"pools of ineptitude, civil liberties intrusions" Washpost

 

"... after nine years — and regular praise from officials at the Department of Homeland Security — the 77 fusion centers have become pools of ineptitude, waste and civil liberties intrusions, according to a scathing 141-page report by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs permanent subcommittee on investigations."  Washpost

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

A lot of "loopy" things were done during the hysteria that folllowed that awful day.  Vast amounts of money were "borrowed" by the government.  That money was spread far and wide throughout the government and among contracting companies that serve the government.  Some of it came my way.  I was pleased to accept it.  It was not hard to see then, and easier now that the institutional "empire building" and open handed distribution of "the spoils" of counter-terrorism were excessive and are excessive yet.  The same thing applies to the national defense establishment in general.

We need to "build down" the whole national security apparatus.  There are too many groups doing overlapping tasks.  There are too many "fusion centers,"  CT centers, joint task forces on "this or that."  There are too many contracter employees in the Pentagon doing the work that active duty military people should be doing for themselves rather than spending their time "politicking" for promotion.  CIA?  The "game" has not been different there.

Once again, we should have just one army.  The USMC has grown and "morphed" into a second army for the United States.  Once upon a time, the marines were a small service dedicated to the prosecution of the land aspects of a naval campaign, as well as various small "jobs" like; running naval prisons, guarding admirals from sailors and serving as legation guards in places far away.  In WW2 the Army and USMC were about equally successful in conducting bloody, bloody amphibious landings.  Normandy and Iwo Jima would be examples. 

Today the USMC is larger that the British and Canadian armies combined.  The USMC is now a large land mass operations service.  Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated that.  We should combine he two services into one.  The resultant savings in the now duplicated education, training and logistics establishments would be large.  Such a merger would also put an end to the endless bickering and hostility that mark today's situation.

Contrary to popular belief smaller is often better, better in the retention of the best and discarding of the worst.  Let's get smaller.  pl

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/dhs-fusion-centers-portrayed-as-pools-of-ineptitude-and-civil-liberties-intrusions/2012/10/02/10014440-0cb1-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html

Comments

[Al Spafford]

Col Lang, I found Ricks and Cole's response below in line with what you are discussing here. Interested in your continuing thoughts:

http://www.juancole.com/2012/10/tom-ricks-and-the-generals-why-the-us-succeeded-in-wwii-but-not-since.html

[John Minnerath]

I ran across an article about the unbelievable amount of money each of the armed services had spent developing a "better" camouflage combat fatigue uniform.
The Army expenditures seemed particularly out of control.
And the final outcome was still a uniform that made soldiers stand out like a sore thumb in all environments.

[TWV]

As to the USMC,there is a need for a Naval infantry/security force.

A few years ago a New Haven, CT. TV news crew walked out onto a dock at the New London Sub Base and onto the deck of a nuclear sub.
They were not challenged.

BTW, there is actually a third Army - sort of: the Naval Expeditionary Combat Command; doing what the USMC used to do before getting into the "Army business."

Face it:
CT is a big business;careers and budgets depend on it.

[turcopolier]

TWV

You are arguing for a much smaller USMC devoted to traditional missions? The multitudes told me that VN and Iraq would never end because civilians were making too much money out of it for it to end. They ended. CT is an important mission. It could be done much smaller and cheaper. pl

[TWV]

Sort of like the old canard:
There will never be a cure for cancer - too many careers and budgets involved in "the war on cancer."

Remember: this is America.
It's ALWAYS about the money.

[turcopolier]

TWV

so, you would suscribe to the Chop Suey Clausewitz quote that "even as you would not use good steel to make a nail, you would not use a good man to make a soldier." pl

[Al Spafford]

Per Col Lang's prior and now Ricks' comments on Gen Marshall, I now need to read more on this great patriot in our nation's history.

[Tyler]

Ah fusion centers. They've become a 'block to check' on the promotion matrices in the federal law enforcement services, as well as a way for people to get close to home if there's no posting out there. Not a problem for most agencies, but some of the natural resource officers and the Patrol can find it difficult to get east of the mighty Mississippi.

That being said they're a boondoggle and a waste and another way for agencies to dip their beaks in anti-terror hokey poke.

[TWV]

Whaaaaattt.........?

[turcopolier]

TWV

"Whaaaaattt.........?" This seems clear to me. In your America, who could possibly be stupider than a soldier? pl

[Jose]

With so much duplicity, eventually one "group" will give you the answer you want. There is always a method to madness.

Contrary to popular belief smaller is often better, better in the retention of the best and discarding of the worst. Let's get smaller. pl

I agree, good group should get addition funding, bad group abolished. So why are you supporting BHO? lol

[oofda]

Colonel,
The USMC also has one of the largest air forces in the world- ranking at least in the top 10.

[turcopolier]

jose

"So why are you supporting BHO?" Whether I am or not is none of your business, but since you asked, my opinion is that the only thing worse than another BHO term would be a Romney term. pl

[turcopolier]

oofda

yes. pl

[Matthew]

Col: As always, you include a classic line: "Once upon a time, the marines were a small service dedicated to... guarding admirals from sailors..."

[turcopolier]

Matthew

Yes, and tell me what they are guarding the president from at the WH door. Washington pan handlers? There are an awful lot of uniformed secret service there for that. the Army has the same problem at the WH. Someone I knew well commanded the 3rd Infantry Regiment (the Old Guard). One day several decades ago the secret service showed up on his "doorstep" at Ft. Myer and told him they wanted all the firing pins taken out of his men's rifles, this for the president's "safety." He told them that his soldiers were not movie extras and that they could go f--k themselves. They left unsatisfied. pl pl

[TWV]

NOT true.
I have respect for people who can do things I can't do.
That includes soldiers.
Does NOT include people who are BORN with special abilities - like professional athletes.

Maybe you have spent too many years "reading between the lines" looking for hidden meanings/agendas.

[turcopolier]

TWV

Maybe so, what's your agenda? pl

[Fred]

The navy outsourced the marine battalion guarding submmarines in New London (not New Haven) back in the '80s. Reagan's revolution, don't you know. Good thing that tv station didn't try that back on my days, one of our topside watches locked & loaded on the seal team doing some exercise - they didn't think the repeated order to halt meant anything until he did.

[Fred]

"Does NOT include people who are BORN with special abilities - like professional athletes."

Lots of those men served, some in combat, in WWII and Korea. Why should we excuse thier service now because they can earn a fat paycheck?

[TWV]

I'm retired.
Not outliving my money is the nearest thing I have to an agenda.

[Mark Logan]

I think that was more of a problem for the British than it ever was for us. They had a lot of guys who were driven on board by brute force once upon a time.

I hated how we blew the aviation budget on a small number Ospreys. This is inconsistent with having a large force. More about being able to do something somebody else couldn't, I suspect.

[Herb]

Col.

I have an employee who is currently Army reserve. He started his career in the Navy (radar sigint) under Reagan, continued eight years (Panama, Iraq 1, Bosnia) into the mid-90's and left the service. In the end of 2001 he enlisted in the Army as he felt he was needed. He spent the next three years training for and maintaining a water treatment/distillation system in Iraq which sat unused his entire tour as contractors were hired to duplicate his unit's work. Instead he proofread his superiors letters and reports. Another embarrassment from his account. His experience was the Army was all about numbers. Numbers of people, numbers of equipment, numbers of reports. Quality didn't matter as long as the numbers were up. Malcontents, mental health cases, even outright criminals were merely transferred to someone else's command to prevent a reduction in numbers. By his accounting there is (was?) obviously a lot of rot in our military, which is a real shame to those who have higher standards and want to serve their country with honor.

If, god forbid, Romney is elected, he said he is almost certain he will be called up again for the six-pack (sixth president, sixth war) and he wanted to let me know so I could plan accordingly.

Thanks for your blog.

[ex-PFC Chuck]

If you want to immerse yourself, read Forrest Pogue's four volume biography.

[The Moar You Know]

I get the email updates from our local center. They are almost always the same emails I get from my extremely right-wing father-in-law, but with the exclamation points removed. I have to assume someone there is smart enough to remove the anti-President Obama emails, at least the ones that mention his name directly.

The remaining 10% of their emails are just cut n' paste jobs from the local crime blotter.

Shameful. In every respect. What they do is no more legitimate law enforcement than when my five-year old nephew tattles on his little brother.