Veterans for Common Sense

December 14, 2008, Baghdad, Iraq — An unpublished 513-page federal history of the American-led reconstruction of Iraq depicts an effort crippled before the invasion by Pentagon planners who were hostile to the idea of rebuilding a foreign country, and then molded into a $100 billion failure by bureaucratic turf wars, spiraling violence and ignorance of the basic elements of Iraqi society and infrastructure.

The history, the first official account of its kind, is circulating in draft form here and in Washington among a tight circle of technical reviewers, policy experts and senior officials. It also concludes that when the reconstruction began to lag — particularly in the critical area of rebuilding the Iraqi police and army — the Pentagon simply put out inflated measures of progress to cover up the failures.

In one passage, for example, former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is quoted as saying that in the months after the 2003 invasion, the Defense Department “kept inventing numbers of Iraqi security forces — the number would jump 20,000 a week! ‘We now have 80,000, we now have 100,000, we now have 120,000.’ ”

Mr. Powell’s assertion that the Pentagon inflated the number of competent Iraqi security forces is backed up by Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the former commander of ground troops in Iraq, and L. Paul Bremer III, the top civilian administrator until an Iraqi government took over in June 2004.

Among the overarching conclusions of the history is that five years after embarking on its largest foreign reconstruction project since the Marshall Plan in Europe after World War II, the United States government has in place neither the policies and technical capacity nor the organizational structure that would be needed to undertake such a program on anything approaching this scale.

The bitterest message of all for the reconstruction program may be the way the history ends. The hard figures on basic services and industrial production compiled for the report reveal that for all the money spent and promises made, the rebuilding effort never did much more than restore what was destroyed during the invasion and the convulsive looting that followed.

By mid-2008, the history says, $117 billion had been spent on the reconstruction of Iraq, including some $50 billion in United States taxpayer money.

The history contains a catalog of revelations that show the chaotic and often poisonous atmosphere prevailing in the reconstruction effort.

¶When the Office of Management and Budget balked at the American occupation authority’s abrupt request for about $20 billion in new reconstruction money in August 2003, a veteran Republican lobbyist working for the authority made a bluntly partisan appeal to Joshua B. Bolten, then the O.M.B. director and now the White House chief of staff. “To delay getting our funds would be a political disaster for the President,” wrote the lobbyist, Tom C. Korologos. “His election will hang for a large part on show of progress in Iraq and without the funding this year, progress will grind to a halt.” With administration backing, Congress allocated the money later that year.

¶In an illustration of the hasty and haphazard planning, a civilian official at the United States Agency for International Development was at one point given four hours to determine how many miles of Iraqi roads would need to be reopened and repaired. The official searched through the agency’s reference library, and his estimate went directly into a master plan. Whatever the quality of the agency’s plan, it eventually began running what amounted to a parallel reconstruction effort in the provinces that had little relation with the rest of the American effort.

¶Money for many of the local construction projects still under way is divided up by a spoils system controlled by neighborhood politicians and tribal chiefs. “Our district council chairman has become the Tony Soprano of Rasheed, in terms of controlling resources,” said an American Embassy official working in a dangerous Baghdad neighborhood. “ ‘You will use my contractor or the work will not get done.’ ”

A Cautionary Tale

The United States could soon have reason to consult this cautionary tale of deception, waste and poor planning, as troop levels and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan are likely to be stepped up under the new administration.

The incoming Obama administration’s rebuilding experts are expected to focus on smaller-scale projects and emphasize political and economic reform. Still, such programs do not address one of the history’s main contentions: that the reconstruction effort has failed because no single agency in the United States government has responsibility for the job.

Five years after the invasion of Iraq, the history concludes, “the government as a whole has never developed a legislatively sanctioned doctrine or framework for planning, preparing and executing contingency operations in which diplomacy, development and military action all figure.”

Titled “Hard Lessons: The Iraq Reconstruction Experience,” the new history was compiled by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, led by Stuart W. Bowen Jr., a Republican lawyer who regularly travels to Iraq and has a staff of engineers and auditors based here. Copies of several drafts of the history were provided to reporters at The New York Times and ProPublica by two people outside the inspector general’s office who have read the draft, but are not authorized to comment publicly.

Mr. Bowen’s deputy, Ginger Cruz, declined to comment for publication on the substance of the history. But she said it would be presented on Feb. 2 at the first hearing of the Commission on Wartime Contracting, which was created this year as a result of legislation sponsored by Senators Jim Webb of Virginia and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, both Democrats.

The manuscript is based on approximately 500 new interviews, as well as more than 600 audits, inspections and investigations on which Mr. Bowen’s office has reported over the years. Laid out for the first time in a connected history, the material forms the basis for broad judgments on the rebuilding program.

In the preface, Mr. Bowen gives a searing critique of what he calls the “blinkered and disjointed prewar planning for Iraq’s reconstruction” and the botched expansion of the program from a modest initiative to improve Iraqi services to a multibillion-dollar enterprise.

Mr. Bowen also swipes at the endless revisions and reversals of the program, which at various times gyrated from a focus on giant construction projects led by large Western contractors to modest community-based initiatives carried out by local Iraqis. While Mr. Bowen concedes that deteriorating security had a hand in spoiling the program’s hopes, he suggests, as he has in the past, that the program did not need much outside help to do itself in.

Despite years of studying the program, Mr. Bowen writes that he still has not found a good answer to the question of why the program was even pursued as soaring violence made it untenable. “Others will have to provide that answer,” Mr. Bowen writes.

“But beyond the security issue stands another compelling and unavoidable answer: the U.S. government was not adequately prepared to carry out the reconstruction mission it took on in mid-2003,” he concludes.

The history cites some projects as successes. The review praises community outreach efforts by the Agency for International Development, the Treasury Department’s plan to stabilize the Iraqi dinar after the invasion and a joint effort by the Departments of State and Defense to create local rebuilding teams.

But the portrait that emerges over all is one of a program’s officials operating by the seat of their pants in the middle of a critical enterprise abroad, where the reconstruction was supposed to convince the Iraqi citizenry of American good will and support the new democracy with lights that turned on and taps that flowed with clean water. Mostly, it is a portrait of a program that seemed to grow exponentially as even those involved from the inception of the effort watched in surprise.

Early Miscalculations

On the eve of the invasion, as it began to dawn on a few officials that the price for rebuilding Iraq would be vastly greater than they had been told, the degree of miscalculation was illustrated in an encounter between Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, and Jay Garner, a retired lieutenant general who had hastily been named the chief of what would be a short-lived civilian authority called the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance.

The history records how Mr. Garner presented Mr. Rumsfeld with several rebuilding plans, including one that would include projects across Iraq.

“What do you think that’ll cost?” Mr. Rumsfeld asked of the more expansive plan.

“I think it’s going to cost billions of dollars,” Mr. Garner said.

“My friend,” Mr. Rumsfeld replied, “if you think we’re going to spend a billion dollars of our money over there, you are sadly mistaken.”

In a way he never anticipated, Mr. Rumsfeld turned out to be correct: before that year was out, the United States had appropriated more than $20 billion for the reconstruction, which would indeed involve projects across the entire country.

Mr. Rumsfeld declined to comment on the history, but a spokesman, Keith Urbahn, said that quotes attributed to Mr. Rumsfeld in the document “appear to be accurate.” Mr. Powell also declined to comment.

The secondary effects of the invasion and its aftermath were among the most important factors that radically changed the outlook. Tables in the history show that measures of things like the national production of electricity and oil, public access to potable water, mobile and landline telephone service and the presence of Iraqi security forces all plummeted by at least 70 percent, and in some cases all the way to zero, in the weeks after the invasion.

Subsequent tables in the history give a fast-forward view of what happened as the avalanche of money tumbled into Iraq over the next five years.

Dashed Expectations

By the time a sovereign Iraqi government took over from the Americans in June 2004, none of those services — with a single exception, mobile phones — had returned to prewar levels.

And by the time of the security improvements in 2007 and 2008, electricity output had, at best, a precarious 10 percent lead on its levels under Saddam Hussein; oil production was still below prewar levels; and access to potable water had increased by about 30 percent, although with Iraq’s ruined piping system it was unclear how much reached people’s homes uncontaminated.

Whether the rebuilding effort could have succeeded in a less violent setting will never be known. In April 2004, thousands of the Iraqi security forces that had been oversold by the Pentagon were overrun, abruptly mutinied or simply abandoned their posts as the insurgency broke out, sending Iraq down a violent path from which it has never completely recovered.

At the end of his narrative, Mr. Bowen chooses a line from “Great Expectations” by Dickens as the epitaph of the American-led attempt to rebuild Iraq: “We spent as much money as we could, and got as little for it as people could make up their minds to give us.”

James Glanz reported from Baghdad, and T. Christian Miller, of the nonprofit investigative Web site ProPublica, reported from Washington.

While the Pentagon preps for a new administration, a scandal from an earlier era is rearing its head.

A Defense Department project, supposedly designed to support U.S. troops, was used instead to channel millions of dollars to personal friends and allies of its chief. The “America Supports You,” or ASY, program was led in a “questionable and unregulated manner,” according to a Department of Defense Inspector General report, obtained by Danger Room. At least $9.2 million was “inappropriately transferred” by the project’s managers. Much of that money served only to further promote ASY, instead of assisting servicemembers.

In 2004, the office of then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld set up ASY as a six-month effort to showcase the U.S. public’s backing for the troops and their families. “If you’re serving overseas, and you watch the mainstream media coverage, sometimes you can’t tell if America knows you’re there,” one official overseeing the program says. America Supports You was seen as a way to counteract that sense.

In time, however, the program grew. Pro-troop rallies were organized. Special wristband and dog tags were made. Special-edition comic books were printed up. Processions were held on the National Mall, on the 9/11 anniversary. Sesame Street characters were enlisted to make DVDs that encouraged families with young children to talk about overseas deployments. America Supports You became a kind of umbrella group for all sorts of charity-related work for service members and military families.

Meanwhile, ASY began to spend millions — not to help the troops, the Inspector General says, but to help itself. “Instead of focusing on its primary mission of showcasing and communicating support to the troops and their families, the ASY program focus [turned to] building or soliciting support from the public,” the Inspector General’s report notes. In 2006 and 2007, for instance, more than $600,000 was spent ginning up support for America Supports You among schoolchildren. Another $165,000 went to a pro-ASY concert aboard the USS Intrepid, docked on Manhattan’s west side. And $15,000 went to actor and musician Gary Sinise’s “Lt. Dan Band” to play a separate show. The report calls all of these “questionable and unregulated actions.”

By mid-2007, allegations began to surface that the Pentagon official in charge of the program, Armed Forces Information Service chief Alison Barber (pictured, left), was improperly redirecting millions of dollars in public funds.

From fiscal years 2004 to 2007, the Inspector General’s report notes, Barber funneled $8.8 million in contracts to the public relations firm Susan Davis International — to set up the myriad events, and to promote the ASY “brand.” The work was incredibly lucrative; Davis’ executives made as much as $312,821 to $662,691 per year. “Paying a public relations contractor annual salaries approaching three-quarters of a million dollars does not appear to be a cost-effective means to support the ASY program and the war fighter,” the report observes.

But what made it even harder to stomach was that Davis was a friend of Barber’s, and a well-known Republican operative, according to former Defense Department lawyer Diane Beaver. Another half-million went to media consultant Mitch Semel, for web work.

Worse still, in the eyes of many, was that Barber used the Stars & Stripes newspaper as a kind of money-laundering service, to pay Davis and Semel. The paper is partially financed by the Pentagon, and was part of Barber’s American Forces Information Service. But Stripes has a decades-long tradition of fierce independence. Editors were galled to discover that Barber’s office was pouring money into the paper’s coffers — and then paying Davis and Semel out of accounts with less congressional oversight and fewer spending restrictions than typical Defense Department funds.

“Readers need to know that the newspaper they trust to provide them independent, accurate, credible news is not in any way operating in a compromised position,” managing editor Doug Clawson said. “If, in fact, Stripes was helping handle public relations work on behalf of a political appointee it doesn’t look good, and could taint the editorial department, and thereby the readers’ perceptions of this newspaper’s mission.”

The Department of Defense’s Inspector General had already launched investigations into financial wrongdoing and organizational mismanagement at America Supports You, the Armed Forces Information Service, and the Defense’ Secretary’s public affairs office. In October 2007, the Inspector General widened its review to include Stars & Stripes.

Barber is no longer at the Pentagon. Two months ago, she abruptly resigned as the heads of both American Supports You and of Defense Media Activity, the new organization that oversees Stars & Stripes. America Supports You has been moved under the Defense Department’s community relations office. “A lot of the big issues have been addressed — how we do contracting, how we use appropriated funds,” one member of that office tells Danger Room. “We’re back in the comfort zone, running a program in the way that the government is used to running it.”

December 12, 2008 – An employee of a Department of Veterans Affairs nursing home in San Francisco has been placed on three years of probation after threatening to buy a machine gun and kill everyone there, court records show.

Felicisimo Belleza, 41, pleaded guilty in August to a misdemeanor charge of threatening an officer of the United States.

At a hearing this week in San Francisco, U.S. Magistrate Joseph Spero ordered Belleza to participate in a mental-health program and to stay 100 yards away from the VA facility in San Francisco.

On July 31, he made the threatening statement to a benefit counselor at the VA’s Palo Alto hospital, Special Agent Lori Pang of the VA’s Office of Inspector General wrote in an affidavit filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

Later that day, VA police saw Belleza dressed in desert fatigue clothing “similar to what the soldiers wear in Iraq” at the VA’s nursing home on Clement Street in San Francisco, Pang wrote.

Nine days earlier, Belleza threatened to harm employees at the nursing home after receiving a proposed termination letter “due to abusiveness to the nursing home staff, sexual harassment, inappropriate touching of staff and making threats,” Pang wrote.

During the July 22 meeting, Belleza said that he believed the veterans were not receiving proper care and that the VA police were always following him around the hospital grounds, authorities said. The police were following him because of his behavior toward his co-workers, investigators said.

As a result of Belleza’s threats, the staff and personnel at the hospital were “placed in fear,” and police increased security around the nursing home by adding cameras, locking some doors and disabling the automatic front door, authorities said.

We live in a very insecure world, dominated by robbery and crime. Due to the pronounced differences between the classes of society, cultural conflicts and various other factors, worldwide crime rates have known an exacerbated increase in the last decades, rendering modern society a very unstable and unsafe environment. Every day we hear about all sorts of crimes, robberies and thefts, making us doubt the safety of our homes, possessions and even our lives!

People are feeling more and more insecure inside their homes these days and they reinforce their doors and windows, install extra door locks, and even buy guard dogs to provide them protection. However, it is very important to note that experienced robbers can easily break through to a wide range of home defenses, the previously mentioned precautions only providing a false sense of security. In addition, recently conducted research has revealed that most burglaries and robberies take place while the owners are at home, exposing the home owners and their families to a serious risk!

Lосkѕmіth ѕеrvісеѕ аrе quite рорulаr whеrе ѕесurіtу is concerned. We all knоw that they dеаl wіth thе ѕесurіtу services providing thе rіght equipment аnd hаrdwаrе. Hаvе уоu іmаgіnеd what wоuld be thе ѕіtuаtіоn іf we did nоt hаvе thеѕе ѕеrvісеѕ? Thеrе саn bе a situation when wе аrе lосkеd іn a rооm аnd thеrе іѕ nо оnе to help us. I knоw wе dо gеt mаnу ѕuggеѕtіоnѕ tо be patient during these kinds оf situations. Hоwеvеr, іn rеаlіtу kееріng уоur саlm іѕ vеrу dіffісult аѕ gеttіng locked inside a rооm аll аlоnе іѕ not a very соmfоrtаblе ѕіtuаtіоn. Lосkѕmіthѕ аrе a grеаt rеlіеf during ѕuсh bad tіmеѕ. It nоt оnlу hеlрѕ you during thеѕе ѕіtuаtіоnѕ but аlѕо рrоvіdеѕ рrеvеntаtіvе ѕесurіtу mеаѕurеѕ and assistance.

Mаnу tіmеѕ wе wоrrу аbоut leaving оur hоuѕе duе tо the important and рrесіоuѕ аrtіfасtѕ or рареrѕ kept in the сuрbоаrd. Hоwеvеr, іt іѕ nоt possible tо stay in thе hоuѕе 24*7. Yоu have to gо оut fоr some important wоrk оr in саѕе оf аnу emergency. All уоu nееd іѕ a good locking and security system іn these саѕеѕ. A gооd lосkіng ѕуѕtеm consists оf gооd quality hаrdwаrе thаt cannot bе tаmреrеd еаѕіlу.

When there is a nееd fоr еmеrgеnсу lосkѕmіthѕ, many реорlе are unаwаrе оf how muсh thеу ѕhоuld expect tо рау. Competitive pricings can vаrу аmоng dіffеrеnt companies, but thе main fасtоrѕ thаt influence price аrе аlwауѕ thе ѕаmе. Thоѕе factors аrе service, lаbоur, аmоunt of tіmе spent on thе саll, аnd materials. It’ѕ also іmроrtаnt to nоtе that the сhеареѕt locksmiths mау not always bе the best for еvеrу jоb. Inѕtеаd of gоіng bу рrісе аlоnе, consumers ѕhоuld find a bаlаnсе bеtwееn price and ԛuаlіtу оf service.

It is very соmmоn thаt buѕіnеѕѕеѕ аnd offices hаvе сеrtаіn confidential аnd important data ѕtоrеd іn the рrеmіѕеѕ. Tаmреrіng or аltеrіng thіѕ dаtа can саuѕе a big lоѕѕ tо the business. Thіѕ mаkеѕ uѕ realize thе іmроrtаnсе of a gооd ѕесurіtу system thаt саn protect оut dаtа. All you nееd tо dо іѕ consult a gооd locksmith so thаt you get the best hаrdwаrе аnd ѕуѕtеm suitable for уоur рlасе. However, you nееd tо bе саrеful whіlе hiring a locksmith for уоur buѕіnеѕѕ. They ѕhоuld provide ԛuаlіtу service and аѕѕіѕtаnсе. If уоu do nоt hаvе anyone іn mіnd thеn you can trу uѕіng some оf thе online services. There are mаnу wеbѕіtеѕ which provide these kinds оf ѕеrvісеѕ аt a сhеареr rаtе.

Nоwаdауѕ thе lосkѕmіth services hаvе аlѕо іmрrоvеd and advanced аlоng wіth thе advancement of technology. Pеоrіа lосkѕmіth ѕеrvісеѕ provide уоu with thе mоѕt аdvаnсеd vеrѕіоn оf ѕесurіtу ѕуѕtеmѕ. Thеу саn ассеѕѕ аll thе rooms easily kееріng a track оf аll thе іnfоrmаtіоn. Thеу also рrоvіdе you with a саrd rеаdеr which mаkеѕ thе system even bеttеr. Thеу have thе ability to сlоѕе аnd ореn thе dооrѕ whеnеvеr they wаnt оr іn саѕе оf еmеrgеnсіеѕ. This gives уоu a bеttеr security ѕуѕtеm lеаdіng tо data іntеgrіtу and goodwill оf уоur buѕіnеѕѕ аnd organization. Thuѕ, thіѕ wаѕ some іmроrtаnt information аbоut lосkѕmіth ѕеrvісеѕ аnd how they can provide ѕаfеtу аnd rеlіаbіlіtу.

In present, the only effective means to protect your home against robbers is to install a reliable home security system by getting in touch with mammoth security company. Only after you have equipped your home with an efficient alarm system you can actually feel 100 percent safe inside your home. A house equipped with a modern, solid security system is definitely not an easy target for robbers. Even the most experienced robbers will think twice before breaking inside a house equipped with a modern security system. However, even if they break inside a house with a security system installed, robbers will trigger the alarm, alerting the local monitoring station and the police. Mаnу organisations аrе aware оf thеіr responsibilities regarding fіrе аnd security requirements, but struggle tо identify thе mоѕt suitable suppliers. Getting іt right іѕ ѕо important, аѕ thе safety аnd security оf thе staff аnd resources іѕ оf paramount importance.

Thеrе іѕ a myriad оf companies offering thеіr services, but hоw саn уоu gauge thе quality оf thеіr work аnd thеіr on-going customer service support? Wіll thеу рut right аnу problems wіthоut tоо muсh fuss аnd wіll thеу bе аrоund tо dо it? Dо уоu know hоw wеll thеу аrе run аѕ a business? Arе thеу financially sound? Arе thеу adequately insured ѕhоuld ѕоmеthіng gо wrong аnd аrе thеіr staff security vetted?

Yоu аlѕо need tо think оf thе requirements оf thе police аnd fіrе brigades whо respond tо alarms. On https://www.firebarrierexperts.com/  link you will get best fire barrier.  Thе police wіll оnlу nоw respond (other thаn 999 calls) tо monitored intruder alarms аnd CCTV systems thаt аrе bоth installed аnd maintained tо thе appropriate Standards bу companies whо саn prove thіѕ bу bеіng approved bу аn appropriate approvals bоdу. Thе fіrе brigades аrе going dоwn thе ѕаmе route fоr monitored fіrе detection systems, аnd insurers аlѕо want уоu tо minimise уоur risk bу choosing a supplier thаt саn prove іt meets thе highest standards.

As soon as you order a home security system from Security Info, a team will promptly deliver and install it for you. Home security systems are easy to use, allowing users to control a series of features via keypad. The security system is password-protected, requiring you to type in the previously established password before you can change the settings of the alarm system. After you have typed in your password, you can easily arm or disarm the alarm system, or change various specific settings. Once armed, the alarm will be triggered by any attempt of breaching inside the house. In order to ensure that your home is effectively protected, you should install motion detectors to every door and window of your house.

Home security systems are monitored non-stop by a local monitoring station. When the alarmed is triggered, the security system will promptly signal the monitoring station and you will be immediately contacted on the phone by a member of the security team, in order to confirm whether your house has been breached or the signal has been triggered by accident. If you don’t answer the phone or give the incorrect password, the monitoring station will quickly alert the police.