Congressman continues drumbeat on controversial intel system
August 24th, 2012
04:37 PM ET

Congressman continues drumbeat on controversial intel system

By Mike Mount, Senior National Security Producer

Congressman Duncan Hunter stepped up his push for answers this week about why Pentagon staffers denied soldiers in Afghanistan access to a preferred anti-roadside bomb software in favor of a system some believe to be less effective.

The California Republican sent a letter to Army Secretary John McHugh on Thursday asking for another investigation into the matter. The letter follows a request by Hunter last month for the House Oversight Committee to look into the Army's actions.

The issue surrounds software developed outside of the military procurement system by a company called Palantir. The technology ties together intelligence data to improve information for troops about the possible location of roadside bombs planted by Afghan insurgents.

But the Army has been primarily using other technology, the Distributed Common Ground System(DCGS). Reports from troops in Afghanistan suggest that the Palantir anti-IED system works better.

 "From the time the Army's first conventional ground force requested the software in 2008, there have been deliberate efforts on the part of mid-level bureaucrats to deny units this resource despite repeated urgent requests from commanders," Hunter said in his letter.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno has an ongoing investigation into a broader issue about whether an Army report supporting Palantir was changed to make the system seem less favorable than the DCGS.

That investigation turned up reports indicating that some troops were being denied Palantir by Army bureaucrats. Odierno's investigation is due to be completed next month, according to congressional staffers familiar with the investigation.

 "Due to the fact that this is a persistent problem, and the necessity for the Congress and the Department of Defense to work hand-in-hand, I respectfully request that you, as secretary of the Army, initiate your own review of this matter and the problems arising within the acquisition process. This is not just a problem for the chief of staff of the Army, since problems with Palantir seem to mostly reside within the Army's civilian sector," Hunter said in his letter.

McHugh's spokeswoman, Col. Anne Edgecomb, said she expects Hunter's letter will cross McHugh's desk shortly, but the Army "does not comment on correspondence between the Secretary of the Army and members of Congress."

The Army has said it is using Palantir in the field in limited quantities. It is also testing the system and how it integrates into DCGS. Results from those tests are due in September.

Earlier this month a memo written by the head of the Army's test and evaluation command, Gen. Genaro J. Dellarocco, to Odierno hammered the DCGS for its "poor reliability" and "significant limitations" during operational testing and evaluation earlier this year.

Army spokesman George Wright told CNN, "The report provides an initial review of DCGS-A software, which identified specific limitations in its performance. Many of these limitations were already identified by the Army and software updates have been implemented to address the concerns."

The Army has spent over $2.3 billion in procurement, and research and development to fund the DCGS. The Palantir system requested by U.S. troops is about $2 million, according to congressional staff familiar with the programs.

soundoff (8 Responses)
  1. pjdttcoqv

    3MYJ6e nowmqkinxqfq, [url=]szqknczndpcl[/url], [link=]ouablvurgjrj[/link],

    November 28, 2013 at 3:04 am | Reply
  2. gok

    they should be more concerned of why we were there in the first place

    August 26, 2012 at 7:41 pm | Reply
  3. sdabby

    I am not surprised. "It is the government way" according to a neighbor who was a career US goventment employee when I asked about a personal situation. I applied for an opening with the government. After I submitted my application I was surprised that I received a score of 100% and I thought I had a chance. But I did not receive an interivew - in fact no one called.
    When I asked my neighbor about this, his reply was "It is the government way." I asked why they invited non government candidates to apply. He told me they just go through the motions. I asked what would happen iif the applications were audited some day and it was discovered that someone with a score of 100% was not contacted?
    I got the same reply .."it is the government way".

    August 25, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Reply
  4. brown

    Follow the money trail and you will see that it leads to the U.S.A Congress!

    Keep on re-electing these treasonous baa stards!

    August 25, 2012 at 6:50 pm | Reply
  5. NoN

    The difference between Palantir and DCGS is that Palantir was conceived and produced by people with passion for their work, and the DCGS was cranked out by a bunch of corporate drudges. The corporate drudges are only a small reflection of the even worse bureaucrats in Army procurement.

    August 25, 2012 at 8:57 am | Reply
  6. Radgast

    Price Tag, enough said

    August 24, 2012 at 6:50 pm | Reply
    • 101deathfromabove

      and effectiveness to save us soldiers lifes.

      August 25, 2012 at 7:23 am | Reply

Leave a Reply to 101deathfromabove


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.