The Department of Defense has closed the Office of Net Acquisition due to criticisms of its inefficiency and alleged ties to the Trump-Russia investigation. The closure is expected to save taxpayers over $20 million annually while raising concerns about its implications for future military strategy. The scrutiny surrounding the office highlights significant issues regarding contract management and accountability.
The Department of Defense (DOD) has officially disbanded its Office of Net Acquisition (ONA), which has faced criticism from Republican lawmakers for its alleged involvement in the Trump-Russia investigation. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell indicated that civilian employees will be reassigned to critical roles as the DOD formulates a plan to reconstruct the office in accordance with the Department’s strategic objectives.
The ONA was intended to provide long-term strategic analysis, but its recent focus on strategizing against China led to accusations from Republicans regarding its inefficiency and disconnect from its original mission. Senator Chuck Grassley expressed approval of the closure, claiming it would save taxpayers over $20 million annually and referred to the office as “wasteful and ineffective.”
In the past, the ONA concentrated on a strategy termed “AirSea Battle,” aimed at counteracting the People’s Liberation Army with a campaign using stealth bombers and submarines. However, Senator Grassley has been critical of ONA’s contracting procedures, highlighting that the office had not produced classified assessments for years.
Whistleblower Adam Lovinger reported issues regarding the quality of studies commissioned by the office. In a September 2016 email, he described some contractor studies as “derivative” and heavily reliant on secondary sources, indicating a lack of original research. Concerns were raised over the contracts awarded to Stefan Halper, an FBI informant linked to the Trump campaign. A DOD inspector general’s report revealed Halper’s failure to document essential aspects of his research contracts.
The report detailed Halper’s lack of evidence to substantiate his travel or meetings related to his contracted studies, which offered insights into U.S. relationships with several countries, including Russia. Moreover, contracts indicated that Halper consulted with an individual tied to Russian intelligence, further intensifying scrutiny on his role regarding the Trump campaign. Senator Grassley suggested that taxpayer funds may have been misused in attempts to cultivate connections with campaign officials.
Additionally, Halper was a confidential source for the FBI during its investigation into Russian electoral interference, complicating the relationship between his contracts and ongoing inquiries. Grassley has alleged that ONA provided insufficient responses to his requests for information concerning Halper’s interactions in the Trump-Russia investigation. Opposing this viewpoint, Senator Jack Reed, the leading Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, criticized the decision to close the office, deeming it “shortsighted” and potentially detrimental to future conflict preparedness.
The closure of the Office of Net Acquisition by the Department of Defense arises from persistent concerns regarding inefficiency and its alleged involvement in politically charged investigations. While the move is seen as fiscally prudent by some lawmakers, its potential impact on strategic military analysis and planning amid escalating global tensions raises significant questions. The scrutiny surrounding past contracting practices emphasizes the need for accountability within government operations as the Department aims to refine its strategic priorities.
Original Source: www.foxnews.com
