I received this article via email from several people today, each of whom probably thought that what would get my interest is the reporting on the continuing objections from the ground force community to AirSea Battle. I must admit to being somewhat interested that the Washington Post would take time for a serious analysis of AirSea Battle, to the extent that any serious analysis can take place in an unclassified setting.
Instead, what unfolds is a timid hit-piece, full of innuendo and with a whiff of score settling. Careful only to land glancing blows, Greg Jaffe traces the conceptual evolution of AirSea Battle back to its Pentagon roots, and in the process, questions the Director of the Office of Net Assessment's (Andrew Marshall) integrity in the awarding of contracts by inferring that he distributes resources to his favorites, and no one is more favored than the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, run by a Marshall protege, Dr. Andrew Krepinevich. Citing the proportion of CSBA's revenue generated by ONA contracts, Jaffe gives us Krepinevich's salary, reporting that it is twice what others in his position make. The horror.
So, not only is AirSea Battle subject to (generally useful) criticism from land-power advocates, it now should be looked at askance because of its birth from a dubious marriage between ONA and a think tank? I'm not convinced.
CSBA is one of the most professional organizations I've worked with, and I've worked with many of the DC think tanks and war-gaming shops. Quibble if you will with their revenue, but if you've ever worked with them, you'll find a couple of very obvious facts. First, they don't occupy a Taj Mahal office complex, so your government dollars aren't going to that. Second, their staff is ridiculously small for the complex and important work that they take on. So your government dollar isn't going to the overhead support of Writers in Residence, Non-Resident Scholars, Resident Fellows, Non-Resident Writing Fellows and the like. You get world class analysis, professionally done, by a staff of experts who work like dogs--and produce their findings quickly, a rarity in Washington sometimes.
Additionally, if ONA money goes to firms that have connections with Marshall, maybe it is worthwhile to look at the quality of the people who have earned his confidence. I am familiar with probably ten people in the DC area who worked closely with Marshall, who learned his methods, who trained at his knee--who then went out into the thinktank and wargaming worlds to make their way. These are not Junior Varsity people--they are some of the smartest, most analytically rigorous thinkers I know, and the the work that they do for Marshall and every other customer who seeks them out is superb. If Marshall goes to the well, it is because he knows he can get quality work from people who know what they are doing.
I guess Mr. Jaffe was unable to get his editors to buy off on a straight story about the legitimate questions surrounding AirSea Battle, that he had to "sex it up" a little bit by hinting about corruption and playing up class envy. Maybe next time.
UPDATE: I'm in the midst of an interesting Twitter conversation with Gulliver, of the Blog Ink Spots . He tweeted "I haven't seen one single human who read that piece suggest that it was "insinuating favoritism."
I've asked him/her for permission to post their Tweet in order to get a sense of how much of an outlier I am on this. Am I wrong in stating that the WaPost article hinted at ONA favoritism in the awarding of contracts? Please respond with your views.
Bryan McGrath
No comments:
Post a Comment