An American Lion

Missing shipping containers? Or snazzy little apartments?

Taking our troops—and their equipment—out of Iraq is a Herculean task. It’s the tough logistics of such a thing that makes it easy to ignore and forget about. No one wants to deal with the messy details of removing tens of thousands of U.S. troops, handing over nearly 300 bases, and making sure that untold numbers of pieces of equipment come home with us.

The Government Accountability Office has found out that, surprise, the Department of Defense doesn’t have its act together:

The United States and the Government of Iraq have signed a Security Agreement calling for the drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq. Predicated on that agreement and U.S. Presidential guidance, Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) has issued a plan for the reduction of forces to 50,000 U.S. troops by August 31, 2010, and a complete withdrawal of forces by the end of 2011. The drawdown from Iraq includes the withdrawal of approximately 128,700 U.S. troops, over 115,000 contractor personnel, the closure or transfer of 295 bases, and the retrograde of over 3.3 million pieces of equipment. Today’s statement will focus on (1) the extent to which the Department of Defense (DOD) has planned for the drawdown in accordance with timelines set by the Security Agreement and presidential directive; and (2) factors that may impact the efficient execution of the drawdown in accordance with established timelines. This statement is based on GAO’s review and analysis of DOD and MNF-I plans, and on interviews GAO staff members conducted with DOD officials in the United States, Kuwait, and Iraq. It also draws from GAO’s extensive body of issued work on Iraq and drawdown-related issues.

While DOD’s primary focus remains on executing combat missions and supporting the warfighters in Iraq, several DOD organizations have issued coordinated plans for the execution of the drawdown within designated time frames. In support of these plans, processes have been established to monitor, coordinate, and facilitate the retrograde of equipment from Iraq. DOD’s organizations have reported that their efforts to reduce personnel, retrograde equipment, and close bases have thus far exceeded targets; since May 2009, for example, DOD reports that the number of U.S. servicemembers in Iraq has been reduced by 5,300, and another 4,000 are expected to be drawn down in October. However, many more personnel, equipment items, and bases remain to be drawn down. For U.S. forces, contractor personnel, selected vehicles, and bases, the graphic below depicts drawdown progress since May 2009, as well as what remains to be drawn down by August 31, 2010 and December 31, 2011, respectively. Efficient execution of the drawdown from Iraq, however, may be complicated by crucial challenges that, if left unattended, may hinder MNF-I’s ability to meet the time frames set by the President, the Security Agreement, and MNF-I’s phased drawdown plan. First, DOD has yet to fully determine its future needs for contracted services. Second, the potential costs and other concerns of transitioning key contracts may outweigh potential benefits. Third, DOD lacks sufficient numbers of contract oversight personnel. Fourth, key decisions about the disposition of some equipment have yet to be made. Fifth, there are longstanding incompatibility issues among the information technology systems that may undermine the equipment retrograde process. And sixth, DOD lacks precise visibility over its inventory of some equipment and shipping containers. While much has been done to facilitate the drawdown effort, the efficient execution of the drawdown will depend on DOD’s ability to mitigate these challenges. We will continue to assess DOD’s progress in executing the drawdown from Iraq and plan to issue a report.

Echoing that last item, it’s true. The Department of Defense really has no idea where the shipping containers went:

Another factor compounding planning uncertainty is the lack of an accurate accounting of the quantity and serviceability of shipping containers in Iraq. Containers are unique in that not only are they items that have to be retrograded from Iraq, they are also a primary vehicle for shipping other types of equipment out of Iraq. According to U.S. Army Central officials, the data system in place to track containers is inaccurate and incomplete because, among other factors, it must be manually updated every time a container arrives at or leaves a specific location. Reports based the data from this system indicate that the system is at best 25 percent accurate. Furthermore, updates to the location and status of containers may not occur routinely because of personnel shortages. For example, according to officials in charge of container management, 200 containers listed as located in Iraq were, in fact, in Afghanistan. Moreover, in addition to inaccurate data on the number of containers and their locations, officials also lack data on the serviceability of containers. In an effort to rectify this problem, MNC-I issued an order directing a 100 percent inventory of containers, including instructions for reporting the serviceability of the containers. Subsequent reports indicate that approximately 54,000 containers had been physically inventoried as of August 2009, which was almost 25,000 fewer than the number of containers in the data system. Out of these containers entered in the data system, the location of over 7,000 could not be verified and the serviceability of 39 percent remained unknown. Moreover, many containers in Iraq are being used for storage, office space, and living quarters, among other purposes, yet are not documented as such, and may not immediately be available for retrograde. Due to limited container accountability, MNF-I and U.S. Army Central’s ability to plan for the steady flow of equipment out of Iraq necessary to meet the drawdown timelines may be at risk.

My guess is that the only ones they are able to find are the ones our troops are sleeping in. I wouldn’t count on meeting those timelines unless we are willing to abandon vast stores of equipment in Iraq. We went in without a plan, stayed longer than we thought we were going to stay, and now we have no way to get our equipment out. That’s fine. We’ll just have to face an Iraqi Army that is equipped with what we left behind one day. I would advise that we don’t leave anything behind that can knock down a helicopter.