Totally unrelated portrait of Russian/Soviet Poet Anna Akhmatova, by Kuzma Petrov Vodkin (all this the result of spending entirely too much time on Wikipedia)
Interesting article from Stratfor – Why US Bounties Fail.
The United States Government, through the State Department, has a program where bounty money is disbursed to credible informants that aid in the arrest of wanted terrorists.
The bounties can range as high as $30 million, as was paid to the people who turned in Saddam Hussain’s sons Uday and Qusay in the Iraq war. In addition, the informants’ entire families are relocated to safe locations under a sort of international witness protection plan.
The problem with this program, as laid out in the article, is that it’s not been very successful.
The review process for approval sounds convoluted enough, with committees and subcommittees and advisory boards.
In order for a high-profile reward such as that offered for Saeed to be established, a case has to be made before an interagency rewards program committee, which is chaired by the director of the Diplomatic Security Service. In addition to State Department personnel, the committee includes representatives from the Department of Justice, the FBI, the National Security Council, the CIA, the Department of Defense, the Department of Treasury and the Department of Homeland Security. This interagency RFJ committee also authorizes the payment of rewards once cases are resolved and an informant is nominated to receive a reward. The secretary of state must personally authorize any reward offer exceeding $5 million, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton approved the reward for Saeed after receiving the committee’s recommendation.
Whew….! From the point of view of the informants, they and their families are at extreme risk the whole time the “tip” is being processed through the machinery of government. A guy could get whacked waiting on his payday.
And as for the size of the bounties themselves, these days $10 million doesn’t seem to be much money, even when compared to the risk.
Outsourcing War?
I remember having an email discussion at the start of the Afghanistan campaign in 2001 (wish I could find it, but that was a couple of computers ago) with some politically active friends. In my view at the time, the US Government could have have just outsourced the whole war, if the objective truly was getting Bin Laden. Just pay a large enough bounty. Even two or three billion dollars seems small money compared to the trillion or so that have been spent in a decade of war. This, of course, is setting aside the thousands that have been killed and wounded, on both sides.
For a cool couple billion, I would wager that a mercenary crew could have outfited itself quite nicely. Planes, tanks, and enough cash to grease the skids along the way. For enough cash, paid Johnny-on-the-spot, I’d wager you could get most people to do most anything.
How Much Is Enough?
A company I worked at had a program for recruitment of key people. Bring in a new hire, and you’d be paid $400 net, grossed up for taxes. People are expensive to recruit, and $400 is small money compared to the recruiting/interviewing/selecting process. As it turned out, it was small money. The program was not very successful.
In a smart move, instead of the program being discontinued, the reward was bumped up to a net $1,000, and heavily promoted within the company with posters, emails and such. The results improved dramatically. Turns out a grand was the sweet spot. More than double the original amount.
Maybe the State Dept are being pikers on this. Could a doubling or quintupling of the reward money bring about better results?
We all know what we are, we’re just haggling on price.
Readers, what do you think, do the rewards offered by the US Government seem measly? How high would you set the bar?
Another portrait of Anna Akhmatova, this time by Olga Della-Vos-Kardovskaya. Turns out Akhmatova from Wikipedia was quite well known, and admired by the likes of Robert Frost and Isaiah Berlin... Fascinating story
Why these portraits of Anna Akhmatova? It’s the first result when you punch in “public domain” in Creative Commons.
I don’t think there’s a problem with the size of the bounty, maybe the process needs to be steamlined in order to get paid faster!
BeatingTheIndex recently posted..Canadian Interest Rates Forecast 2012
Agreed, but is government ever able to streamline?
Rewards in companies just like in government have to reflect the output and motivation necessary to get the reward. If it didn’t work, then either the reward was too small or the task too big/dangerous/daunting.
Daisy recently posted..Start Off On The Right Foot: Tips for Interns (Or Newbies in General)
Hi Daisy – would a too-large bonus be demotivating as well? I mean, once you’ve reached the goal, what are the chances you’ll sit back and put your feet up on the desk?
I never thought about it, but seriously, setting up a nice bounty on ol’ bin laden would have a MUCH better idea than this never-ending, money draining debacle that’s still going on now! I think that should be something that the US does more, and witha more efficient process so no one gets killed while waiting for approval to come through.
TB at BlueCollarWorkman recently posted..Hearing Gunshots on the Job
Bonuses and prizes, maybe even old-fashioned letters of marque…
There’s a tech company in my area that pays $5K per referral and a friend of mine has made $25K in the last five years just from referring his buddies. It’s a win-win for him, since he got cash and now works with people he likes!
Frugal Portland recently posted..Checking in on my personal resolutions
Now there’s a great way to control your work environment…
$10 million is a ton of money in developing Iraq. Your idea is valid too, but I’m sure Bush took the opportunity to get rid of other people we didn’t like too.
retirebyforty recently posted..How To Start Making Passive Income
Hi RB40 – As it turned out, inside intel was sometimes a good way to get your opponents rubbed out in Iraqi tribal/sectarian politics. The tips the US Army received were just means to the end of having a rival sheikh or warlord taken out by a well-targeted Hellfire missile.
Hi, I can’t get past the art—- I love it! The paintings are so beautiful. Of course, who doesn’t like rewards? From the govt., I love a tax CREDIT.
Barbara Friedberg recently posted..WHY I USUALLY DO MY OWN TAXES
Hi Barb, not averse to the the idea of credits. You’ve been good boys and girls, you done good, and get extra credit and a cookie.
As for the paintings, something pretty to brighten up and balance the dreary subject of government incompetence.
I agree with you on this subject. We should have paid several billions to capture Saddam Hussain and his notorious sons instead of waging war with Iraq.
Shilpan recently posted..3 Deadly Traits of Indecision
That’s what I’m talking about, Shilpan. Outsourcing the whole affair to a couple battalions of Nepalese Ghurkas would have done the trick. They’d have diced up the Republican guard with their kukris, and had Saddam Hussein and his boys in handcuffs, all before tea.
How would a bounty have paid the salaries of those at the top of the military-industrial chain?
FG recently posted..Ron Paul: The One True Hope for Change in 2012
Heh, 10 million barely covers greens fees…
Ha, that “we’re all haggling on price” reminds me of that Winston Churchill story.
Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Woman: My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course…
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Woman: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
Jacq recently posted..I gave at the (tax) office…
Heh, good catch, Jacq. The Churchill story is exactly where that came from. It’s become a tag line of sorts at work.
Incentives change behavior. I think that’s the only useful thing to come out of economics. You definitely could have caught Bin Laden for a few billion dollars, but that wasn’t the point. You wouldn’t have had access to all of that oil. You couldn’t have bought votes with all the M-I spending. The economy would have tanked without all the same spending. It really was more of a make-work program and a way to get other dictators across the earth to realize that the US will go ape on you if you don’t do what they want, freedom, democracy and morality be damned.
CultOfMoney recently posted..Segmenting your visitors for fun and profit
A make-work program for the MI… good way to put it.
They probably can’t afford to raise the amounts because of the millions they spend weeding out false leads. I must say the recruiting incentives aren’t always good when they money goes up. I’ve seen employees turn in resumes of people they met on the street just to give themselves a shot at getting some extra cash. Can cause a lot of headaches for the hiring team!
Untemplater recently posted..The Best Ski Resorts In North America To Escape the 9 to 5
Right you are, Untemplater. False leads are costly, but I don’t know if the State department has anything but a blank check when it comes to setting budgets.
I understand that our own program has had a few bogus submittals, but the bogus-ness of the resumes was so pronounced that they were easily picked up on and discarded.
Hiring incentives could work if there are also disincentives for turning in duds. What about a deduction if you recommend a looser?
Brent Pittman recently posted..Prepare For High Inflation
Good point, Brent. I think there is a year-long “warranty” period on that bonus. If the person leaves within a year, you have to return the money.
On this topic, just today a great news story broke. A Taliban commander saw a wanted poster of himself with a $100 bounty. I’m not making this up… He actually went to a checkpoint and turned himself in and asked for the $100. They promptly arrested him. Apparently, they’re not giving him the $100 either.
Darwin’s Money recently posted..Senate Rejects Buffett Rule – Fighting Stupidity with Logic