backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 50 comment(s) - last by lucre.. on Jul 29 at 6:48 AM

Officials say new luxury rooms are essential to giving them a proper atmosphere to conduct counterterrorist activities

The war against terror involves the height of expensive technology -- cutting edge sensors, robotic warriors, and... pricey aircraft luxury suites?  This curious last addition has come under public scrutiny and is the subject of a major debate.

Over the last three years the Air Force's leadership sought counterterrorism funding to build "comfort capsules" for its top ranking officers.  These new luxury suites would allow senior officers and civilian leaders to travel the world in style and comfort, all on the U.S. taxpayers' bill.

In long email dialogs and budget documents four top generals planned such minute details as color and style of the carpet and leather chairs for the suite.  Production of the first capsule has already begun and it will feature two posh rooms.  According to the generals, who are defensive about the efforts, the new capsules are essential to allowing the leadership to talk, work and rest comfortably in the air. 

However, the expensive efforts are not meeting with such glowing praise among lower ranking officers, among members of Congress, and among the American public.  Many are calling the program a waste of valuable antiterrorism funds.

Well, each citizen will have to examine the expenditures and form their own opinions.  To consider this, we must look at the rooms in a bit more detail.  The capsules are to be "aesthetically pleasing and furnished to reflect the rank of the senior leaders using the capsule."  Each features designer furniture -- beds, a couch, a table.  Also included are a 37-inch flat-screen monitor with stereo speakers and a full length mirror, so the leadership can always be sure they're looking good.

The project has been slowed, to the generals' frustration by Congress being skeptical about the use of counterterrorism funds for the pet project.  Further the generals numerous demands for upgrades in the suites were also the subject of some incredulity in Air Force proceedings.  Among these requests were for the color of the leather for the seats and seat belts in the mobile pallets be changed from brown to Air Force blue and that seat pockets be added; another was that the color of the table's wood be darkened.  These little changes were expected to carry a little price tag of $68,240.

In total, the project leaders have begged Congress to let it use $16.2M USD in funds, coming from the resources for the GWOT, or global war on terrorism, on the project.  Congress has refused each time, demanding the funds be spent on higher priority items.

Nevertheless the Air Force continued planning and construction.  Then came a $331,000 budget overrun last year, thanks in part to the design changes.  This time the Air Force managed to take the money out of the counterterrorism funds.  A senior officer has said that based on inquiries since, the Air Force has reversed the decision and will be returning the funds and looking for alternative sources of financing.

The story first came into the public eye thanks to a series of emails delivered to the Washington Post by nonprofit group Project on Government Oversight (POGO).  They have since been independently authenticated and it has been revealed that pressure was applied to lower ranking officers to created "world class" accommodations well beyond the standards of a regular business-class flight.

In a March 2007 email to a colleague, an officer at the service's Air Mobility Command said, "I was asked by Gen. [Robert H.] McMahon what it would take to make the [capsule] . . . a 'world class' piece of equipment.  He said he wanted an assurance . . . that we would be getting a world class item this week."

The Air Force says that the program dates back to 2006, when Air Force Gen. Duncan J. McNabb decided that existing accommodations aboard transport aircraft was good enough airmen and troops, but not good enough for top brass.  At the time General McNabb was Air Mobility commander; he is now the Air Force's vice chief of staff and has been nominated to be promoted to head of the military's Transportation Command.

In a complaint letter to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who nominated him, POGO's Danielle Brian, the group's executive director, asserts that the capsules have no special communications or work capabilities useful in the war against terrorism, and are "a gross misuse of millions of taxpayer dollars that could otherwise be used to train and equip soldiers."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Military Regs
By bldckstark on 7/21/2008 12:52:59 PM , Rating: 4
Personally, I thought they already had this kind of stuff.

A three or four star General is a rare commodity. They have to prove themselves over and over again to be promoted to that level (unlike many CEO's). In order to keep the best people in the military you have to entice them with something. The pay isn't going to do it. The extremely long hours and months away from their family isn't going to do it. The high risk of a violent death isn't going to do it. Being directly responsible for the lives of millions, including many mothers and fathers isn't going to do it.

I was in the U.S. Army for 4 years. I left the Army because the persons who were the least likely to be able to support themselves in society were the ones staying in the military and therefore being promoted. Many of these people were idiots, and they made the decisions that determine who lives and who dies.

We need all the good leaders we can get in the military, and if 68 million dollars is what it costs, then I say spend it, but maybe it shouldn't come from the anti-terrorism budget.




RE: Military Regs
By Spectator on 7/21/2008 1:29:58 PM , Rating: 5
Try Living in England.

Our monarch. until few years ago. Had all sorts of mad expensive sht paid for by the tax payer.

ex. its about time i had a new boat. the QE2 is getting old now. ..so that will be 300mil Stirling. ok?.

Fook no. your not having a new boat on the tax payer :P.

Mad sht still hapens though. you know world gets BBC radio and TV Free. Well us in UK. have to pay close to 300 dollar a year if we own a device/TV capable of recieveing the BBC. and we get 2 channels on tv for that. if we want BBC in HD we gota buy a sat dish + new freesat hardware..

2 channels for 300ish dollar a year.. and 10 dollar a gallon for petrol. 11 dollar for Diesel. Come join our madness.

Our saving Grace is; we breed dis-contented youth. Sadly only a small minority make it to the front line. To perpetuate our image of being a world power :)

Spectator

Spectator.


RE: Military Regs
By FITCamaro on 7/21/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military Regs
By Darkskypoet on 7/21/2008 4:21:59 PM , Rating: 4
And technically the U.S can only afford to be a world power / Super Power because China is lending it money left right and center. Someone's gotta buy all that debt.

Really though, world power and super power are different things. Because the U.K can project force, and has a near global reach with nuclear weapons, it is a world power. Much the same as China, Russia, Ukraine, France (yes France), etc. Really, one could consider essentially most any nation with longer range nuclear ICBMs, long range strategic nuclear armed bomber wings, or sub / surface nuclear armed assets a world power.

Thankfully not all of them go off half cocked and invade other nations for fun and profit.


RE: Military Regs
By BladeVenom on 7/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Military Regs
By OMGBS LIES on 7/22/2008 10:53:28 PM , Rating: 5
and that little place called vietnam... oh hold on...


RE: Military Regs
By 1078feba on 7/24/2008 9:00:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
and that little place called vietnam that had the full military backing of that 1.5 million member strong standing army of China mentioned elsewhere in this thread... so I agree...


There, fixed that for you....


RE: Military Regs
By boogle on 7/22/2008 9:34:44 AM , Rating: 3
Because all that matters is that you can invade another country at random shouting 'open a can of whoop-ass' at the top of your lungs.

Ultimately as long as you have nuclear weapons and a good platform to deploy them from (nuclear sub, ICBMs) then what's the point in having a massive military force?

And lets not get into a debate as to whether X can beat Y. The second both parties have nuclear weapons, nobody beat's anyone else, they both lose.

Remember, the US is a big propaganda machine, especially when it comes to it's own citizens.


RE: Military Regs
By FITCamaro on 7/22/2008 10:39:44 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Ultimately as long as you have nuclear weapons and a good platform to deploy them from (nuclear sub, ICBMs) then what's the point in having a massive military force?


Uh we don't have a massive military force. We have one of the smallest army's in the world. A military of a few hundred thousand out of a population of over 300 million is hardly massive.

And your only options cannot be do nothing and try to negotiate or nuke them.


RE: Military Regs
By peldor on 7/22/2008 1:29:11 PM , Rating: 5
The USA has the second largest standing military force in the world (after China) with almost 1.5 million active troops. How that equates to "one of the smallest" in your mind is boggling my mind.

Of course, the US monetary expenditures are legendary, nearly exceeding the ROTW.


RE: Military Regs
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/22/2008 2:53:30 PM , Rating: 2
I think your factoring in National Guard and Reserve troops which to be perfectly honest would be like sending the police force to war. The number of active combat troops is tiny. Heck were pretty pressed just having roughly 200,000 troops in Iraq and Afganistan. If we really had 1.5 million troops putting 200k in the middle east would be childs play.


RE: Military Regs
By rdeegvainl on 7/22/2008 6:16:08 PM , Rating: 4
Alright, that just pisses me off. National Guard and reserves get treated the worst. They get the lowest benefits, and have some of the longest tours. They do go to war. My step-father was national guard, guess where he went last time we went to the middle east, yep he went to iraq. I know plenty of soldier, airmen, sailors and marines, who are either national guard or reserves, that go and fight, and put out just like US active duty. Yes I am active duty. So yeah, you really do need to count our national guard and reserves, cause a whole hell of a lot of them are over their too, losing their jobs for when they come home.


RE: Military Regs
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/22/2008 1:31:47 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, because they might decide to see if you have enough balls to actually press the button and deal with the hundreds of millions of civilian casualties on your hands.


RE: Military Regs
By Ringold on 7/22/2008 9:38:00 PM , Rating: 2
Thats right, and when both sides decide not to open Pandora's nuclear box-o-fun, then we have to fight a conventional war with conventional weapons.

Given that warships take decades from the point of first conception to mass production and the first one entering service, if we wait until there is an immediate need to start developing, say, a next-generation aircraft carrier, submarine, frigate, or fighter then we've already lost. Eisenhower famously warned about the influence that a military-industrial complex would wield once we established the full-time standing military, but liberals seem to forget the other side of the coin; he conceded such a military is absolutely critical to maintain.

A simple check of history has shown that to be the case since at least the mid 1800s, but I wouldn't accuse too many folk of knowing history. ;)


RE: Military Regs
By beepandbop on 7/23/2008 9:55:34 AM , Rating: 2
A simple check of history would agree with you, but not since the 1800's: since the dawn of human nations.


RE: Military Regs
By Ringold on 7/22/2008 9:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
How much is the British whining about the monarchy really justified? I know it's convenient to forget history prior to, say, 1990, but directly from Wikipedia:

quote:
King George III agreed to surrender the hereditary revenues of the Crown in return for the Civil List, and this arrangement persists. In modern times, the profits surrendered from the Crown Estate have by far exceeded the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid provided to the monarch. For example, the Crown Estate produced over £170 million for the Treasury in the financial year 2003–2004, whereas parliamentary funding for the monarch was less than £40 million during the same period.


Sounds to me like a long-term bargain.

That said, I don't care for much of the royal family, but thats not the issue.