Money Approved in 2016 to Counter Russian Disinformation

Posted on February 27, 2018February 27, 2018 by Denise Simon

Government does move slowly, in some cases if at all at tackling specific issues. With the cheap but effective disinformation campaign launched by Russia via the Internet Research Agency during the U.S. election season, the Mueller operation continues including the indictment of several Russian operatives.

A little factoid which has not been covered by media, much less how the visa got approved is curious, but a former IRA supervisor from Russia has moved to Bellevue, Washington. She is running a blog…ah what? This suspected ex-troll factory manager talked of filing for a Social Security Number (SSN). Burdonova declined to comment to TV Rain about her reasons for the move to the U.S. and denied having worked for the Internet Research Agency. The IRA, since at least 2014, worked to “interfere with the U.S political system” in part by supporting Donald Trump and “disparaging” Hillary Clinton.

The organization used social media advertising to spread misinformation and even staged political rallies in the U.S., the indictment alleged. Officials from Facebook, Twitter and Google have admitted their platforms were abused. More here from Newsweek.

Image result for global engagement center state department rex tillerson photo

So, between the U.S. State Department and the Pentagon, $40 million has been allocated to the Global Engagement Center to counter the Russian disinformation operation and China or other rogue nations are not exempt from the soon to be American response.

The State Department describes it this way:

The work of the GEC is focused around four core areas: science and technology, interagency engagement, partner engagement, and content production.

Science & Technology: The GEC’s Science & Technology team is charged with enabling the U.S. government and its partners to increase the reach and effectiveness of their communications. The team conducts research on target audiences and utilizes data science techniques to measure the effectiveness of our efforts. Among other techniques, the Science & Technology team performs A/B testing and multivariate analysis to measure the effectiveness of our content distribution. The GEC utilizes hypothesis-driven experimentation and applies a “create-measure-learn” approach to its activities to maximize effectiveness.

Interagency Engagement: The GEC liaises regularly across the interagency and coordinates closely with the relevant national security departments and agencies to identify efficiencies and opportunities in the messaging and partnership space. The GEC’s staff includes detailees from throughout the interagency, including the Department of Defense, Intelligence Community, United States Agency for International Development, and Broadcasting Board of Governors.

Partner Engagement: One of the GEC’s overarching strategies is to identify, cultivate, and expand a global network of partners whose voices resonate with individuals most vulnerable to harmful propaganda. These partners work tirelessly to drive a wedge between susceptible audiences and those nations, groups, and terrorists seeking to influence them. The GEC conducts on-the-ground training sessions to enable these partners to develop their own content and disseminate it through their distribution networks. The GEC also leverages rigorous research and data science to improve tactics and techniques and inspire innovation.

Content Production: The GEC and its partners have established programming across multiple platforms, including social media, satellite television, radio, film, and print. This programming is conducted in various languages, including Arabic, Urdu, Somali, and French. These platforms allow the U.S. government and its partners to inject factual content about terrorist organizations into the information space to counter recruitment and radicalization to violence. They also allow us to develop and disseminate messaging on effective themes, such as exposing ISIS’s financial and governance failures; its violence against women, children, and religious minorities; and its ongoing territorial losses.

The GEC is currently led by Acting Coordinator Daniel Kimmage.

Congress had mandated the initiative to counter propaganda and disinformation after Russia’s meddling in the 2016 US election. Lawmakers and career foreign service officers were deeply critical when Tillerson didn’t move to use any of the funding, and cited his inaction as another example of the agency’s dysfunction.

A similar operation was allegedly applied to counter Islamic State Islamic propaganda and sophisticated media messaging. Measuring effectiveness is still in question.

China is Bullying India and Australia over Maldives for Silk Road

Posted on February 20, 2018February 20, 2018 by Denise Simon

photo

China is bullying India, Australia and the United States to change the balance of power globally. Anyone paying attention?

Maldives crisis: China sends a naval task force to muscle India, Australia out of power game

CHINA is muscling its way into Australia’s backyard. With an island paradise deep in crisis, the superpower sees a chance.

CHINESE warships have entered the Indian Ocean, marking a significant shift in regional power. They’re there to keep India away from Beijing’s interests in the strife-torn Maldive Islands.

And their presence has implications for Australia.

Naval posturing is nothing new. Gunboat diplomacy has been a major player in great power games of thrones for centuries.

But it is odd for it to be played out so close to home.

A scattering of pristine coral islands in the Indian Ocean is becoming the next flash point between New Delhi and Beijing.

The Maldives islands are in the throes of a constitutional crisis.

The little democracy has traditionally been part of India’s “sphere of influence”. And the eastern Indian Ocean is, of course, of significant strategic importance to Australia.

But recently a new kid has arrived on the block.

And now Beijing’s grown enough confidence to let its presence be felt in the area’s affairs.

A naval force of at least one modern destroyer, a frigate, an amphibious assault ship and a support tanker entered the Indian Ocean last week. It is believed destined to linger off the scenic scatterings of coral, sand and palm trees.

International affairs analysts believe they’re there to stop India from intervening.

Beijing, after all, has big plans for these little islands. And it doesn’t want the locals getting in the way.

Blue skies. White sand. Clear water. The international tourist resorts of the Maldives have been sidelined by the archipelago’s strategic importance. Picture: AFPSource:AFP

TROUBLE IN PARADISE

These islands are unlikely to appear on anyone’s radar — unless you’re after an idyllic island paradise getaway.

But the Maldives have suddenly become the centre of a struggle for international influence.

It’s in the grip of a constitutional crisis.

Opposition leader Mohamed Nasheed recently dared to state that China was “buying up the Maldives” through President Abdulla Yameen. He highlighted the tiny nation was massively in debt to Beijing, and faced seizure of public assets — such as ports — to help pay it back.

It wasn’t long after this Yameen had key opposition figures arbitrarily arrested.

Then Yameen sprung a state of emergency on his people on February 5. It came as the Supreme Court ordered the opposition leaders be released as their arrests had been politically motivated.

So Yameen sent his security forces to arrest the Supreme Court’s judges.

Maldivian police detain a protester demanding the release of political prisoners during a protest in Male, Maldives. Picture: APSource:AP

This has Beijing bothered. It has invested big in a major port project there.

But it’s not the money it’s worried about.

Nor is it the potential collapse of a fragile democracy.

It has implications for its grand ‘One Belt, One Road’ infrastructure campaign. This is intended to vastly expand China’s economic network — and influence — through Asia, the Middle East and into Europe.

“Although traditionally within India’s strategic sphere, in recent years the Maldives has become unstable, impoverished and increasingly desperate,” says the Lowy Institute’s Dr David Brewster.

“Indeed, much of the nation could soon disappear beneath rising sea levels. We may soon see China’s ‘magical island-building ship’ pay a visit to the Indian Ocean.”

India has always been a roadblock in these plans. But now Beijing’s bypass via the Maldives may be in trouble.

Which is why it wants to New Delhi to keep out.

A screen capture of Chinese media footage showing the naval task force currently operating in the eastern Indian Ocean. It includes an amphibious assault ship, a guided missile destroyer and frigate, and a supply ship. Picture: CCTV7Source:Supplied

BELT AND ROAD AMBITIONS

Every day, more than 40 million barrels of oil passes through the strategic “chokepoints” at either end of the Indian 0cean. This includes the Straits of Hormuz, the Gulf of Aden and the Malacca Strait.

All pass through the waters between the Maldives and Ceylon, to India’s south.

It’s a vital arterial supply line. Not least of all to Beijing.

Chinese media is boasting about its new naval presence in the Indian Ocean. It’s been proudly displaying photos and video of its modern ships refuelling and reprovisioning at sea on a mission that is certainly a long way from home.

It’s by no means the first time a Chinese task force has entered the Indian Ocean.

This time things may be different.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute says Beijing’s infrastructure activity is part of a determined strategy to extend its influence across the Indian Ocean — at the expense of India.

“India has long been concerned about China’s growing maritime interest in the Indian Ocean region,” says ASPI executive director Peter Jennings. “Over the last decade the PLA-Navy has transited through the region many times to participate in UN and EU backed counter-piracy missions off the Horn of Africa. China has established its first overseas military base at Djibouti and is using the ‘One Belt One Road’ strategy to build extensive port infrastructure in Pakistan and Sri Lanka.”

In that context, the timing of this task force’s arrival in the eastern Indian Ocean is likely to be significant.

A Chinese Type 052D guided missile destroyer tests its antimissile gatling gun during a recent exercise. One of these potent warships is among Beijing’s task force in the eastern Indian Ocean. Picture: XinhuaSource:Supplied

“Sending warships to operate off the Maldives is a new and concerning development, because it shows that China is trying to exercise influence over a small state more usually within India’s strategic view. New Delhi will read this as a worrying move. It will intensify strategic competition and increase mistrust between China and India.”

Some international observers had been expecting New Delhi to send its own task force to exert influence over the tiny islands’ fate. Instead, it has taken a hands-off approach through an appeal to the United Nations. It wants help to help pressure Yameen into restoring democratic values.

So Beijing has stepped into the power vacuum with a task force of its own.

But does India have a strong enough presence to keep Beijing out of its own backyard?

The presence of four modern Chinese warships near the Maldive Islands has significant implications for the balance of power in the Indian Ocean. Picture: CCTV7Source:Supplied

OPTIONS OPEN

The chances of any clash between India and China are very low.

But the true impact of the Beijing’s warships is being felt in the corridors and back rooms of power throughout the region.

The warships give Beijing options. And status.

If things take a sudden turn for the worse in the Maldives, it can present itself as an international hero by quickly landing its troops in a “humanitarian intervention”.

It could lift its own citizens out of trouble — and those of other nations. It could impose in a “peace keeping” force to support the local political entity of its choice.

That such acts would irreparably damage India’s influence and status is an unspoken benefit.

It would also cement Beijing’s intimidating presence in what is a key “chokepoint” for its “belt” project.

The under-construction China Maldives Friendship Bridge is pictured near the city of Male. The international community has censured Maldives President Abdulla Yameen for imposing a state of emergency. Picture: AFPSource:AFP

If, however, the Maldives crisis does not worsen, the mere presence of Chinese warships acts as a deterrent to Indian intervention. It’s also a neon-sign of Beijing’s determination to wield its new-found influence worldwide.

The force Beijing appears to have deployed may seem small. But it is capable.

The Type 052D guided missile destroyer (Luyang-III class) is among its most modern combat ships. With a crew of 280 and weighing some 7500 tons, it carries a helicopter, land-attack cruise missiles, surface-to-air missiles, surface-to-surface missiles and anti-submarine missiles.

The Type 054A frigate (Jiangkai II) is one of more than 21 of these modern frigates deployed by Beijing. It is a stealthy design, intended primarily to supplement the air defence of a task force, though it also has some anti-surface and submarine capability.

The Type 071 amphibious transport dock is ideal for humanitarian relief — and landing forces of troops. It can carry a variety of amphibious assault vehicles and landing craft, along with two helicopters. But it also operates hospital and command-and-control facilities. It has accommodation for up to 800 troops.

It’s also backed-up by China’s 28th Anti-Piracy Task Force out of Africa. It’s believed to have wandered closer to the middle of the Indian Ocean in recent weeks.

Indian Navy personnel stand on the INS Vikramaditya, a modified Kiev-class aircraft carrier, similar to the aircraft carrier Liaoning operated by China. Picture: AFPSource:AFP

DEEP IMPLICATIONS

India has not been sitting idle. It has been modernising its own navy. Like China, it is one of just a few nations operating fixed-wing aircraft carriers.

Neither is currently operating near the Maldives.

But New Delhi has also just signed a deal with the Seychelles islands to establish a mid-Indian Ocean naval facility of its own.

“Despite these dramatic developments, the shape and future purpose of China’s naval presence in the Indian Ocean remains an open question,” Dr Brewster says. “We should not automatically assume that the Chinese navy intends to challenge the US Fifth Fleet, at least in the short term. China will remain at a big geographic disadvantage in the Indian Ocean.”

This is because it does not have the complex and extensive supply network that the other major international influence in the region — the US 5th Fleet — has.

But it’s working on it.

Royal Australian Navy ships HMAS Adelaide, Toowoomba and Darwin in formation as part of the Joint Task Group for Indo-Pacific Endeavour 2017. Picture: DefenceSource:Supplied

There’s also bound to be pushback.

“China’s move may reinforce a growing Indian interest to co-operate more closely with Australia,” Mr Jennings says.

“The idea of quadrilateral co-operation between India, Australia, Japan and the US — which was abandoned a decade ago because of worries it would be seen to contain China — is now firmly back on the agenda.

“It would be ironic if China’s rather amateurish attempts to build political influence in the Maldives led to enhanced co-operation between the democracies on Indian Ocean security.”

Estimating the Costs of Cyber Attacks Against the U.S., Billions

Posted on February 20, 2018February 20, 2018 by Denise Simon

photo

Cyberattacks cost the United States between $57 billion and $109 billion in 2016

The report published by the White House Council of Economic Advisers examines the cyberattacks cost that malicious cyber activities cause to the U.S. economy.

Paganini: How much cost cyber attacks to the US? According to a report published by the White House Council of Economic Advisers last week, the cyberattacks cost between $57 billion and $109 billion in 2016, and things can go worse in the future.

“This report examines the substantial economic costs that malicious cyber activity imposes on the U.S. economy. Cyber threats are ever-evolving and may come from sophisticated adversaries. Due to common vulnerabilities, instances of security breaches occur across firms and in patterns that are difficult to anticipate.” states the report.

“Firms in critical infrastructure sectors may generate especially large negative spillover effects into the wider economy.”

The report analyzed the impact of malicious cyber activities on public and private entities, including DoS attacks, sabotage, business disruption, and theft of proprietary data, intellectual property, and sensitive financial and strategic information.

Damages and losses caused by a cyber attack may spill over from the initial target to economically linked organizations. More exposed are critical infrastructure sectors, at attack against companies and organization in this industry could have a severe impact on the US economy.

The document warns of nation-state actors such as Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, that are well funded and often conduct sophisticated targeted attacks for both sabotage and cyber espionage.

“Finally, and perhaps most important, if a firm owns a critical infrastructure asset, an attack against this firm could cause major disruption throughout the economy.” reads the report.

“Insufficient cybersecurity investment in these sectors exacerbates the risks of cyberattacks and data breaches. The economic implications of attacks against critical infrastructure assets are described in more detail later in the paper. “

The reports also warn of devastating cyberattacks that would target sectors that are internally interconnected and interdependent with other sectors.

The report offered little in the way of new recommendations on improving cybersecurity, but noted that the situation is hurt by “insufficient data” as well as “underinvestment” in defensive systems by the private sector.

“Cyber connectivity is an important driver of productivity, innovation, and growth for the U.S. economy, but it comes at a cost. Companies, individuals, and the government are vulnerable to malicious cyber activity.” concludes the report. “Effective public and private-sector efforts to combat this malicious activity would contribute to domestic GDP growth. However, the ever-evolving nature and scope of cyber threats suggest that additional and continued efforts are critical, and the cooperation between public and private sectors is key.”

***

The forecast of the cost damage in coming years….

In part from Forbes: In 2015, the British insurance company Lloyd’s estimated that cyber attacks cost businesses as much as $400 billion a year, which includes direct damage plus post-attack disruption to the normal course of business. Some vendor and media forecasts over the past year put the cybercrime figure as high as $500 billion and more.

From 2013 to 2015 the cyber crime costs quadrupled, and it looks like there will be another quadrupling from 2015 to 2019. Juniper research recently predicted that the rapid digitization of consumers’ lives and enterprise records will increase the cost of data breaches to $2.1 trillion globally by 2019, increasing to almost four times the estimated cost of breaches in 2015.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) says a significant portion of cybercrime goes undetected, particularly industrial espionage where access to confidential documents and data is difficult to spot. Those crimes would arguably move the needle on the cyber crime numbers much higher.

Large banks, retailers, and federal agencies make the headlines when they are hacked – but all businesses are at risk. According to Microsoft, 20% of small to mid sized businesses have been cyber crime targets.

For anyone who wants to tally their own bill from cyber crime, check out Cyber Tab from Booz Allen. It is an anonymous, free tool that helps information security and other senior executives understand the damage to companies inflicted by cyber crime and attacks. More here.

Diplomacy to Address Russian Olympic and War Cheating and Lies?

Posted on February 19, 2018February 19, 2018 by Denise Simon

C’mon really? The Russians cheat, steal and lie. Why would any Western ally trust any part of the Kremlin or operatives dispatched worldwide? Russian nefarious ‘active measure’ plots are global and so easy to achieve. The question is why?

The International Olympic Committee is no exception when it comes to going easy on Russia, buckling to pressure from Moscow. Russia has made legitimate and clean athletes in the games a mockery. The IOC was forced to defend its decision to include Russian athletes in these Pyeongchang Games on Monday morning after curler Alexander Krushelnytsky reportedly failed a drug test, jeopardizing the bronze medal he won last week in mixed doubles and inviting increased scrutiny on the IOC’s handling of the situation.

Image result for ioc photo

First: a Russia-linked group calling itself “Fancy Bears” published a set of apparently stolen emails. They purportedly belong to officials from the International Olympic Committee, the United States Olympic Committee, and third-party groups associated with the organizations. It’s not the first time Russia has lashed out at the IOC and the anti-doping agencies in the last few years. And with a month left until the games begin, it may not be the last.

The emails appear to span from the end of 2016 to the spring of 2017, and focus on correspondence between antidoping investigators who helped uncover a wide-scale, systematic doping scheme carried out by Russian athletes. It’s not clear yet whether the emails are entirely authentic; Russian hacking groups have snuck false information into their leaks before. But the World Anti-Doping Agency Wednesday indirectly acknowledged that the emails were real, but not current.

“The Fancy Bears are a criminal organization which seeks to undermine the work of WADA and its partners,” says WADA spokesperson Maggie Durand. “Everything that they have posted today is dated.”

The hack appears to be retaliation for kicking the Russia out of 2018 PyeongChang games, at which only a handful of the country’s athletes will be allowed to compete. More here.

Second: (Reuters) – A Russian medalist at the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics is suspected of having tested positive for a banned substance, a source at the Games said on Sunday, in a potential major blow to Russia’s efforts to emerge from a drug-cheating scandal. Alexander Krushelnitsky, a bronze-medalist along with his wife in mixed-doubles curling, is suspected of having tested positive for meldonium, the source said. Meldonium increases blood flow which improves exercise capacity in athletes. Russia has been accused of running a state-backed, systematic doping program for years, an allegation Moscow denies. As a result, its athletes are competing at Pyeongchang as neutral “Olympic Athletes from Russia” (OAR).

Third: Seems to be a systemic condition when it comes to doping by Russian athletes regardless of the sport and or location. Remember Maria Sharapova and tennis? In 2017, Maria Sharapova makes her return after a 15-month suspension for use of meldonium this week, with the tennis star serving as the most high-profile of those sanctioned for use of the drug. After hundreds of positive tests in Olympic sports last year, Sharapova remains one of the relative few to be suspended for its use. While the facts of her case differ from the issues the World Anti-Doping Agency faced in determining how long it stays in an athlete’s body, her presence among those testing positive drew attention to WADA’s ban of the drug.

Image result for russia chemical weapons syria photo

Fourth: And it goes to the militant battlefield as well. Russia and the United States have clashed at the United Nations Security Council over allegations the Syrian government has again used chemical weapons in rebel-held areas of the country.

U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley on February 5 accused Russia of blocking an investigation of possible chemical weapons use by President Bashar al-Assad’s army in attacks in rebel-held Eastern Ghouta over the weekend despite “obvious evidence from dozens of victims.”

“Russia has delayed the adoption of this statement, a simple condemnation of Syrian children being suffocated by chlorine gas,” Haley said. “This council has been outspoken on ending Syria’s use of chemical weapons, and yet, they continue.”

Russia, which has been conducting military operations in support of Assad since September 2015, rejected the allegations as “slander.”

Finally: If anyone watched the hearing and ODNI Dan Coats summary –>

The nation’s top intelligence officials said Tuesday that Russia is targeting the 2018 elections as it seeks to undermine America’s political process and sow partisan division with cyber attacks and other digital disruption.

“Frankly, the United States is under attack,” Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told the Senate Intelligence Committee, adding that Russia is attempting to “degrade our democratic values and weaken our alliances.”

In unequivocal language, Coats said Russian President Vladimir Putin was emboldened by Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential elections and is targeting the midterms.

“There should be no doubt that (Putin) views the past effort as successful,” said Coats who was joined Tuesday by the nation’s other top intelligence officials, including CIA Director Mike Pompeo, National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers and FBI Director Christopher Wray.

The national intelligence director’s comments came against the backdrop of congressional and criminal investigations into Russia’s alleged interference in the presidential election and whether the Kremlin coordinated its activities with Donald Trump‘s campaign.

Swell, $800 Million Unaccounted for Defense Department

Posted on February 5, 2018February 5, 2018 by Denise Simon

Ah, an audit finally? Missing documentation but not the assets? What did the ledger show?

The Defense Logistics Agency is the Department of Defense’s logistics combat support agency, providing worldwide logistics support in both peacetime and wartime to the military services as well as several civilian agencies and foreign countries.

DLA employs about 25,000 employees. The agency’s headquarters is at Fort Belvoir, in Northern Virginia.

Exclusive: Massive Pentagon agency lost track of hundreds of millions of dollars

A damning outside review finds that the Defense Logistics Agency has lost track of where it spent the money.

Image result for defense logistics agency

One of the Pentagon’s largest agencies can’t account for hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of spending, a leading accounting firm says in an internal audit obtained by POLITICO that arrives just as President Donald Trump is proposing a boost in the military budget.

Ernst & Young found that the Defense Logistics Agency failed to properly document more than $800 million in construction projects, just one of a series of examples where it lacks a paper trail for millions of dollars in property and equipment. Across the board, its financial management is so weak that its leaders and oversight bodies have no reliable way to track the huge sums it’s responsible for, the firm warned in its initial audit of the massive Pentagon purchasing agent.

The audit raises new questions about whether the Defense Department can responsibly manage its $700 billion annual budget — let alone the additional billions that Trump plans to propose this month. The department has never undergone a full audit despite a congressional mandate — and to some lawmakers, the messy state of the Defense Logistics Agency’s books indicates one may never even be possible.

“If you can’t follow the money, you aren’t going to be able to do an audit,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican and senior member of the Budget and Finance committees, who has pushed successive administrations to clean up the Pentagon’s notoriously wasteful and disorganized accounting system.

The $40 billion-a-year logistics agency is a test case in how unachievable that task may be. The DLA serves as the Walmart of the military, with 25,000 employees who process roughly 100,000 orders a day on behalf of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and a host of other federal agencies — for everything from poultry to pharmaceuticals, precious metals and aircraft parts.

But as the auditors found, the agency often has little solid evidence for where much of that money is going. That bodes ill for ever getting a handle on spending at the Defense Department as a whole, which has a combined $2.2 trillion in assets.

In one part of the audit, completed in mid-December, Ernst & Young found that misstatements in the agency’s books totaled at least $465 million for construction projects it financed for the Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies. For construction projects designated as still “in progress,” meanwhile, it didn’t have sufficient documentation — or any documentation at all — for another $384 million worth of spending.

The agency also couldn’t produce supporting evidence for many items that are documented in some form — including records for $100 million worth of assets in the computer systems that conduct the agency’s day-to-day business.

“The documentation, such as the evidence demonstrating that the asset was tested and accepted, is not retained or available,” it said.

The report, which covers the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2016, also found that $46 million in computer assets were “inappropriately recorded” as belonging to the Defense Logistics Agency. It also warned that the agency cannot reconcile balances from its general ledger with the Treasury Department.

The agency maintains it will overcome its many hurdles to ultimately get a clean audit.

“The initial audit has provided us with a valuable independent view of our current financial operations,” Army Lt. Gen. Darrell Williams, the agency’s director, wrote in response to Ernst & Young’s findings. “We are committed to resolving the material weaknesses and strengthening internal controls around DLA’s operations.”

In a statement to POLITICO, the agency also maintained it was not surprised by the conclusions.

“DLA is the first of its size and complexity in the Department of Defense to undergo an audit so we did not anticipate achieving a ‘clean’ audit opinion in the initial cycles,” it explained. “The key is to use auditor feedback to focus our remediation efforts and corrective action plans, and maximize the value from the audits. That’s what we’re doing now.”

Indeed, the Trump administration insists it can accomplish what previous ones could not.

“Beginning in 2018, our audits will occur annually, with reports issued Nov. 15,” the Pentagon’s top budget official, David Norquist, told Congress last month.

That Pentagon-wide effort, which will require an army of about 1,200 auditors across the department, will also be expensive — to the tune of nearly $1 billion.

Norquist said it will cost an estimated $367 million to carry out the audits — including the cost of hiring independent accounting firms like Ernst & Young — and an additional $551 million to go back and fix broken accounting systems that are crucial to better financial management.

“It is important that the Congress and the American people have confidence in DoD’s management of every taxpayer dollar,” Norquist said.

But there is little evidence the logistics arm of the military will be able to account for what it has spent anytime soon.

“Ernst & Young could not obtain sufficient, competent evidential matter to support the reported amounts within the DLA financial statements,” the Pentagon’s inspector general, the internal watchdog that ordered the outside review, concluded in issuing the report to DLA.

The accounting firm itself went further, asserting that the gaping holes uncovered in bookkeeping procedures and oversight strongly suggest there are more.

“We cannot determine the effect of the lack of sufficient appropriate audit evidence on DLA’s financial statements as a whole,” its report concludes.

A spokeswoman for Ernst & Young declined to respond to questions, referring POLITICO to the Pentagon.

Grassley — who was fiercely critical when a clean audit opinion of the Marine Corps had to be pulled in 2015 for “bogus conclusions” — has repeatedly charged that “keeping track of the people’s money may not be in the Pentagon’s DNA.”

He remains deeply doubtful about the prospects going forward given what is being uncovered.

“I think the odds of a successful DoD audit down the road are zero,” Grassley said in an interview. “The feeder systems can’t provide data. They are doomed to failure before they ever get started.”

But he said he supports the continuing effort even if a full, clean audit of the Pentagon can never be done. It is widely viewed as only way to improve the management of such huge sums of taxpayer dollars.

“Each audit report will help DLA build a better financial reporting foundation and provide a stepping stone towards a clean audit opinion of our financial statements,” the agency maintains. “The findings also improve our internal controls, which helps to improve the quality of cost and logistics data used for decision-making.”