Saturday, May 26, 2007

Re: Marine Bureaucrats Not Getting Equipment to Troops

Regarding the Urgent UNS piece posted by Jack Fowler,
I have a few thoughts:

1. Urgent UNS come in asking for all sorts of things.
One crossed my desk wanting the capability to launch a
squad of Marines into orbit around the earth who could
be rapidly deployed anywhere in the world. Marines in
space! Genius! Some general signed that UUNS, and
the fact that it was not acted upon counts against the
total number of Urgent UNS fulfilled, I guess. One
might ask for examples of what other things the
dastardly bureaucrats had denied.

2. "Risk adverse" bureaucrats? Yeah, a lot of people
are adverse to going to jail for graft, or for not
putting out new system for multiple bids, or for
sweetheart deals with preferred providers. Or for
saying yes to everything, then having to go back to
Congress to ask for the money for all the new things.
How responsive has Congress been lately? How
understanding and willing to help have the committee
chairmen been to give big new appropriations to the
Marine Corps? How forgiving have those committee
chairmen been to the Acquisition Marines who responded
quickly to UUNS but wound up paying too much in

3. Who is the CG of I MEF, the source of the story to
the AP? Answer: LtGen Mattis, who until Aug 2006, was
the CG of Marine Corps Combat Development Command
(MCCDC), and ultimately responsible for Marine Corps
Systems Command, the unit what responds to Urgent UNS
by purchasing gear. What is the backstory there? How
many of those 90% that went unfulfilled were submitted
on his watch at MCCDC? Here is another question: What
was his UUNS fulfillment rate while he was CG MCCDC? I
would think that a credible reporter or analyst might
ask some questions before passing on an AP hit-piece
on the Marines without considering the merit of the