the Pentagon is set to demand for fiscal 2011, excluding war expenses, came to $548.9 billion, or approximately 49.4 trillion yen, up 3.4 percent from the current fiscal year.

(Mainichi Japan) February 2, 2010

GAO report slams Defense: Guam needs more timely buildup data, agency says

GAO report slams Defense: Guam needs more timely buildup data, agency says

By John Yaukey • PDN Washington Bureau • November 15, 2009

WASHINGTON --Guam's government needs more timely information from the Defense Department about the planned transfer of 8,000 Marines and their dependents from Japan so it can better plan for the necessary infrastructure buildup and financing, a government report out Friday said.

Quantcast

"The government of Guam is expected to be largely responsible for funding and constructing ... off-base roads and utilities and providing certain public services," said the report from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office.

The movement of Marines, which is expected to begin next year with preliminary construction, would also require bringing in additional support troops from the other service branches.

If implemented, the transfer would increase the military population on Guam from 15,000 in 2009 to about 29,000 in 2014, and to more than 39,000 by 2020, according to the GAO report. That would increase the island population of 178,400 by about 14 percent over those years, the report said.

The transfer of the Marines would be a huge economic boon for Guam if it's prepared to handle the influx and all the jobs the move will create.

It's estimated the move will cost $15 billion or more and will generate as many as 20,000 construction jobs during peak phases, GAO has determined.

But thus far in the planning process, some of Guam's government agencies have had a difficult time accurately estimating construction and financing costs.

For example, when Guam officials received updated information on some of the road improvements necessary, the cost estimate dropped from $4.4 billion to $1.5 billion, GAO reported.

The Pentagon responded to the GAO report by saying it is sharing information as soon as it becomes available and that it has planned several consultant studies that should help Guam officials plan better.

Cooperation

Guam Delegate Madeleine Bordallo yesterday said the GAO report highlights the need for continued cooperation between the Defense Department and the government of Guam.

Bordallo noted that GAO concluded when the Defense Department and other federal agencies have closely consulted with the local government, the island has been able to develop clear and well-reasoned plans for off-base development, as it did with the 2030 Guam Transportation Plan.

The GAO report stated: "In instances where DOD was involved in clarifying or providing updated information on its buildup requirements, and the government of Guam used independent consultants to develop and verify cost estimates, we found that the government of Guam developed cost estimates that may better reflect likely final requirements and may better justify investment decisions since they are informed by expert analysis and the most up-to-date planning information."

Bordallo said she appreciated the Obama administration's "continued high-level focus and attention to getting the military buildup on Guam right."

"However, I continue to impress the importance of having an Economic Adjustment Committee meeting to address financing of major civilian infrastructure needs at the federal level," the delegate said. "The president and my colleagues in Congress are committed to the success of the buildup, both in and outside the fences."

Bordallo said she will be meeting with Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood to discuss Guam's infrastructure needs on Monday, Washington, D.C., time.

Critical part

The movement of the Marines from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam is considered a critical part of the nation's Pacific military and diplomatic strategy.

The Japanese government has been under intense political pressure to get the Marines off Okinawa since 1995, when three U.S. servicemen raped a 12-year-old girl there, straining U.S.-Japan relations.

In all, the U.S. has about 50,000 military personnel in Japan.

Obama in Japan

President Barack Obama discussed the move with Japan's Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama when they met Friday in Tokyo.

"The United States and Japan have set up a high-level working group that will focus on implementation of the agreement that our two governments have reached with respect to the restructuring of U.S. forces in Okinawa, and we hope to complete this work expeditiously," Obama said. "Our goal remains the same, and that's to provide for the defense of Japan with minimal intrusion on the lives of the people who share this space."