The Insider

The Government Accountability Office released an annual report today evaluating the Missile Defense Agency's progress in improving the way the agency handles cost, schedule, testing and performance in developing the various components of the Ballistic Missile Defense System.

The 124-page report includes 10 recommendations for MDA "to strengthen its baselines, facilitate external and independent reviews of those baselines, ensure effective oversight of the BMDS, and further improve transparency and accountability of its efforts."

To make the baselines MDA reports to Congress clearer, more consistent and complete, GAO recommends the agency take the following actions:

1. For resource baselines:

a) Provide more detailed explanations and definitions of information included in resource baselines; particularly operations and support costs and unit cost calculations.

b) Label cost estimates to appropriately reflect the content reported and explain any exclusions.

c) Include all sunk costs in all of its cost estimates and baselines.

d) Obtain independent cost estimates for each baseline.

e) In meeting new statutory requirements to include a cost estimate in each acquisition baseline for a program element, take steps to ensure these cost estimates are high quality, reliable cost estimates that are documented to facilitate external review.

2. For schedule baselines:

a) In meeting new statutory requirements to report on an acquisition baseline including a comprehensive schedule, include a comprehensive list of actual versus planned quantities of assets that are or were to be delivered each fiscal year.

b) In meeting new requirements to report variances on acquisition baselines, report on variances of these quantities by fiscal year and the reasons for these differences.

3. For test baselines:

a) In meeting new statutory requirements to report variances between reported acquisition baselines, also report variances between the test plan as presented in the previous acquisition baseline and the test plan as executed that explain the reason for any changes.

b) Report the cost effects of those test changes in either the BAR or the budget justification documentation.

In order to stabilize the test plan and ensure the test baseline can absorb test failures and test delays and remains executable, the Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Missile Defense Agency:

4. Includes sufficient schedule and resource margin, including spare test assets and targets, based on recent test experience and forecasted testing demands.

The GAO report also notes the Pentagon's responses to the recommendations in an earlier draft of the report:

DOD fully concurred with 7 of our 10 recommendations, including our recommendations to take steps to ensure its cost estimates are high-quality, reliable cost estimates that are documented to facilitate external review. In response to this recommendation, DOD stated that MDA will follow the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide for each program reported in the [BMDS Accountability Report]. In doing so, MDA Cost Estimating and Analysis Directorate plans to form a cost assessment group to formally assess each cost estimate to ensure they are well documented, comprehensive, accurate, and credible. DOD also fully concurred with our recommendation to report the cost effects of its test changes in either the BAR or budget justification documentation, stating that MDA will provide the cost effects as part of the individual program resource baselines starting in the 2012 BAR.

DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense direct MDA to include all sunk costs in all of its cost estimates and baselines. DOD stated that MDA will continue to report sunk costs in most of its acquisition programs except targets, where it will continue to report unit costs in the same manner as the 2010 and 2011 BARs. According to DOD, because each target is inherently a test article and no two are identical, there are always variable non-recurring costs associated with each article. Also, due to the extensive reuse of previous strategic missile components in the targets program, including all sunk costs does not reflect MDA program costs accurately. Accordingly, MDA will use the costs incurred/planned during the future years defense plan to calculate unit costs. These unit costs will not include any sunk costs. We continue to believe that all costs, including all sunk costs incurred for individual target efforts, should be reported to the maximum extent possible, regardless of the agency or service that originally incurred those costs. To the extent that a sunk cost, such as the original cost of previous strategic missile components, can not be calculated, that fact should be explained when the costs are reported. Moreover, DOD’s method of reporting and baselining target unit costs will not reflect even MDA program costs accurately because it excludes MDA-incurred sunk costs. Excluding these costs, which can run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, precludes understanding of the full investment required to develop and procure targets, as well as limiting insight into developmental progress. In addition, the incomplete costs reported will be changed every two years because, as DOD noted, MDA uses only the costs for the future years defense plan to calculate the target unit cost baselines. The future years defense plan covers a six year period of time, but changes every two years to a new six year period of time. Calculating unit costs this way provides neither the full cost nor the full quantities of targets as it removes any costs or quantities prior to fiscal year 2010. We therefore continue to believe that including these costs will aid departmental and congressional decision makers as they make difficult choices of where to invest limited resources.

No, that headline isn't about the 1970s doo-wop band that appeared in the movie musical "Grease." It refers to an Afghan concept of standing "shoulder-to-shoulder" with someone -- a term taught to reporters today by a U.S. military official in Afghanistan in response a question on whether Provincial Reconstruction Teams create a dependency on foreign coalition forces. During the teleconference, Air Force Lt. Col. John "Red" Walker, the commander of the Mehtar Lam Provincial Reconstruction Team in Regional Command-East, said:

One of the things that we've done or one of the -- one of the actions that we've been very cognizantly taking is, all of the PRT actions and all of our processes are nested "shana-ba-shana." I mean, we are really integrated very well with the governor and his staff, so we don't give any opportunity or any projects or development or really any actions without the knowledge and prioritization of that Afghan government entity, whether that's at the district or at the provincial level. And I think that's what President Karzai is getting at, is that the PRTs need to be very well nested with the provincial governor and his staff.

As cooperative as coalition forces have been with their Afghan counterparts, however, senior U.S. military officials have grown increasingly worried about having to continue to operate under a continuing resolution instead of a fiscal year 2011 appropriations bill. As Inside the Pentagon reports today:

Continuing to restrict Defense Department funding under stopgap legislation could complicate the war in Afghanistan by blocking the acquisition of urgently needed military equipment, according to Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander there.

If Congress does not pass a fiscal year 2011 defense appropriations bill, the restrictions tied to operating under a continuing resolution could prevent the armed services from buying systems such as MQ-9 Reaper drones needed to support troops in Afghanistan, he said March 18 at the Newseum in Washington.

"The CR is not yet complicating our efforts, but there is a point at which it will," he said. "To give you an example, the U.S. Air Force won't be able to buy the additional Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle [combat air patrols] that we have requested on an urgent joint operational needs statement. And then there are similar examples of that."

Inside the Air Force reported March 18 that the Air Force had exhausted its prior-year reprogramming funding, meaning that the planned purchase of 24 more Reaper drones and other equipment would have to wait for further relief from Congress or until a full appropriations bill is passed.

Petraeus noted a multibillion-dollar fund used to plan, program and implement structural, institutional and management changes in Afghan forces could also be impacted. "At a certain point, the Afghan Security Forces Fund," for which the administration is seeking a budget increase, "would be capped at a much lower level," he said.

On March 17, the Senate passed a three-week continuing resolution to fund government operations through April 8. The House previously passed the bill. President Obama signed the legislation March 18.

Petraeus also reiterated his "grave concerns about the inadequate levels of funding" for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, stressing both organizations have vital work to do in Afghanistan. He recently made the same point in congressional testimony.

"These are national security issues," he said at the March 18 event, sponsored by National Journal. The expertise of, and funding for, the State Department and USAID are needed to "cement the gains on the ground" in Afghanistan, he said.

Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security advisor for strategic communications, spoke yesterday during a briefing on board Air Force One about whether U.S. military actions in Libya constituted war or something else:

I think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone. Obviously that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end.  But again, the nature of our commitment is that we are not getting into an open-ended war, a land invasion in Libya.  What we are doing is offering a unique set of capabilities over a period of days that can shape the environment for a no-fly zone.

Expect Congress to take a hard look at the administration's policy on Libya in the coming weeks, as Inside the Pentagon reports this morning:

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) said Wednesday he expects the ongoing U.S. and allied airstrikes in Libya will take center-stage March 29 when the panel holds a fiscal year 2012 budget hearing with U.S. European Command chief Adm. James Stavridis and U.S. Strategic Command chief Gen. Robert Kehler. "There will be a hearing in effect which will focus on this, because Adm. Stavridis will be coming in front of us Tuesday. So I'm sure this will be the main focus of that hearing," Levin said.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) today said he has asked his staff to work with Pentagon officials to come up with a good estimate for the cost of the U.S. military's participation in Operation Odyssey Dawn which has established a no flight zone in the skies above Libya.

During a conference call with reporters, Levin said he thinks the U.S. portion of the bill for Odyssey Dawn "will cost a lot less because we are going to be the junior partner in a multilateral effort."

Levin added that he thinks there will be some support in terms of costs that will be coming from other countries. "That may be in terms of equipment or fuel but we need to sort that out as well," he said.

The key to holding down the costs of U.S. participation is when leadership of the operation is handed off to a coalition of other countries, Levin said.

Next Tuesday, Adm. James Stavridis, head of U.S. European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, will appear before Levin's committee. Libya will certainly be discussed, the senator said.

Sens. Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Jack Reed (D-RI) joined Levin on the conference call.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who has opposed the U.S. involvement in Libya from the start, wants to cut off funding for the operation. Today Kucinich sent out the following letter to other House members:

Dear Colleague:

A few days ago, the United States and our allies began conducting United Nations-sanctioned, U.S.-led military operations against Libya. The establishment of a no-fly zone by the U.S. and our allies, billed as an act to protect civilians in Libya, is an act of war. Yet the President committed the U.S. to military intervention without consulting Congress, in clear subversion of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives only Congress the power to declare war.

According to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the initial costs of a no-fly zone could cost the U.S. between $400 and $800 million, or $30 to $100 million per week. We have already spent trillions of dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which descended into unwinnable quagmires. Now, the President is plunging the United States into yet another war we cannot afford. While the Administration assures us that that the U.S. will hand-off its lead role to coalition partners within days, we have not been notified of long-term plans or goals following initial air strikes in the country. The timeline the President gave to Congress was summarized with one word: “limited.”

I intend to offer an amendment to the forthcoming Continuing Resolution or Omnibus Appropriations bill that would prohibit funding for U.S. involvement in military operations in Libya. I urge you to support this amendment.

The possibility that Libyan ruler Col. Moammar Gadhafi might use surrogates to launch terrorist attacks in the United States or elsewhere in retribution for U.S. and allied airstrikes against his military is a "very, very legitimate concern," Gen. Carter Ham, the head of U.S. Africa Command, told Pentagon reporters today via satellite from AFRICOM headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany.

Ham said he has not seen anything specific to indicate Gadhafi plans to launch terrorist attacks, but he added, "We must operate under the assumption that he would like to see that happen. And so we must necessarily keep our guard and our vigilance very high." Officials must also ensure al Qaeda and its affiliates do not capitalize on the situation in Libya by gaining a foothold there, he said.

"There is no higher priority for this command than the protection of America, Americans and American interests from terrorist attack, and we watch that very closely," Ham said.

Gadhafi might remain in power, the general said. "I do see a situation where that could be the case," Ham said. "It's perhaps easier for me to address that than it is for others, because I have a very discrete military mission. And so I could see accomplishing the military mission . . . which has been assigned to me and the current leader would remain the current leader. Is that ideal? I don't think anyone would say that is ideal, but I could envision that as a -- as a possible situation at least for the current mission that I have."

Ham reiterated he has no mission to attack Gadhafi. "And we are not doing so," he said. "We are not seeking his whereabouts or anything like that. We think we have been very effective in degrading his ability to control his regime forces. And we think we are seeing that play out at various parts of the country." Asked about an attack on a facility in Gadhafi's compound, Ham noted the compound is a "pretty big place" and that the building attacked with "tremendous precision" was a command-and-control facility. The strike was conducted to "degrade the regime's ability to control its military forces . . . in the attack of civilians," he said. "So we think there is a very, very direct relationship in the attack on that target and the mission that we have."

U.S. and allied forces are expanding the no-fly zone in Libya. "Our actions today are focused on extending the no-fly zone southward, then westward from Benghazi," he said. "With the growing capabilities of the coalition, I anticipate the no-fly zone will soon extend to Brega, Misurata and then to Tripoli. That's about 1,000 kilometers, so it's a pretty wide area."

But Ham said he is not concerned about mission creep. "The military mission here is pretty clear -- it is very clear, frankly, and what is expected of us to do: to establish this no-fly zone; to protect civilians; to . . . get the withdrawal of regime ground forces out of Benghazi. And so I don't -- I don't have a sense at all that there is mission creep."

To date, the forces involved are generally achieving the intended objective, he said. The mission is not intended to destroy all of Libya's military, he added. "We do not provide close air support for the opposition forces," Ham noted. "We protect civilians." Distinguishing between opposition and regime forces can be very difficult, particularly when they are in very close contact, he noted.

Ham said he has seen no evidence to suggest other governments are now providing support to Gadhafi.

Iran's role in Afghanistan is bipolar, according to Gen. David Petraeus. Here's an exchange the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan had this morning at the Newseum with National Journal moderator Major Garrett:

GARRETT: We have two questions along this line. I want you to address it. What is the nature of Iran's role in Afghanistan? Is it entirely malignant, or are there opportunities for cooperation? There are two questions along these lines and --

PETRAEUS: Yeah, let me answer that, because I think what you see with Iran in Afghanistan is a degree of confliction, almost bipolarity. You have on the one hand the security services of Iran, which have of course been greatly strengthened in recent years as a result of the supreme leader having to turn to them in such a significant way to put down the riots and demonstrations in the wake of the hijacked elections a year and a half ago. And so you have these security services, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards -- the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Qods Force foremost among them, providing training, equipping, funding and so forth to the Afghan Taliban.

And of course we publicly announced the seizure of 48 122-millimeter rockets just across the border in southwestern Afghanistan after they were seized in a joint ISAF-Afghan special operation. It wasn't a coincidence that we were there, and it wasn't a coincidence that those elements were there. These rockets are more than double the range of the 107s that we've seen in the past, double the payload and double the bursting radius. So that's a big concern.

There's also an effort to use soft power, of course, to influence various political figures. I mean, it was remarked on that the chief of staff to President Karzai was provided a gift as he left the country. I think President Karzai was pretty astute in saying we'll take money from anybody who will give it to us and we'll put it to use for the Afghan people. But that happens covertly as well, and it happens with various Afghan political figures.

And then there's the use of soft power, the cutoff of the fuel to Afghanistan a couple of months ago, as a reminder of how important access to that is. And yet there's also no desire on the part of Iran to see the Afghan Taliban return to power. Let's remember, Iran is a Shia-majority state. They don't want to see Sunni ultra-conservative, you know -- akin to -- or supportive of extremists on their soil, as the Taliban was when al-Qaida was there, coming back to power in Afghanistan.

And so you have this dynamic. That does give you some common ground. So does their keen desire to reduce the illegal narcotics- industry activity that has enslaved quite a substantial number of young Iranians. So again, quite some similar interest. And then to get Afghan refugees who have indeed returned to Afghanistan in very large numbers in recent years from Iran, Pakistan and others, but to get more of those home as well, they would -- they would applaud also.