The Department of Defense (DoD) has officially disbanded its Office of Net Acquisition (ONA), a unit that faced criticism primarily from Republican lawmakers. Allegations suggest that ONA had been involved in projects considered irrelevant to its original mission, particularly amid its association with the Trump-Russia investigation.

Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesperson, announced that civilian staff from the dissolved office would be reassigned to critical roles. The DoD plans to reestablish the office in a manner that aligns with its strategic objectives.

Background and Functions of the Office

Initially designed to focus on long-term strategic analysis, ONA has come under fire for what many perceive as ineffective practices and lack of output. Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa expressed approval of the decision, declaring it a wise move that would save taxpayers around $20 million annually.

Grassley criticized ONA as “wasteful and ineffective,” underscoring his view that it had veered away from its primary purpose, which included developing strategies for potential conflicts, such as those involving China. The office notably endorsed the “AirSea Battle” strategy, aimed at countering potential threats posed by the People’s Liberation Army through a combination of aerial and naval maneuvers.

Controversy Over Contracting Practices

The scrutiny of ONA intensified due to allegations regarding its contracting practices and the quality of its research output. Whistleblower Adam Lovinger criticized ONA for commissioning contractor studies that were described as superficial and derivative. In a September 2016 email, he highlighted concerns about a contractor’s work being merely a summary of existing reports rather than original analyses.

One significant controversy involved Stefan Halper, a contractor who received over $1 million to conduct research on international relations. Reports indicated that Halper failed to document significant aspects of his work, raising questions about the integrity of the funding and its alignment with the office’s objectives.

Political Implications

Senator Grassley’s concerns were compounded by ONA’s failure to provide necessary classified assessments, which are crucial for national security planning. The disbandment of the office has sparked a debate among lawmakers, with some, like Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat and the top member of the Armed Services Committee, warning that closing the office could undermine future military preparedness.

Summary

The dissolution of the Office of Net Acquisition marks a significant shift in the Department of Defense’s approach to strategic analysis. While the agency aims to reallocate its resources more effectively, the controversy surrounding ONA raises important questions about operational efficiency and the strategic direction of U.S. military policy.