Obama's Russian Helicopter Deal for Afghanistan - Are the Lies to Congress Impeachable?

According to unclassified excerpts of a Pentagon study it has obtained, the Associated Press reported today in a widely reprinted exclusive analysis that US military officials insisted a top-secret Pentagon study proved that it was necessary to buy Russian helicopters for Afghanistan's security forces. In fact, what the study actually recommended was an American-made rotorcraft. The unclassified excerpts show that the US Army's workhorse Chinook, built by Boeing in Pennsylvania, was "the most cost-effective single platform type fleet for the Afghan Air Force over a 20-year" period. The discrepancy between the study's actual conclusions and the misrepresentations given to Congress has led to allegations that the Defense Department misled members of Congress and improperly cut US companies out of the competition for a contract that has swelled to more than $1 billion. According to AP, more than two years after DOD announced it was acquiring Russian Mi-17 helicopters, a veil of secrecy still obscures the pact despite its high-dollar value, the potential for fraud and waste, and accusations the Pentagon hid important information. The unprecedented arms deal also serves as a reminder to the American public that Afghanistan will remain heavily dependent on US financial support even after American combat troops leave. Senator John Cornyn, the Senate's No. 2 GOP leader, said DOD "repeatedly and disingenuously" used the 2010 study to justify the Russian helicopter as the superior choice for the Afghan military. Congress only recently received a copy of the actual document. "So why are we buying Russian helicopters when there are American manufacturers that can meet that very same requirement?" Cornyn asked. As recently as September, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter cited the study in a letter to House members defending the Mi-17 decision. Carter left his job last week. Last year, Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's top acquisition official, and policy chief James Miller pointed to the study in a written response to questions posed by Cornyn. Just a few weeks after the secret study was completed, Army Secretary John McHugh wrote in a 2011 memo “that the Mi-17 stands apart” when compared with other helicopters. The Pentagon denies it misled Congress. A senior department official said the study was focused on long-term requirements and not the immediate needs of the Afghan military, which were best met by the Mi-17. Also, US commanders in Afghanistan wanted the Russian helicopter because it is durable, easy to operate and the Afghan forces had experience flying it, according to an unnamed Pentagon source. There’s no dispute that heavy-duty helicopters capable of quickly moving Afghan troops and supplies are essential to accomplishing the Afghan military mission. But the decision to acquire them from Russia has made both Republican and Democrat lawmakers ask why the US is purchasing military gear from Russia? Why is the US buying 63 Mi-17s from Russia through the 2011 contract - another Obama administration contract awarded without competition - with Russia’s arms export agency, Rosoboronexport, even though the Pentagon condemned the agency after Syrian President al-Assad’s forces used Russian weapons to “murder Syrian civilians.” Afghanistan’s mountainous terrain demands a helicopter capable of operating in the most rugged conditions at altitudes well in excess of 15,000 feet. The Mi-17 met all these requirements, Carter and other US military officials told lawmakers in correspondence and in testimony. BUT, so could the heavyweight Chinook. The Boeing helicopter is larger than its Russian counterpart, carries up to a 26,000 pound payload, which is twice as much as the Mi-17, and can operate at nearly the same high altitude. According to the excerpts received by AP, the 2010 study “specifically analyzed the opportunity for DOD to provide a US alternative to the Mi-17 for Afghanistan.” An extensive analysis of both helicopters concluded that a refurbished Chinook would cost about 40% more to buy and maintain than the Mi-17, a senior defense official told AP. But AP says that’s hard to believe. Boeing executives informed congressional staff during a meeting held in late September that the cost of a refurbished CH-47D would be in the $12 - $14 million range, according to a person knowledgeable about the discussion. That would make an overhauled Chinook $4 - $6 million less than what the department is currently paying for Mi-17s, according to figures compiled by the Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell, the Pentagon office that fills urgent requests for equipment from battlefield commanders. The figures also show the average cost of each new Mi-17 has increased with each successive order - from $16.4 million to $18.2 million. The Pentagon has assured Congress that the prices are “fair and reasonable,” and in line with what other countries have paid. But an internal Defense Contract Audit Agency document shows that the department could not conduct a comprehensive cost comparison because Rosoboronexport wouldn’t let US auditors look at its books. Army negotiators omitted a provision standard in government contracts that permits pricing reviews. In examining the contract the US audit agency noted that Rosoboronexport “is arguably an agent or instrumentality of a foreign government and is therefore exempt from most cost accounting standards.” Rosoboronexport’s director general, Anatoly Isaykin, said in a statement late last month that his agency was “completely transparent” in negotiating Mi-17 prices with the US. But, he provided no details on costs or any examples of transparency. “In our opinion, this contract is most acceptable to the US Department of Defense in terms of quality/price ratio,” Isaykin said. ~~~~~ However, let's also remember that Russia has sold advanced weapons to Syria and Iran, sheltered NSA leaker Edward Snowden and been criticized by the State Department for adopting laws that restrict human rights. In addition, corruption is rampant in Russia’s defense industry, raising concerns that corrupt government officials and contractors are lining their pockets with American money. “We’re not dealing with a corrupt system. Corruption is the system,” Stephen Blank, a Russia expert at the American Foreign Policy Council, a Washington think tank told AP. “This is not a world we’re familiar with.” ~~~~~ AND COULD IT GET WORSE??? YES. On Sunday, Afghan President Hamid Karzai agreed on a cooperation pact with Iran, despite continuing to resist signing a security agreement with the US, Reuters reported. Karzai made the deal with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in Teheran. Karzai's spokesman Aimal Faizi told Reuters : "The pact will be for long-term political, security, economic and cultural cooperation, regional peace and security." Afghanistan signed a cooperation pact with Iran in August covering mainly security issues, but Faizi said the proposed new agreement would have a broader scope. Rouhani said Sunday his country opposes the presence of foreign forces in Afghanistan and the region, saying their presence generates tension, the Iranian official IRNA news agency reported. IRNA quoted Rouhani as telling Karzai : "We believe that all foreign forces should leave the region and that the security of Afghanistan should be handed over to people of the country. We are concerned about tensions caused by foreign forces presence in the region," Rouhani was quoted as saying. He also called for more cooperation between Teheran and Kabul. ~~~~~ So, dear readers, there you have it. The 13-year-old war in Afghanistan - why? What started as President Obama’s “war of necessity” has become a race to get out -- forgotten are his hopes of eliminating the Taliban and making Afghanistan a viable state. US combat forces are scheduled to depart by the end of next year, leaving the Afghans responsible for ensuring that the country doesn’t collapse into the pre-September 11 chaos that made it a terrorist haven. Actually, it would appear that Obama has decided to arm Afghanistan with Russian helicopters paid for by US taxpayers to be used by Iran to drive American forces out of the Middle East. One really has to ask whose side Barack Obama is on - I don't think it is America's. Impeachment, anyone?