Harvey leaves in disgrace.

Gates said Harvey had resigned, but senior defense officials speaking on condition of anonymity said Gates had privately demanded that Harvey leave. Gates was displeased that the officer Harvey had chosen as interim commander of Walter Reed — Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley, the current Army surgeon general and a former commander of Walter Reed — has been accused by critics of long knowing about the problems there and not improving outpatient care.

"I am disappointed that some in the Army have not adequately appreciated the seriousness of the situation pertaining to outpatient care at Walter Reed," Gates said in the  briefing room. He took no questions from reporters."  Yahoo

-----------------------------------------------------------

I met Harvey a few years ago at a dinner in the "big city."  He was smug, arrogant, complacent and unwilling to listen to anyone who was not there to kiss his ---.

The Regular Army colonel sitting next to me who was his military assistant looked like he was about to throw up behind the mask of soldierly submission to constitutional authority.  He had been a cadet at West Point when I was a professor there.

Harvey has paid the appropriate price for neglect of duty.

There are more people to be held accountable.  Obviously, the self obsessed LTG Kiley, the Surgeon General of the Army should be next, after that, I suggest that General Cody, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army should be given a hard look.  The Vice Chief is reponsible for watching over the internal functioning of the Army while the Chief takes care of the Army's external business and long term issues.   Cody failed.  pl

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070302/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/walter_reed

Comments

[Chris Bray]

I'm not inclined to all-caps, but let's do it anyway:

THANK GOD DONALD RUMSFELD IS GONE.

Could we actually have a SecDef who holds leaders accountable? Imagine the implications.

[Chris Bray]

Second thought: I wonder if Harvey doomed himself by publicly saying, shortly after the WP article came out, that the failures at Walter Reed belonged to a few NCOs -- thus proving that he didn't get it. The failure at Walter Reed was maybe survivable, but the dumb-in-public...

[Walter Purvis]

Point of clarification: I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say you met "this man." I'm guessing you mean Harvey, but it could be Gates, and I really can't tell from the context. Might want to specify the man's name.

[Nancy Kimberlin]

I have been so disgusted with what is coming out about how our injured troops are being treated. Heads should roll. This is so wrong.
This whole administration should be impeached or fired.

Where were the Democrats when this was going on. They have been asleep at the wheel also.

[psd]

well, hallelujah! at least Gates is finally reacting in an appropriate manner and cutting off heads. All I can is LET 'EM ROLL!

my question is, Colonel, do you think that Schoomaker is really the guy to clean things up at WRAMC?

[W. Patrick Lang]

Walter

Harvey.

pl

[Chris Bray]

Shameful bullshit from Harvey in the Washington Post tonight:

Later, in an interview, an emotional Harvey appeared both apologetic and defensive. "It's unexcusable to have soldiers in that type of building," he said, explaining why he resigned.

But he also said that the Post stories lacked balance. "Where's the other side of the story?" he asked, his voice rising. "Two articles in your paper have ruined the career of General Weightman, who is a very decent man, and then a captain . . . and the secretary of the Army. If that satisfies the populace, maybe this will stop further dismissals."

(end block quote)

The "other side of the story"? Mold on the walls, soldiers with brain injuries languishing unattended, men with traumatic injuries housed in slums across the street from the surgeon general, who didn't notice...

Yeah, where's the ~balance~? Where's the explanation of the ~good news~ part?

At least I'm beginning to understand the news stories that said Gates appeared to be shaking with anger when he announced Harvey's departure. I know just how he feels.

[michael savoca]

What happened at Walter Reed is emblematic of what can happen when privateers seek to profit from public service AND place profits above principal while turning their back on the mission.

In an article to be found in the Army Times: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/03/Weightmansubpoena/
it appears there is documentation indicating that a private corporation supplanted government hospital workers, and in a prelude to the privatization of services at Walter Reed, line staffing for providing basic support services was reduced to less than one-sixth of the usual work force.

This is a pattern. There is evidence that suggests privatization of our armed forces is a significant part in our country’s inability to prevail in Iraq. I have been told by two of my co-workers who are members of our National Guard and served tours of duty in Iraq, that their counterparts who were employed by private security companies were paid at ten times the rate of equivalent soldiers AND could refuse a direct order.

I’ll bet there are more private contractors in Iraq than uniformed personnel. How can we ask our soldiers to put their lives on the line when war becomes more of a money making proposition. The war profiteers should be put on trial. We need a President like Harry Truman again. He went after those who cheated our country in a time of war. This current President is a disgrace.

[Brian Hart]

It seems obvious that LTG Kiley should be gone, but isn't - Why not?

[Arun]

Col. Lang, how do people such as Harvey climb up the hierarchy in the first place?

[Brent Wiggans]

Harvey’s plea for the “other side of the story” is indicative of the expectation that no matter what malfeasance has occurred in this administration there are always mitigating circumstances, if only a fair and balanced media would report them. Perhaps Harvey’s parting shot at the Post will serve as yet another rallying point for all those righteous victims of Liberal Bias in the media.

The posturing about “supporting our troops” on display in the debate over our Iraq war policy ought to embarrass a lot of people into silence, people who countenanced this ugly, shabby treatment of our casualties while disparaging the patriotism and backbone of anyone who questioned virtually anything about the policy or the conduct of the war.

“More light. More light.”

[Frank Durkee]

A part of the reality is that this story got 'legs' by appearing in the Post and by having the Dems in control of Congress. The information has been 'out there' for at least 2 years in the public realm. It's another illustration of Acton's Dictum: "That pwere corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Having an adversarial media and an opposition Congress makes this stuff harder. I think that this is simply another demonstration of the managerial incompetency of this administration, based in great part on an almost religious incopacity to admit mistakes and thus to find it diffficult to correct them.

[confusedponderer]

Brian,
interesting article, especially with the privatisation angle. If you cut your manpower down to a sixth, with equal work, you most probably get insufficient service, unless the job was insanely overstaffed before which is unlikely. That's common sense.
But maybe that's all that was 'economically feasible' after assigning to the head of IAP Worldwide Services a CEO salary.

If it is about caring and attending wounded or recovering soldiers the inevitable consequences of insufficient manpower can only result in ugly things happening.

Profit generation is the primary interest in private enterprises. I am very unconvinced that privatisation of public services really is truly cheaper or offers superior utility. And I have my serious douts in the preventive effect of improved contracts, or the mysterious 'corrective effect of the market'. The market won't correct anything if the profit margin is too low; in that case there simply won't be any investors.

I'm old fashioned in that I think that it is distasteful to profit on treating recovering soldiers IMHO. I think the Red Cross has the priorities right in this respect.

And as for contracts, the moron who negotiated (hopefully not a no bid affair) that contract ought to be careened for not putting a plug in staff cuts - but then, WRAMC staff stampede started well before that and apparently there was done little if anything to prevent it.
The AIP folks 'only' agravated a bad situation by being even more reckless. So, the IAP managers weren't the only culprits to blame for the failure at WRAMC. It's encouraging to see that for the first time senior ranks get the boot. That is what command responsibility is about.

Incompetence, lack of diligence, dereliction of duty, failure in command, insufficient contractor oversight - why didn't that also happen over Gitmo or Abu Ghraib? Because there the affected were scraggy, bearded 'maybe terrorists', and not the brave men and weman every politico loves to support as vocal as possible and who served their country and sacrificed part of their health for it. In that case, certainly, a few bad apples won't do. Bleh.

[D.Witt]

Col, I don't know what you thought of David Hackworth, but he opened my eyes a long time ago to the debilitating effect on our military by the 'perfumed princes,' as he called careerist REMFs like these guys. God only knows what he and Dwight Eisenhower would say about the Harvey, Weightman and Kiley, and the corporate Hessians that Bushco is paying off with the national piggy bank, while our wounded troops are treated like annoying collateral damage.

[TR Stone]

This is some what off topic, or maybe not in the bigger picture, has anyone read this article--Iraq: What Could Have Been, What Should Have Been... (http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Unlisted%202007%2edb&command=viewone&id=12)?

[SusanUnPC]

To pick up on Michael Savoca's comment here, it's critical to place the privatization issue at the fore.

For example, there were 300 gov't employees, highly experienced, winnowed down to 60 and, according to one story (not sure if this is accurate), the entire crew of 300 has been replaced by a private company's 50 employees.

The head of the company is a former HALLIBURTON honcho.

The best summary I've seen is a recommended diary at Daily Kos that's also better written than most there: "What's behind the conditions at Walter Reed? Privatization," by smintheus
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/2/235256/3348

ALSO, on Monday at 1:30pm ET, Harry Waxman's appropriations subcommittee is holding a hearing. Waxman has the letter from Weightman's staff complaining about the PRIVATIZATION, and more documents:
 http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1195

Weightman is being allowed to testify. And I wonder if his firing by Harvey was necessary. Dana Priest said on Hardball Fri. afternoon that WR staff were upset by Weightman's firing since they blame Kiley for most of the problems. I want to know if Weightman, as was his surbordinate, concerned about the privatization and wanted to do something about it. (And if Harvey didn't like Weightman rattling that cage.)

AND, will the Army do anything about the privatization of its medical facilities? Has that ship sailed? Or can IAP Worldwide Services's 5-year, $125-million contract be rescinded for failure to maintain standards?

[smoke]

The only "other side of the story" that I can imagine would be that decision makers at a very high level of the present Administration consistently turned a deaf ear to pleas for more resources and to reports and warnings of deleterious effects at WR from ongoing BRAC and poorly implemeneted privatization plans.

If that was the case, someone needed to involve Congress, which may have been impossible before this past November, or have gone public before the Post did it for them. Any indication that someone did tip off Post?

Going public in the miltary will always raise sensitive issues about overall morale, in addition to the simple CYA considerations. Probably too often the one becomes the excuse for the other.

The Army Times report certainly makes is sound as if Garrison Commander Garibaldi was working hard within the chain of command to get attention to the problems.

Other suggestions from those with military experience about how to deal with such situations?

[W. Patrick Lang]

psd

I know nothing of this General Schoomaker.

pl

[W. Patrick Lang]

Chris Bray

Yes. Gates is looking better and better.

Tee captain was probably the CO of the medical "holding" unit that all these covalescents were assigned to. Typically a job like that is given to some "lame" character. Good riddance. pl

[W. Patrick Lang]

Savoca

I don't think this had anything to do with private contractors. It was a failure of command responsibility among army people. pl

[W. Patrick Lang]

Brian

He will go in disgrace as well pl

[W. Patrick Lang]

Arun

Harvey was a civilian politician not a soldier. pl

[Cloned Poster]

It is really bizarre that the first accountability victims of the Iraq war are the medics.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Col. Lang:

Was this a failure of leadership or was it symptomatic of a fiscal problem?

[SusanUnPC]

A tidbit from the last part of the NYT story today:

"Even though [DoD Secretary Gates] issued a statement Thursday endorsing the decision to remove General Weightman, he was not aware that the Army had chosen General Kiley to be the acting commander, an appointment that lasted just one day."

Did Harvey not "cc" Gates? Wow. Gates must have been angry and insulted.

I wonder if that had to do with Gates' press conf. yesterday to announce the firing of Harvey.

Next paragraph: "'It could have been almost anybody but Kiley,' said a senior Pentagon official, who was granted anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss Mr. Gates’s thinking. "

ALL:
"Army Secretary Is Ousted in Furor Over Hospital Care"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/washington/03veterans.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=47e8bd52b0a19198&ex=1330578000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss