Modern Military Complexities Require Upgraded Intelligence Systems

Hollywood and the movies tend to focus on the war-fighting aspect of the military, because audiences like action, explosions and loud noises. But as everyone who has served in the armed forces understands, it’s logistics, planning and the technological components behind the scenes that often make it possible for our fighting men and women to successfully complete the mission. The leaders of our armed forces – both uniformed and civilian – understand this reality, which is why we currently have the best military in the world. 

One such system that helps our troops and their commanders on the battlefield is the Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS). Since it was first created in the late nineties the system has provided warfighters with real time information about threat, weather and terrain.  It gives commanders the ability to understand the scope of the battlefield and provide troops with information and orders that both increase their ability to survive and accomplish their objective. 

Since the Army announced their plans, there has been a push in Congress to make DCGS-A2 more efficient and cost effective—a noble effort. However, the manner in which Congress is attempting to do so is misguided. One aspect of this effort is to require the Army to build this new platform from primarily commercial off the shelf technology, known as COTS. In fact, one company that wants to compete to build DCGS-A2, which relies heavily on COTS, filed a formal complaint with the General Accounting Office (GAO) asserting that the Army’s requirements to build DCGS-A2 make it impossible for them to compete with established government contractors.

To be fair, the company – called Palantir – has a point. But, the GAO, a non-partisan and non-political agency, rejected Palantir’s objection. GAO stated that Palantir’s strategy to build DCGS-A2 will cost more in the long-run and fails to meet the highly complex demands of the next generation intelligence gathering and sharing system. GAO determined that relying on COTS jeopardizes the program’s ability to continually modernize and ensure interoperability between different military branches.

Congress – which is not immune to partisanship and politics – has called for the Army to acquire a “non-developmental, commercially-available solution” in the current defense bill.  Additionally, the legislation, known as the FY17 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), cuts funding for the program by $93 million dollars – essentially trying to force the Pentagon to work with Palantir to build DCGS-A2. Meanwhile, the White House has outlined its objection to Congress’ attempt to undermine the Army’s acquisition process. 

Like GAO and the White House, I believe that relying on COTS solely for DCGS-A2 is a mistake. I hope Congress and the President will come together to ensure that the best proposal for DCGS-A2 wins.  Simply going with the cheapest option, or with the company that has the most vocal supporters on Capitol Hill, would do our fighting men and women a disservice. After all, our intelligence capabilities can save lives and win battles. So why should we accept anything less than the best?

Former Major General Larry Harrington served as commander of Task Force Storm, in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and led Task Force Engineer during Hurricane Katrina Operations.