$17 billion U.S. anti-bomb effort a dud

The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization began in 2006, but IEDs remain the single biggest killer of soldiers.

Center for Public Integrity and McClatchy NewspapersMarch 27, 2011 

  • Wake County schools Superintendent Tony Tata served as a deputy commander of JIEDDO for about two years just before he retired from the Army early in 2009.

    Tata and his supervisors have said, however, that he was involved with training and supervising teams that analyzed IED explosions, not finances.

    Tata said recently that he benefited from some of the technology developed by the program to jam devices used to detonate the small bombs. "I know my jammer worked one time when an IED went off behind my vehicle," he said. "And I'm quite certain if that jammer hadn't been on that vehicle, it would have been struck."

— In February 2006, with roadside bombs killing more and more American soldiers in Iraq, the Pentagon created an agency to defeat the deadly threat and gave a retired four-star general the task of running it.

Five years later, the agency has ballooned into a 1,900-employee behemoth and has spent nearly $17 billion on hundreds of initiatives. Yet the technologies it has developed have failed to significantly improve U.S. soldiers' ability to detect unexploded roadside bombs and have never been able to find them at long distances. The best detectors remain the low-tech methods: trained dogs, local handlers and soldiers themselves.

A review by McClatchy and the Center for Public Integrity of government reports and interviews with auditors, investigators and congressional staffers shows that the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization also violated its own accounting rules and hasn't properly evaluated its initiatives to keep mistakes from being repeated.

Meanwhile, roadside bombs remain the single worst killer of soldiers as more U.S. forces have been transferred out of Iraq and into Afghanistan. Known in military parlance as improvised explosive devices, the crude, often-homemade bombs killed 368 coalition troops in Afghanistan last year - by far the highest annual total since 2001, when the U.S.-led war there began, according to icasualties .org , which tracks military casualties in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

Among the serious questions about how well JIEDDO has spent its billions:

The agency didn't collect data on its own projects. A congressional investigative subcommittee concluded in 2008, "The nation does not yet know if JIEDDO is winning the [counter-IED] fight."

Some of its spending went to programs that had little to do with its core mission, including $400 million for Army force protection in 2010 and $24.6 million to hire private contractors for intelligence work in Afghanistan.

Agency officials misreported about $795 million in costs, the Government Accountability Office said, circumventing its own rules requiring high-level Defense Department approval for projects with prices greater than $25 million.

JIEDDO's staff comprises six contractors for every government employee - a ratio its outgoing director acknowledged needs to be cut.

While the agency was mandated to "lead, advocate [and] coordinate" anti-roadside bomb initiatives, more than 100 groups and initiatives inside and outside the Defense Department continue "to develop, maintain and in many cases expand" their own work, the GAO found.

Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, R-Calif., a former Marine and an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran, said the Pentagon and its anti-IED agencies, includingJIEDDO, could do far better in preventing casualties from roadside bombs.

"So as long as the IEDmetric keeps going up, and as long as we keep taking the majority of our KIA [killed in action] casualties from IEDs," he said, "then they've all been unsuccessful. Period."

'We fund things'

Lt. Gen. Michael Oates, who recently stepped down as the agency's director - its third in five years - acknowledged missteps but said they were inevitable because the agency was making devices quickly.

"We fund things," Oates said. "Sometimes we fund things that don't work. Some call that waste; I call it risk."

One of the things that apparently didn't work was the Joint IED Neutralizer, created in 2002 by the Arizona start-up Ionatron. Looking like a pair of boxy golf carts, the JIN fired ultrashort-pulse lasers followed by a half-million-volt lightning bolt of electricity, and its makers said it could detonate the blasting caps that triggered IEDs from well outside blast range.

In 2005, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz authorized $30 million for the JIN despite skepticism from scientists, who said damp ground or dust would render the device useless. During test runs in Afghanistan in 2006, the JIN was disappointing: It had trouble climbing steep terrain, and it had safety problems - continuing to shoot lightning bolts after its switch was turned off.

After the JIN received publicity, an insurgent website published ways to defeat it, and the test vehicles were shipped back to the United States.

In mid-2006, shareholders filed two class-action suits against the JIN's makers, alleging that the firm had concealed the fact that the vehicle couldn't meet government specifications. The company, which had changed its name to Applied Energetics Inc., denied the claims but settled in September 2009 by paying $5.3 million in cash and $1.2 million in stock to the complaining shareholders. The firm didn't respond to repeated requests for comment.

Still, the project wouldn't die. With a $400,000 earmark from Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and $1.5 million from JIEDDO, the Marine Corps hung the JIN on the front of a mine roller. A slide from a May 2009 Marine Corps briefing shows a device attached to mine rollers shooting a bolt of electricity into the ground.

"People have been trying to use a Tesla coil" - a transformer that can produce very high-voltage discharges - "for years to defeat mines," said Dan Goure, a former defense official who is a vice president at the Lexington Institute, a Washington-area research center. "It has never worked."

Jammers and training

The devices JIEDDO designed to detect roadside bombs at a distance didn't work out, Goure said. They included airplane- or drone-based radars, long-range radars to sniff out buried control wires, and detectors to sense explosive ingredients such as ammonium nitrate fertilizer.

"We were throwing new technologies into this like fast-food orders," Goure said.

JIEDDO officials said the agency quickly terminated programs that weren't promising. But the GAO and some congressional staffers countered that the agency has never been good at choosing or steering its projects.

"It's been a weakness from the beginning. They don't have good controls over start-ups," said Bill Solis, director of defense capabilities and management at the GAO, which has conducted several studies on the agency.

JIEDDO spent more than $3 billion on jammers to thwart radio-controlled IEDs, including a successful project led by a professor at N.C. State University, which most say was a good idea.

JIEDDO also bought mine rollers to attach to the fronts of vehicles.

Critics note that what many consider the most successful anti-roadside bomb program was only marginally funded by JIEDDO: the Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle, now operating mainly in Afghanistan. While JIEDDO purchased the first 250 MRAPs, designed to withstand roadside bombs, a separate MRAP task force bought more than 22,000 of them for $36 billion.

Oates has said the "greatest return on the dollar" has been training soldiers to detect and respond to roadside bombs.

The GAO noted that the agency spent $70.7 million from 2007 to 2009 on "role-players in an effort to simulate Iraqi social, political and religious groups" at Pentagon training centers.

At one training site, the agency spent $24.1 million to make steel shipping containers resemble Iraqi buildings.

Funding goes on

The agency's new director, Lt. Gen Michael Barbero, took over earlier this month fresh off a tour in Iraq. Among his tasks will be collectingdata on what works and what doesn't. He will also try to improve relations with Congress, which has complained about a lack of information to evaluate the agency's performance. In debate over the 2010 Pentagon budget, for instance, the House Armed Services Committee threatened to withhold half the agency's money "until the committee is provided JIEDDO's detailed budget and program information."

Few in Congress wanted to be seen giving short shrift to the fight against roadside bombs, however. Year after year, the agency has received the federal funding it requested, to the tune of $20.8 billion over six years.

The agency's future is unclear. While some of Oates' predecessors argued it should be a permanent part of the Pentagon because the fight against roadside bombs is global and ongoing, some in Congress say it should be terminated at the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oates said JIEDDO "is not a permanent organization, and we do not seek to be one."

Shashank Bengali of McClatchy contributed to this report.

News & Observer is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service