The U.S. military has erected a 64,000-square-foot
headquarters building on the dusty moonscape of southwestern Afghanistan that
comes with all the tools to wage a modern war. A vast operations center with
tiered seating. A briefing theater. Spacious offices. Fancy chairs. Powerful
air conditioning.
Everything, that is, except troops.
The windowless, two-story structure,
which is larger than a football field, was completed this year at a cost of
$34 million. But the military has no plans to ever use it. Commanders in
the area, who insisted three years ago that they did not need the building, now
are in the process of withdrawing
forces and see no
reason to move into the new facility.
For many senior officers, the unused headquarters has come to
symbolize the staggering cost of Pentagon mismanagement: As American troops
pack up to return home, U.S.-funded contractors are placing the finishing
touches on projects that are no longer required or pulling the plug after
investing millions of dollars.
In Kandahar province, the U.S. military recently completed a
$45 million facility to repair armored vehicles and other complex pieces
of equipment. The space is now being used as a staging ground to sort throughequipment that is being shipped out of the
country.
In northern Afghanistan, the State Department last year abandoned
plans to occupy a large building it had intended to use as a consulate. After
spending more than $80 million and signing a 10-year lease, officials
determined the facility was too vulnerable to attacks.
But some senior officers see the giant headquarters as the whitest
elephant in a war littered with wasteful, dysfunctional and unnecessary
projects funded by American taxpayers. A hulking presence at the center of Camp
Leatherneck in Helmand province, it has become the butt of jokes among Marines
stationed there and an object lesson for senior officers in Kabul and
Washington.
The top Marine commander in Helmand sent a memo to the U.S.
headquarters in Kabul three years ago stating that the new structure was
unnecessary. But his assessment was ignored or disregarded by officers issuing
contracts for construction projects, according to senior military officials
familiar with the issue.
The building’s amenities also have prompted alarm among senior
officers. A two-star Marine general who has toured the facility called it
“better appointed than any Marine headquarters anywhere in the world.” A
two-star Army general said the operations center is as large as those at the
U.S. Central Command or the supreme allied headquarters in Europe.
“What the hell were they thinking?” the Army general said. “There
was never any justification to build something this fancy.”
Both generals spoke on the condition of anonymity.
In a letter sent Monday to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel,
the special inspector general for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, John F.
Sopko, called it “the best constructed building I have seen in my travels to
Afghanistan.”
“Unfortunately, it is unused, unoccupied, and presumably will
never be used for its intended purpose,” Sopko wrote. “This is an example of
what is wrong with military construction in general — once a project is
started, it is very difficult to stop.”
A Pentagon spokesman said Hagel’s office intends to
provide a formal response to Sopko before commenting further on the project.
The headquarters has its origin in 2009, when
President Obama decided to surge more troops to southern Afghanistan to beat
back Taliban insurgents. Army planners in South Carolina and at the Pentagon
determined that Camp Leatherneck, which had been selected as the headquarters
for Marine forces in the south, required a sophisticated command-and-control
facility.
When Marine officers in Helmand heard of the plans,
they objected. The commander at the time, then-Maj. Gen. Richard P. Mills,
believed his plywood-walled headquarters was sufficient and made that clear to
his superiors in Kabul.
His assessment went unheeded. Staff officers in
Kabul
drafted specifications for the building and asked Air Force contracting
officers to find a private company to construct it. The construction order went
to a British firm, AMEC Earth and Environment, which began work in November
2011, according to military documents. By then, Obama had announced the end of
the surge. The bulk of the withdrawal would occur in Helmand.
As the Marine presence in the southwest went from
20,000 to about 7,000 in 2012, workers laid the foundation, placed the beams
and strung electrical wire. The building was designed to accommodate about
1,500 personnel. There are now fewer than 400 headquarters-level staff on the
base.
Even after Obama decided to remove an additional
34,000 troops this year, the project continued apace. Cubicles filled the
floor. Theater seats arrived. The contractor made modifications to address
problems with emergency exits.
It was not until this spring that U.S. generals in
Kabul decided to call a halt to the project. The decision was made before
additional millions were spent on computer gear for the building but not soon
enough to cancel crates of furniture.
“It’s terribly embarrassing,” the two-star Army
general said.
The Pentagon, Sopko wrote to Hagel, needs to
determine “all of the facts on how we reached this $34 million dilemma and
what can be done to prevent it from happening again.”
The military, which has opened a formal
investigation into the decisions that led to the contract, is considering two
options for the building: demolishing it or giving it to the Afghan army.
Although the handoff sounds appealing, U.S. officials doubt the Afghans will be
able to sustain the structure. It has complex heating and air-conditioning
systems that demand significant amounts of electricity, which, in turn, require
costly fuel purchases for generators. The building is wired for 110-volt
appliances, not the 220-volt equipment used by Afghans. And, the officials
note, the U.S. military recently built a new headquarters building on the
Afghan base that adjoins Leatherneck.
“Both alternatives for how to resolve this issue
are troubling,” Sopko said.
Based on his conversations with military officials,
he said one of the options now seems to be gaining traction: “The building will
probably be demolished.”
Ernesto Londoño contributed to this report.
Other articles you may enjoy:
