7 ms·

I find articles like this very frustrating in their internal contradictions and failure to report anything of substance. Is it the Pentagon that failed, the Do

I find articles like this very frustrating in their internal contradictions and failure to report anything of substance. Is it the Pentagon that failed, the DoD, or the military? It sounds like it's the DoD, except for 7 components, but we're never told which components passed and which failed, so there's no possibility of intelligent discussion of the nature of the problem or possible fixes.

mc32 4y ago
But still; how can an organization fail an audit five times in a row and there not be repercussions and large investigations to ensure its possibility of repeating are vanishingly small going forward?
- favflam 4y ago
  1.5 million people are employed directly by the Pentagon (fact check me plz). Trillions??? in capital assets (planes, boats, ??). 750 installations globally plus deeply integrated relationships with multiple allies (military and fiscal). Allies train in the US and visa versa. I can understand the monumental undertaking it would be to audit the Pentagon.
  - favflam 4y ago
    Oh yes, I forgot the audit also has to prevent leakage of national secrets.
  - eastbound 4y ago
    Any waterfall attribution of budgets can be made with an little more than an Excel spreadsheet ;) but, to keep secrets, maybe they have to invent a special decentralized protocol. I’m sure someone is getting the same budget from several entities, and perhaps owns an island to spend it all.
- tdeck 4y ago
  After the second or third time failing with no consequences, the people involved must realize that there are no consequences for failing a fourth and fifth time.
  - asvitkine 4y ago
    I understand that cutting funding may be unpalatable, but couldn't they instead incentivize passing the audit by offering bonuses to middle-managenent for departments that pass?
- toast0 4y ago
  Retrofiting proper accounting controls into an existing (extremely) large organization that was built without them is difficult work. That the audits are run consistently each year now is a big step. In past years, it's sounded like a lot of progress was being made, but this year's press releases are not as bubbly about progress, although it seems the wheels of progress are still turning. AFAIK, there's been no allegations of fraud or wrongdoing in these failed audits, just that there are insufficient controls to validate the numbers. You could tie future funding to passing audits in order to have repercussions, but there's a question of if you'd rather have an unfunded military or an unaudited military.
- MattGaiser 4y ago
  Depends on the goal of the audit. The purpose of the audit may indeed be just that.
woodruffw 4y ago
"The Pentagon" is the standard metonym for the DoD, similar to "The White House" for POTUS. So it's about the DoD as a whole. Here's the actual DoD press release[1], and the DoD comptroller's website[2]. [1]: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3219649/dod-completes-department-wide-financial-statement-audit-essential-catalyst-for/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/321964... [2]: https://comptroller.defense.gov/odcfo/afr/ https://comptroller.defense.gov/odcfo/afr/
mlindner 4y ago
The group that wrote this is not exactly a reputable source in the first place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quincy_Institute_for_Responsible_Statecraft#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quincy_Institute_for_Responsib...
- rsj_hn 4y ago
  The existence of a "criticism" section on wikipedia does not mean a journal isn't reputable. But if you want to censor your own information sources that way, go ahead. The Quincy Institute -- which publishes Responsible Statecraft -- is a realist foreign policy think tank, designed to oppose neo-con foreign policy and advocate for a rationalist approach rather than an ideological approach. They opposed many of the foreign wars the U.S. has recently waged. Here is their mission statement: "The Quincy Institute promotes ideas that move U.S. foreign policy away from endless war and toward vigorous diplomacy in the pursuit of international peace." That, of course, is enough to make a lot of the redditors very angry, but it's certainly a reputable outlet. You can read more here, which has their mission statement, list of board members, and major funders: https://quincyinst.org/about/ https://quincyinst.org/about/ Funders include The Carnegie Corporation of New York, The Open Society Foundation, The Ploughshares fund, Ford Foundation, Streisand Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Foundation. Examine their full list of donors here: https://quincyinst.wpengine.com/our-financial-supporters/ https://quincyinst.wpengine.com/our-financial-supporters/ There is also a podcast you can listen to, called "in search of monsters". If you are a foreign policy wonk, you will get the reference. https://quincyinst.org/category/podcast/ https://quincyinst.org/category/podcast/ I would also argue that wikipedia is not an unbiased source on anything that touches politics or foreign policy, and it would be quite foolish to trust it as a reputable information source on those topics.
  - mlindner 4y ago
    Firstly, it's not a journal. It's a think tank. There is nothing "rational" from a US point of view in opposing the supporting Ukraine in this war. It has basically infinite upsides with no downsides. They obviously have funding routes that come from the Russian government. Also it seems hacker news isn't following their own policies as a different comment of mine got flagged simply for noting the background of this think tank.

mc32 4y ago

But still; how can an organization fail an audit five times in a row and there not be repercussions and large investigations to ensure its possibility of repeating are vanishingly small going forward?

favflam 4y ago
1.5 million people are employed directly by the Pentagon (fact check me plz). Trillions??? in capital assets (planes, boats, ??). 750 installations globally plus deeply integrated relationships with multiple allies (military and fiscal). Allies train in the US and visa versa. I can understand the monumental undertaking it would be to audit the Pentagon.
- favflam 4y ago
  Oh yes, I forgot the audit also has to prevent leakage of national secrets.
- eastbound 4y ago
  Any waterfall attribution of budgets can be made with an little more than an Excel spreadsheet ;) but, to keep secrets, maybe they have to invent a special decentralized protocol. I’m sure someone is getting the same budget from several entities, and perhaps owns an island to spend it all.
tdeck 4y ago
After the second or third time failing with no consequences, the people involved must realize that there are no consequences for failing a fourth and fifth time.
- asvitkine 4y ago
  I understand that cutting funding may be unpalatable, but couldn't they instead incentivize passing the audit by offering bonuses to middle-managenent for departments that pass?
toast0 4y ago
Retrofiting proper accounting controls into an existing (extremely) large organization that was built without them is difficult work. That the audits are run consistently each year now is a big step. In past years, it's sounded like a lot of progress was being made, but this year's press releases are not as bubbly about progress, although it seems the wheels of progress are still turning. AFAIK, there's been no allegations of fraud or wrongdoing in these failed audits, just that there are insufficient controls to validate the numbers. You could tie future funding to passing audits in order to have repercussions, but there's a question of if you'd rather have an unfunded military or an unaudited military.
MattGaiser 4y ago
Depends on the goal of the audit. The purpose of the audit may indeed be just that.

woodruffw 4y ago

"The Pentagon" is the standard metonym for the DoD, similar to "The White House" for POTUS. So it's about the DoD as a whole. Here's the actual DoD press release[1], and the DoD comptroller's website[2]. [1]: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3219649/dod-completes-department-wide-financial-statement-audit-essential-catalyst-for/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/321964... [2]: https://comptroller.defense.gov/odcfo/afr/ https://comptroller.defense.gov/odcfo/afr/

mlindner 4y ago

The group that wrote this is not exactly a reputable source in the first place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quincy_Institute_for_Responsible_Statecraft#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quincy_Institute_for_Responsib...

rsj_hn 4y ago
The existence of a "criticism" section on wikipedia does not mean a journal isn't reputable. But if you want to censor your own information sources that way, go ahead. The Quincy Institute -- which publishes Responsible Statecraft -- is a realist foreign policy think tank, designed to oppose neo-con foreign policy and advocate for a rationalist approach rather than an ideological approach. They opposed many of the foreign wars the U.S. has recently waged. Here is their mission statement: "The Quincy Institute promotes ideas that move U.S. foreign policy away from endless war and toward vigorous diplomacy in the pursuit of international peace." That, of course, is enough to make a lot of the redditors very angry, but it's certainly a reputable outlet. You can read more here, which has their mission statement, list of board members, and major funders: https://quincyinst.org/about/ https://quincyinst.org/about/ Funders include The Carnegie Corporation of New York, The Open Society Foundation, The Ploughshares fund, Ford Foundation, Streisand Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Foundation. Examine their full list of donors here: https://quincyinst.wpengine.com/our-financial-supporters/ https://quincyinst.wpengine.com/our-financial-supporters/ There is also a podcast you can listen to, called "in search of monsters". If you are a foreign policy wonk, you will get the reference. https://quincyinst.org/category/podcast/ https://quincyinst.org/category/podcast/ I would also argue that wikipedia is not an unbiased source on anything that touches politics or foreign policy, and it would be quite foolish to trust it as a reputable information source on those topics.
- mlindner 4y ago
  Firstly, it's not a journal. It's a think tank. There is nothing "rational" from a US point of view in opposing the supporting Ukraine in this war. It has basically infinite upsides with no downsides. They obviously have funding routes that come from the Russian government. Also it seems hacker news isn't following their own policies as a different comment of mine got flagged simply for noting the background of this think tank.