12/6/14, "Backsliding in Afghanistan," NY Times Editorial Board, 12/7 print ed.
"No
one has sounded more determined to extricate the United States from
Afghanistan than President Obama. It is “time to turn the page,” he said
in May
when he announced plans to reduce American forces to 9,800 troops by
the end of December, with a full withdrawal by the end of 2016. That
goal appeared to be on track — until now. Mr. Obama’s recent turnabout
and other developments seem to be sucking America back into the Afghan
war, a huge mistake.
First,
Mr. Obama authorized a more expansive mission for the American military
in 2015 than originally planned. His order would put American troops
right back into ground combat by allowing them to carry out missions
against the Taliban and other militants. He had previously said that the
residual force would be engaged only in counterterrorism operations
aimed at remnants of Al Qaeda. The new order also permits American jets
and drones to support Afghan military missions.
The decision by Afghanistan’s new president, Ashraf Ghani, to lift the ban on night raids
imposed by his predecessor, Hamid Karzai, could also push American
troops into direct fighting. The Afghan special operations forces, which
are to resume night raids in 2015, could bring along American advisers,
backed by American air support. While military officials say night
raids are an effective tactic, enabling the Taliban to be seized in
their homes, such intrusions are offensive to many Afghans and likely to
provoke a new wave of anti-American sentiment.
Already,
the number of American troops to remain in Afghanistan after December
has been increased by 1,000, up to 10,800. NATO allies are supposed to
provide 4,000 troops next year, bringing the total of foreign forces to
12,000 to 14,000. Secretary of State John Kerry has said that any
additional American troops above 9,800 are temporary and are merely
covering for NATO allies that are still trying to decide how many forces
to contribute.
But if NATO fails to contribute sufficient troops, then what?
Mr.
Obama seems to be having second thoughts about his Afghan strategy
after the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the sudden collapse of
the Iraqi army. He may be trying to avoid blame if something similar
happens in Afghanistan, where Taliban attacks are on the rise.
But he should resist the advice of military commanders,
who are again pushing for broader involvement. They were unable to
defeat the Taliban when more than 100,000 American troops were in the
country; there is no reason to think that a very limited American force
will be more effective now.
That
is not to say that Mr. Ghani, a former World Bank executive, should not
be supported. He shows more promise, energy and purpose in dealing
honestly with his country’s staggering challenges — including the
insurgency and a weak, corrupt economy — than Mr. Karzai did.
Since Mr. Ghani was declared the winner in September
of the disputed election and formed a power-sharing deal with Abdullah
Abdullah, the new chief executive, there has been progress, including
the signing of a security agreement with the United States, a reopened
probe into the corrupt Kabul Bank and an initiative to repair relations
with key countries, including Pakistan. Last Thursday, Mr. Ghani laid
out a thoughtful, if incomplete, vision for reforming the economy and
tackling corruption to a conference in London of Afghanistan’s international donors, including the United States and Britain.
Still,
Mr. Ghani and Mr. Abdullah have struggled to make other important
decisions, including the appointment of a cabinet, which they promised
would be done before the conference and now say will take several weeks
more. Given Afghanistan’s perilous security situation, the country’s
leaders and political factions might be expected to put aside their
differences, but that hasn’t happened yet.
One
lesson learned over the last 13 years is this: No amount of foreign
assistance — not tens of thousands of troops, billions of dollars or
unlimited amounts of military equipment — will make any real difference
if the Afghans cannot or will not pull together a functioning,
relatively uncorrupt and competent government, and take primary
responsibility for themselves and their country.
Administration
officials are still insisting “the combat mission ends” by the end of
this year, but that’s simply not credible. Mr. Obama should stick to his
original plan to have the remaining troops focus on training and
advising the Afghan army and going after Al Qaeda. Realistically, that
seems the most the American-led military coalition can achieve."
=======================
"Millions of (US) contracting dollars have ultimately ended up in the hands of the Taliban."
4/26/13, "The US Is Still Spending Billions In Afghanistan, But No One Seems To Care," Fiscal Times, David Francis
"Hard-fought gains in Afghanistan over the last decade are at risk of being squandered – unless immediate action is taken to determine the fate of tens of billions of dollars in questionable reconstruction projects, the chief of the Afghan audit agency said.
In an exclusive interview with The Fiscal Times, John F. Sopko, Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, said that the Pentagon, aid agencies and the State Department must quickly evaluate these projects to determine whether the billions being spent in Afghanistan right now will yield the desired results or not. Many projects are simply not sustainable, he said – and continuing to spend money on them results not just in a wasted fortune, but very real risks to nearly 70,000 American soldiers who are still there.
“They have not thought about sustainability,” Sopko said, referring to the military, aid agencies and the State Department. “If you don’t think about that, you’re going to build a bridge and give it to the Afghans who can’t sustain it.”
He added, “There’s pervasive corruption throughout the country.”
These warnings from Sopko – who was appointed to his post last summer by President Obama – come as lawmakers, the public, and the policy community in D.C. have largely turned their attention away from the war and from the soldiers still fighting and dying there. Despite spending some $500 billion to fight in Afghanistan, the war is becoming invisible. Sopko and his team at SIGAR are among the few voices reminding the country about financial mismanagement, corruption and the continuing threat to American lives.
“I believe in the mission in Afghanistan,” he said. “We lost too many lives and we’ve spent too much money” to ignore it.
Dollars to the Taliban
In recent months, SIGAR has been especially busy identifying waste, fraud and abuse. Earlier this month, it found that a $53 million USAID project meant to supply power to Kandahar was unsustainable.
It also found that millions of contracting dollars have ultimately ended up in the hands of the Taliban. As The Fiscal Times recently reported, the Pentagon did not have the required protocols in place to prevent 80 percent of all contracts from getting into the hands of the enemy.
A quarterly report issued by SIGAR in January said that the United States has spent more than half of the nearly $100 billion in Afghan reconstruction funds on developing the country’s police and security forces. But numerous reports have found that the Afghan forces are not ready to take over security responsibilities.
Two recent SIGAR reports also found that police and Army buildings built by the United States for $26 million in two key strategic provinces were underutilized or sat empty. One was even being used as a chicken coop.
All of this is especially troubling in the wake of a February 2013 GAO report that determined Afghanistan would essentially collapse without extensive U.S. financial support. Sopko painted a picture of a country with intractable corruption, a U.S. military that had not properly planned or executed countless projects, and an aid apparatus that has
failed to acknowledge realities on the ground.
.
"Hard-fought gains in Afghanistan over the last decade are at risk of being squandered – unless immediate action is taken to determine the fate of tens of billions of dollars in questionable reconstruction projects, the chief of the Afghan audit agency said.
In an exclusive interview with The Fiscal Times, John F. Sopko, Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, said that the Pentagon, aid agencies and the State Department must quickly evaluate these projects to determine whether the billions being spent in Afghanistan right now will yield the desired results or not. Many projects are simply not sustainable, he said – and continuing to spend money on them results not just in a wasted fortune, but very real risks to nearly 70,000 American soldiers who are still there.
“They have not thought about sustainability,” Sopko said, referring to the military, aid agencies and the State Department. “If you don’t think about that, you’re going to build a bridge and give it to the Afghans who can’t sustain it.”
He added, “There’s pervasive corruption throughout the country.”
These warnings from Sopko – who was appointed to his post last summer by President Obama – come as lawmakers, the public, and the policy community in D.C. have largely turned their attention away from the war and from the soldiers still fighting and dying there. Despite spending some $500 billion to fight in Afghanistan, the war is becoming invisible. Sopko and his team at SIGAR are among the few voices reminding the country about financial mismanagement, corruption and the continuing threat to American lives.
“I believe in the mission in Afghanistan,” he said. “We lost too many lives and we’ve spent too much money” to ignore it.
Dollars to the Taliban
In recent months, SIGAR has been especially busy identifying waste, fraud and abuse. Earlier this month, it found that a $53 million USAID project meant to supply power to Kandahar was unsustainable.
It also found that millions of contracting dollars have ultimately ended up in the hands of the Taliban. As The Fiscal Times recently reported, the Pentagon did not have the required protocols in place to prevent 80 percent of all contracts from getting into the hands of the enemy.
A quarterly report issued by SIGAR in January said that the United States has spent more than half of the nearly $100 billion in Afghan reconstruction funds on developing the country’s police and security forces. But numerous reports have found that the Afghan forces are not ready to take over security responsibilities.
Two recent SIGAR reports also found that police and Army buildings built by the United States for $26 million in two key strategic provinces were underutilized or sat empty. One was even being used as a chicken coop.
All of this is especially troubling in the wake of a February 2013 GAO report that determined Afghanistan would essentially collapse without extensive U.S. financial support. Sopko painted a picture of a country with intractable corruption, a U.S. military that had not properly planned or executed countless projects, and an aid apparatus that has
failed to acknowledge realities on the ground.
.
=============================
.
Ms. Chayes is the "author of "The Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After the Taliban" and designed an anti-corruption strategy for the command of the international forces."
.
No comments:
Post a Comment