Report Critical of American MIA work by JPAC

Thank you, David, for that alternative view.

From the 12 July NEW YORK TIMES, an article on JPAC, its work, and its impact.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/opinion/missing-in-action-but-not-forever.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

Is this the same organisation that ID the entire crew of a USAF aircraft shot down during the Vietnam War from a single tooth?

A pretty comprehensive explanation indeed.

Like many others, I watched the series of programmes on how JPAC work, which was screened a few years ago.
They have I believe the biggest forensic laboratory in the world, so must be under a lot of pressure to come up
with the results that relatives and colleagues expect. Especially as like the rest of the military, they are no doubt
under the threat of budget cut backs.
Maybe the promise that they will get their men back home, is coming back to haunt them ? As in many cases it just
isn’t going to happen.

Thank you, 43-2195, for your interesting post. All very enlightening, and good to have a different perspective on things.

I have dealt with JPAC in the past (on more than one occasion), am currently dealing with them, and expect to be working closer with them in the next 12 months. The Topic of MIAs is very emotional in the USA, and everyone has an opinion on the matter. That being said, JPAC is operated exactly like any public service organisation. They are constantly short of funding, need to achieve as many positive outcomes as their funding will allow and need to promote themselves in a responsible, positive light. This boils down to handling emotive topics in very cold effective ways. For example; given the option of carrying out a full (on location) recovery of either a single seat fighter or a multi crew bomber, JPAC will always give the bomber priority over the fighter. The reason being multiple successful MIA recoveries compared against one successful MIA recovery for almost the same financial outlay. This means that MIA single seat fighters located in the Mandated Territory of New Guinea in the 1960s, did not have the recovery carried out until the 21st century. The reason being that MIA Bombers found in the intervening years have consistently gone to the top of the priority list and kept the single MIAs at the bottom. JPAC(originally CIL-Hi) are aware of this and have, where possible been able to add a fighter recovery to a bomber recovery where both sites are in the same country and located in close proximity. This isn’t as strange as it seems, in Papua New Guinea most USAAF MIAs are weather related CFIT losses, which tend to be at altitude on mountains close to or on busy air routes(between major bases or targets)so most losses are often in geographic clusters.
You can imagine how something like the recent Egyptian P-40 find would be received by the public if a 10 year wait was required before the site reached the top of the recovery priority list. The fact that the find was so VERY public, would affect the priority of the recovery, in the same way that relatives of MIAs who go public and/or invoke the influence of their local senator/politician. Whilst JPAC realise that they must protect their public image, they would argue that the most effective use of the funds available to them is already being achieved with their current prioritization program, and that public or political interference only detracts from that efficiency.
Now, that’s all very nice if your a concerned taxpayer, but most of the WW2 vets I know are in their 90’s and probably wont survive long enough to wait for JPAC’s priority list, particularly if you served in a fighter outfit.
This is just one example of their operation which, to some, is controversial. Sometimes JPAC comes up with answers that are unpopular and not what the public want to hear. One example was a Vietnam recovery of a 2 seat jet aircraft, the pilot had ejected and survived, the RIO was last seen by the pilot to have ejected and was floating down under his canopy. The RIO was listed MIA. JPAC dug the wreckage and found some small bones from the hand(I recall). As a result of this they closed the MIA case and gave the recovered remains a military funeral. The Pilot, who had carried this terrible experience with him throughout his life, remained adamant that the RIO had survived and made his beliefs very public.
I would sum JPAC up as a very professional, effective public service organisation, with similar problems, limitations as all public service organisations. I do not believe the British MOD or Australian Dept of Defence have anything as effective in place, and have been disappointed by the handling of two RAAF MIA discoveries.
The reader should be aware that JPAC do not search for MIAs, they attend sites where human remains have been reported as found. If, in country and in close geographical proximity, they will investigate sites which they suspect may contain remains or provide a likely solution to a MIA case.

I had to look up the meaning of Boondoggle..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boondoggle_(project)

“A boondoggle is a project that is considered a useless waste of both time and money, yet is often continued due to extraneous policy motivations”

Any link to other Far East Recovery Expedition is purely in the mind of the reader alone

As Fox News says:

“….even the current JPAC commander, Air Force Maj. Gen. Kelly K. McKeague, says he would not dispute those who say his organization is dysfunctional. “I’d say you’re right, and we’re doing something about it,” McKeague said in a telephone interview last week from his headquarters in Hawaii.“

Well, he’s clearly got one aspect of his organisation sorted out 🙂

My thoughts exactly.

But it does seem to be the case that US recoveries in Europe have only taken place where the hand of JPAC has been forced by family intervention or through enthusiast/researcher/accidental discovery.

Interesting.

We so often see our Government / Military’s efforts scathingly compared to how well the US do it.

Moggy