{"id":17607,"date":"2018-11-20T18:29:04","date_gmt":"2018-11-20T18:29:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/uncategorized\/2018\/11\/20\/so-were-celebrating-the-pentagons-failed-audit\/"},"modified":"2026-08-07T21:37:41","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T21:37:41","slug":"so-were-celebrating-the-pentagons-failed-audit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/opinion\/2018\/11\/20\/so-were-celebrating-the-pentagons-failed-audit\/","title":{"rendered":"So we\u2019re celebrating the Pentagon\u2019s failed audit?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Department of Defense completed its first-ever audit. It failed, but officials don\u2019t seem terribly bothered<\/a> by that. Because, you know, they figured they would; and the real success here is that it was done at all. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe never thought we were going to pass an audit, right? Everyone was betting against us, that we wouldn\u2019t even do the audit.\u201d That\u2019s what Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan told reporters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Really?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I suppose the fact that an audit was completed at all is worthy of celebration \u2014 or perhaps a subdued \u201cnice job\u201d \u2014 when you consider it was nearly two decades in the making. Remember that the Pentagon remained the sole holdout to complying with a 1990 law passed by Congress requiring audits for all government agencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But arguments from several administrations as to why it could not be done were difficult to swallow: The building is too large and has too many systems that don\u2019t link up to give any kind of helpful result that would be worth the cost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Isn\u2019t it precisely those kind of circumstances that make an audit necessary? And if a department or entity of any sort is just too large to be appropriately monitored \u2014 to be scrutinized in such a way to ensure that funds are properly spent and systems appropriately managed \u2014 then might that entity by definition be, in fact, too large? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

No, I\u2019m not arguing for a breakup of the Pentagon. But I am questioning a rationale that ultimately involves throwing one\u2019s hands up and saying: \u201cNot possible.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\t