Posted on Apr 8, 2014
$700 million for other countries food & laundry....it just aint right
3.56K
3
2
0
0
0
These kinds of stories tick me off when I think that masses of younger Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen will get smaller pay raises due to the failure of the few.
Is it right that we (the United States) pick up the tab? Where else are you seeing us picking up the tab for stuff we can do without? Am I alone in thinking this is wrong? What are your thoughts?
In a staggering loss of money even by Pentagon standards, the U.S. military and two contractors left American taxpayers on the hook for more than $700 million in food, laundry and other services that ...
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
0
0
0
This story isn't about the US picking up the tab, it's about the US military not completing the necessary procedures to ensure that its taxpayers *didn't* pick up the tab: "Coalition countries tacitly agreed to reimburse the Army, but U.S. regional commands in Afghanistan frequently failed to pass along the charges, according to audit...."
But let's get to your real question (and those below): Should the US government assist partner nations with military costs? My answer: absolutely.
1) Backing up your buddy in a bar fight. When our allies join in common cause with us, it's usually just that -- they are backing us in the fight we're headed into/self-selected. They must still convince their citizens that this is worthwhile, and not detrimental to their own national security or defense. They continually must answer the question, "Why do we have to die just because the US got itself into a fight?"
2) % of sacrifice. The US military is immensely large. By contrast, the German military is smaller than the active duty US Marine Corps. On any given day, there are more people (mil & civ) working at Ft. Bragg, NC than there are in the Canadian Army. Getting a battalion or brigade from our allies is a huge commitment of forces on their part. See #1 for why this is a big deal
3) Trade in-kind. Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreements (ACSAs) are basically contracts we knowingly entered into for mutual benefit. For example, ACSAs can provide US access to overflight or flightlines in exchange for funds (if you've flown from Kuwait *around* Iran to Afghanistan, you can easily imagine the cost and time savings if we could have just flown directly over/across Iran to get to our destination)
4) Buy in bulk. Anyone who's seen military logistics at work realizes its difficulty and expense. ACSAs allow allies to "tag along" with the US contracting effort. Rather than purchase fuel for only the US, the US contracts for fuel for its allies as well, and then they reimburse the US for that fuel. [This is the crux of the WT article -- the US military didn't forward invoices, so the Allies could be billed. How would you feel if 8 years from now you got called about a partially-paid debt because your provider couldn't figure out how to do timely billing?]
5) Secondary ordering. How come we're able to provide similar parts, equipment, and fuel for our allies? They use the same equipment that we do -- for "inter-operability" purposes. But wait, most of that equipment is designed and built in the US and then sold to our allies. Sometimes, the equipment is sold outright, with delivery to all countries near-simultaneously. Other times, we sell our old stuff to less wealthy allies, or ones who don't need (or we don't want to provide) the latest capabilities. Not only does that mean that the US continues to have jobs for replacement parts, but we also have jobs overseas for servicing that equipment, since many nations lack the infrastructure or orientation to preventative maintenance.
But let's get to your real question (and those below): Should the US government assist partner nations with military costs? My answer: absolutely.
1) Backing up your buddy in a bar fight. When our allies join in common cause with us, it's usually just that -- they are backing us in the fight we're headed into/self-selected. They must still convince their citizens that this is worthwhile, and not detrimental to their own national security or defense. They continually must answer the question, "Why do we have to die just because the US got itself into a fight?"
2) % of sacrifice. The US military is immensely large. By contrast, the German military is smaller than the active duty US Marine Corps. On any given day, there are more people (mil & civ) working at Ft. Bragg, NC than there are in the Canadian Army. Getting a battalion or brigade from our allies is a huge commitment of forces on their part. See #1 for why this is a big deal
3) Trade in-kind. Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreements (ACSAs) are basically contracts we knowingly entered into for mutual benefit. For example, ACSAs can provide US access to overflight or flightlines in exchange for funds (if you've flown from Kuwait *around* Iran to Afghanistan, you can easily imagine the cost and time savings if we could have just flown directly over/across Iran to get to our destination)
4) Buy in bulk. Anyone who's seen military logistics at work realizes its difficulty and expense. ACSAs allow allies to "tag along" with the US contracting effort. Rather than purchase fuel for only the US, the US contracts for fuel for its allies as well, and then they reimburse the US for that fuel. [This is the crux of the WT article -- the US military didn't forward invoices, so the Allies could be billed. How would you feel if 8 years from now you got called about a partially-paid debt because your provider couldn't figure out how to do timely billing?]
5) Secondary ordering. How come we're able to provide similar parts, equipment, and fuel for our allies? They use the same equipment that we do -- for "inter-operability" purposes. But wait, most of that equipment is designed and built in the US and then sold to our allies. Sometimes, the equipment is sold outright, with delivery to all countries near-simultaneously. Other times, we sell our old stuff to less wealthy allies, or ones who don't need (or we don't want to provide) the latest capabilities. Not only does that mean that the US continues to have jobs for replacement parts, but we also have jobs overseas for servicing that equipment, since many nations lack the infrastructure or orientation to preventative maintenance.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google