How U.S. Aid (To Afghanistan) Been / Being Utilized

[taimikhan]

EXCLUSIVE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT: American corruption and mismanagement threaten Afghanistan’s future
State Department ignores flagrant abuse and wastes billions of $$$$

Friday 11 September 2009, by Matthew Nasuti

The United States has committed more than $38 billion dollars in aid for Afghanistan over the past eight years. The average Afghan citizen has seen little benefit from these enormous expenditures. 54% of this total was paid to foreign security contractors or was used for other security purposes. The American effort has been plagued by fraud, laced with mismanagement and it has had no strategic focus. Rebuilding Afghanistan and defeating the Taliban requires that America fundamentally change the operations of the U.S. Embassy and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

AEY, Inc.’s provides faulty ammunition to Afghan Army

In 2007, the United States awarded a massive contract worth almost $300 million to a Miami, Florida company called AEY, Inc. to supply the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan with 52 types of ammunition, primarily 7.62 bullets for AK-47s. The U.S. Army Sustainment Command removed from the contract all requirements for safety inspections of the ammunition, which is mandatory for all ammunition being delivered to American forces. As a result, AEY, Inc. was able to shop around in Eastern Europe for the cheapest ammunition it could find.

It then began to supply Afghan forces with old Chinese ammunition manufactured in the 1960s. Millions of rounds of this ammunition were found to be substandard and dangerous. According to C.J. Chivers of the New York Times, the ammunition was actually issued to Afghan troops in the field. An investigation by the U.S. Congress uncovered the fact that the U.S. State Department was aware that this old and substandard ammunition was being delivered to Afghanistan and that it did not object to the deliveries.

U.S. Congressman Henry Waxman, in his June 23, 2008 letter to Secretary of State Rice, described how the ammunition was being shipped from Albania and that in a secret meeting on November 19, 2007, the U.S. Ambassador to Albania John Withers, Deputy Chief of Mission Stephen Cristina, Political Officer Victor Myev, Political Section Chief Paula Thiede, Commerce Chief Robert Newsome and Diplomatic Security officials Patrick Leonard and Matthew Becht were all briefed on the illegal and unsafe ammunition. All of them elected to remain silent and permit the shipments to continue. While AEY, Inc. and its officers were later indicted in the Southern District of Florida, the State Department refused to discipline any of its senior officials. John Withers remains the U.S. Ambassador in Albania. Equipping Afghan security personnel with cheap, dangerous and defective equipment is apparently not a matter which troubles the State Department.

ArmorGroup North America: sexual abuse, alcohol abuse, and breach of contracts in Kabul

A State Department Inspector General’s audit of the U.S. Embassy in Kabul in 2005 found abusive and aggressive practices and unprofessional conduct by Embassy security personnel, yet apparently nothing was done to correct the problems. Several months ago, Assistant Secretary for Logistics William Moser briefed the U.S. Senate that all the problems with the private mercenary force which guards the American Embassy in Kabul (ArmorGroup North America), had been resolved. This turned out to be false. Last month it was revealed that ArmorGroup remains under investigation for alcohol and sexual abuse in Kabul, along with breaches of its contract to provide security for the Embassy. It is also accused of abusing Afghan citizens who work at the Embassy.

Despite repeated problems with ArmorGroup, Secretary Moser has just extended ArmorGroup’s contract for another year. Secretary Moser and his supervisor Patrick F. Kennedy are at the center of numerous abuses and need to be immediately replaced, along with State Department Inspector General Harold Geisel and his counsel Erich Hart and Karen Ouzts, USAID Inspector General Donald Gambatesa, Deputy Inspector General Michael Carroll and their counsel Lisa Goldfluss.

Additional suspect American AID projects in Afghanistan

1. USAID has paid over $240 million dollars, under two contracts, to an American company called Chemonics, Inc. to provide agricultural support in Afghanistan. USAID audits in 2008 found that most of the money might have been wasted, yet it refused to terminate the contracts with Chemonics and it refused to recommend any disciplinary action against USAID officials involved in the contracts. A half dozen other audits conducted in 2008 and 2009 by the USAID inspector general reveal the same staggering scope of waste and mismanagement, also with no disciplinary action being recommended.

2. USAID has been paying substantial amounts of money to an American corporation called Checchi and Company, Consulting, Inc. to perform advisory and report-writing tasks that USAID should be doing itself. Under one recent contract, Checchi was tasked with preparing an official U.S. Government report on corruption within the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Issued under U.S. Government letterhead, it is entitled “Assessment of Corruption in Afghanistan” and is dated March 1, 2009. It is available on-line at the USAID’s website. Checchi and Company should not be speaking for the United States Government, nor should the American government be paying a private company to criticize the Government of Afghanistan and to publicize alleged Afghan government corruption.

3. USAID has been paying for the paving of dozens of kilometers of roads through the Panjshir Valley. In its September 1, 2006 press release, USAID stated that the reason for the project was so that (wealthy) residents of Kabul, could drive more quickly for vacations to the Panjshir Valley. American taxpayers should not be paying for the construction of vacation sites in Afghanistan. This program has no strategic value in the war against the Taliban.

4. USAID has been supporting the “Dream and Achieve” television show in Kabul. USAID’s April 4, 2009 press release claims that the show encourages the creation of small businesses, yet it does not list a single small business created due to the show.

5. USAID has been paying for the creation of a Dari/Pashto Legal Glossary. USAID’s May 5, 2009 press release states that the glossary will ease problems caused by confusing legal terms. This is a project that benefits a small number of Afghan lawyers and appears to be a poor choice for using aid money.

6. USAID, five years ago, began its “Land Titling and Economic Restructuring Program.” It was a five-year effort to assist the Afghan government in selling off unneeded government buildings. It also had a side task of reorganizing certain property title records. Now that the five years is almost up, only 305,000 sq. feet of buildings (less than 1/10th of the goal of the contract) has been sold. According to a 2008 audit report, USAID spend $56.3 in the effort, which earned the Government of Afghanistan $10.6 million. Tens of millions of dollars seem to have been wasted on this program, which, under all metrics, is a failure. The responsible USAID officials have not been either identified or apparently disciplined.

7. USAID has been paying for a program of mobile phone banking so that money can be transferred by telephone. This program benefits the rich, but will have no impact for the majority of Afghans. Francis J. Ricciardone, Deputy U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, was quoted in the August 11, 2009 USAID press release as stating that the project “will help all Afghans earn, save and transfer money.” It is not clear how the project will help anyone either earn or save money.” Mr. Ricciardone’s statement is simply nonsense.

Worthless Inspectors General Reports

Under American law (5 U.S.C. App. 4 and 5), American Inspectors General are supposed to identify American officials who waste funds, mismanage aid or abuse their authority, but the USAID and State Department Inspectors General virtually never do so and rarely recommend disciplinary or criminal action against corrupt or inept American officials. The culture of corruption at the State Department and the refusal to hold Embassy officials accountable for their crimes, abuses and inept management only benefits the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), Arnold Fields, has likewise produced audit reports that are virtually worthless, due to his refusal to identify responsible and culpable American officials. Weak leaders encourage corruption. Mr. Fields retired as a Marine Corps General in 2004. He needs to return to his life in retirement in the United States.

Chaotic aid programs

In a review of USAID and U.S. Embassy projects, there were few in Kandahar or Uruzgan and virtually none in Paktika or Khost, yet significant amounts of money are going to projects in Kabul and to such provinces as Badakhshan and Badghis. It is no wonder that Afghans in the south and east of the country feel detached and ignored. This trend must be reversed.

U.S. officials employ confused logic for their aid programs. They state that there must be security in order for aid projects to be effective. In fact, the reverse is true, in that the correct aid projects will help foster security. State Department fear of the Taliban has given the Taliban the authority to veto any aid projects it does not like. A side effect of the current American strategy of deferring to the Taliban was uncovered in a special investigative report published on September 2, 2009 by Jean MacKenzie of GlobalPost. It is entitled: “Are U.S. Taxpayers Funding the Taliban?” Her report describes how American contractors pay bribes to the Taliban to ensure that aid projects are not disrupted. The bribes could amount to up to 20% of the total cost of the American aid project. If true, then billions of American dollars may be flowing to the Taliban. This means that Afghanistan truly faces a war without end. Ms. MacKenzie also reveals that the Taliban have an office in Kabul that reviews all aid projects and determines the amount that must be paid to the Taliban. If all of this is true, then the United States is paying the Afghan Government to fight the Taliban but also paying the Taliban to fight the Afghan Government.

Official aid reports shrouded in confusion and secrecy

It is difficult to evaluate the confused and random patchwork of American aid programs and efforts in Afghanistan, due to the refusal of the American government to publish meaningful and comprehensive data. The American Congress, in frustration, ordered the President of the United States to submit regular reports regarding American efforts in Afghanistan. These reports, called “1230 reports,” are available for viewing on-line, however they are virtually useless. One cannot tell from the reports whether the American efforts are succeeding or failing.

For example, in the June 2009 1230 Report, it vaguely claims that the amount of electricity available in Kabul has improved over the past six months, but it provides no data and does not examine the availability of energy across the country. If there is some increase in electricity in Kabul, but some reduction in the rest of the country, then there has been no net improvement. The Pentagon has proven masterful at playing with numbers and statistics. They report indicators of success and suppress indicators of failure. In Pentagon double-talk, there are no failures, only new challenges to success. The Pentagon produces extensive reports that actually relay little or no meaningful information and perhaps misinformation. Sometimes, the Pentagon simply refuses to release any public information.

For example, a significant source of American aid funds in Afghanistan is the CERP (Commander’s Emergency Response Program). It is difficult to evaluate CERP due to a lack of published information. In July of 2009, the Congressional Research Service conducted an audit of the program, which revealed why data on CERP is kept secret. The audit found that nearly two-thirds of CERP funds are diverted and spent on road construction and repair (which aids U.S. military forces), instead of being used for local economic development projects, which was the intent of the program.

Mistreatment of Afghan civilian contractors

Another deficiency in U.S. aid programs is the lack of protection accorded to Afghan nationals who are hired by foreign contractors. The August 11, 2009 expose by Pratap Chatterjee of CorpWatch documents abuses by MEP (Mission Essential Personnel), a contractor which supplies translators to the U.S. Military in Afghanistan. Similar tales of arbitrary firings, wages being cut and translators being denied protection after they have been targeted, have been heard for years in Iraq. There appears to be no system or rules for preventing the mistreatment of local civilians hired by Pentagon, State Department or USAID contractors. These abuses harm the war effort, yet no audit report to-date has recommended that they be corrected, It would be a simple matter to include a grievance process into each aid contract, and U.S. Government supervision of such, but it has not been done. The worst and most abusive contractors in Afghanistan need to be identified and the aid contracts of such companies must be cancelled.

The victims here are the average people of Afghanistan, who receive little or no benefit from these massive American aid programs and the American taxpayer, whose tax money is being stolen, squandered and wasted at unprecedented levels. The American Embassy routinely criticizes the Afghan Government for corruption, while ignoring corruption by American Embassy officials; corruption which proceeds at levels that dwarf anything being done by Afghan officials. American corruption and mismanagement threatens the future of Afghanistan and threatens any chance of success in the war against the Taliban.

[taimikhan]

Are US taxpayers funding the Taliban?
By Jean MacKenzie - GlobalPost

KABUL — The United States Agency for International Development has opened an investigation into allegations that its funds for road and bridge construction in Afghanistan are ending up in the hands of the Taliban, through a protection racket for contractors.

And House Foreign Affairs Committee member, Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) vowed to hold hearings on the issue in the fall, saying: "The idea that American taxpayer dollars are ending up with the Taliban is a case for grave concern."

U.S. officials confirmed that the preliminary investigation and the proposed hearings were sparked by a GlobalPost special report on the funding of the Taliban last month that uncovered a process that has been an open secret in Afghanistan for years among those in international aid organizations.

The report exposed that the Taliban takes a percentage of the billions of dollars in aid from U.S. and other international coalition members that goes to large organizations and their subcontractors for development projects, in exchange for protection in remote areas controlled by the insurgency.

“We are looking into this. We are always interested in fraud, waste and abuse,” said Dona Dinkler, the chief of staff for congressional affairs at USAID’s Office of Inspector General in Washington, D.C.

But, she added: “It’s a real hard thing to prove. Who is going to survive to testify about that? That is our challenge. But that doesn’t mean we stop trying. We want to get to the bottom of it.”

The USAID probe is underway in tandem with an inquiry by the U.S. House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee, whose members have raised concerns in recent years about fraud and abuse in the $7.5 billion in funds marked for Afghanistan between 2002 and this year.

"It's our intention this fall to hold public hearings on it. We will pursue this with vigor," said committee member Delahunt.

Delahunt said the allegations made in the story reveal a lack of oversight of U.S. government spending in Afghanistan that he described as a legacy of the previous administration in Washington. He said more resources were needed to be brought to routing out this kind of corruption.

USAID’s Inspector General has only one investigator in Afghanistan and two auditors tracking the billions of tax payers’ dollars that go to NGOs in that troubled country.

“They want to know what [we are] going to do about this,” said an official at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, adding that the goal of the probe at this point is to determine how extensive the problem is, and how it can be tracked.

As part of a special report called "Life, Death and the Taliban," GlobalPost traced a web of financial connections between major international contractors and the Taliban in which the insurgents provide protection — largely from themselves — in return for a healthy cut of the proceeds. One source, with direct knowledge of such payments, estimated the Taliban can take upwards of 20 percent from many contracts awarded in unstable areas, which would include about half of the country.

When the money is not paid out, then bridges get blown up, engineers get kidnapped and projects tend to stall, according to sources quoted in the story.

“It’s organized crime,” sighed the embassy official, who spoke on the condition that his name would not be used. “It’s insidious.”

It is also going to be very difficult to establish, let alone control. Most of the monetary transactions take place at a sub-contractor level, invisible to balance sheets or oversight committees. Any records that are kept are not likely to make their way into the U.S. government accounting system.

As GlobalPost reported, the Taliban allegedly receives kickbacks from almost every major contract that comes into the country. The arrangements are at times highly formalized and, as GlobalPost spelled out, the Taliban actually keeps an office in Kabul to review major deals, determine percentages and conduct negotiations. The arrangements are often more personal, as when a local supplier pays off a small-time Taliban commander to allow free passage of goods through his patch of insurgency-controlled terrain.

Precise amounts are almost impossible to pin down, but it is, according to those knowledgeable of the process, a conservative estimate that the amount going to the Taliban is in the tens of millions of dollars a year. If the allegation that the Taliban takes 20 percent off big contracts is true, it is possible the Taliban is receiving as much money from the billions of dollars in assistance funds as it does from what traditionally has been its leading source of income: drugs.

With the poppy crop reported to be down this year in Afghanistan and the Afghan and U.S. government boasting of successful interdiction of the crop which fuels what the U.N. has estimated in the past to be a $4 billion a year heroin trade in Afghanistan, U.S. intelligence officials say the Taliban is seeking other sources of funding.

U.S. Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke has recently asked the Treasury Department to look into the matter of Taliban funding, and has stated publicly that opium and heroin most likely account for far less of the Taliban budget than had previously been thought.

In Afghanistan — the world’s fifth most corrupt government on the Transparency International index — few would raise an eyebrow at graft. Contracts in the relatively stable north of Afghanistan are subject to just as many kickbacks as in Helmand or Kandahar; the difference, according to the embassy official, is the end recipient and the use to which they put the proceeds.

“Warlords take the money (in northern Afghanistan),” the source said. “But they are not using it to buy guns to kill our soldiers.” As the largest international donor, the United States is the major source of such funding, but it is by no means the only one. In an upcoming article, Time magazine outlines similar types of pay-offs to the Taliban in Kunduz, in northern Afghanistan, which is now experiencing a major increase in insurgent activity. The contracts belonged to GTZ, a German aid organization, but the procedures were very much the same as with USAID-funded projects.

With the practice so widespread, it is a wonder to many, including USAID’s own internal sources, how it has taken so long for it to come to light. The problem, say longtime observers, is partially the fortress in which USAID, the U.S. embassy and other international aid organizations live and work.

“[These people] really had very little idea of how Afghanistan operates,” said a USAID contractor who spent several weeks in Helmand province. “[They] could have as easily been working in an office in Washington as Lashkar Gah. Although some of them had been there for three years, they had had almost no contact with Afghans except for the cooks and cleaners. So, they have no ears to the ground.”

(GlobalPost's C.M. Sennott contributed to this story from Boston.)

Funding the Taliban | Afghanistan War

[taimikhan]

How U.S. dollars disappear in Afghanistan: quickly and thoroughly
Ann Jones

Remember when peaceful, democratic, reconstructed Afghanistan was advertised as the exemplar for the extreme makeover of Iraq? In August 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was already proclaiming the new Afghanistan "a breathtaking accomplishment" and "a successful model of what could happen to Iraq." As everybody now knows, the model isn't working in Iraq. So we shouldn't be surprised to learn that it's not working in Afghanistan either.

To understand the failure -- and fraud -- of reconstruction in Afghanistan, you have to take a look at the peculiar system of U.S. aid for international development. During the past five years, the United States and many other donor nations pledged billions of dollars to Afghanistan, yet Afghans keep asking: "Where did the money go?" American taxpayers should be asking the same question.

The official answer is that donor funds are lost to Afghan corruption. But shady Afghans, accustomed to two-bit bribes, are learning about big bucks from the masters of the world.

Other answers appear in a fact-packed report issued in June 2005 by Action Aid, a widely respected nongovernmental organization headquartered in Johannesburg. The report studies development aid given by all countries worldwide and says that only part of it -- maybe 40 percent -- is real. The rest is phantom aid. That is, it never shows up in recipient countries at all.

Some of it doesn't even exist except as an accounting item, as when countries count debt relief or the construction costs of a fancy new embassy in the aid column. A lot of it never leaves home; paychecks for American "experts" under contract to USAID go directly to their U.S. banks. Much of the money is thrown away on "overpriced and ineffective technical assistance," such as those hot-shot American experts, the report said. And big chunks are tied to the donor, which means that the recipient is obliged to use the money to buy products from the donor country, even when -- especially when -- the same goods are available cheaper at home.

To no one's surprise, the United States easily outstrips other nations at most of these scams, making it second only to France as the world's biggest purveyor of phantom aid. Fully 47 percent of U.S. development aid is lavished on overpriced technical assistance. By comparison, only 4 percent of Sweden's aid budget goes to technical assistance, while Luxembourg and Ireland lay out only 2 percent.

As for tying aid to the purchase of donor-made products, Sweden and Norway don't do it at all. Neither do Ireland and the United Kingdom. But 70 percent of U.S. aid is contingent upon the recipient spending it on American stuff, including especially American-made armaments. The upshot is that 86 cents of every dollar of U.S. aid is phantom aid.

According to targets set years ago by the United Nations and agreed to by almost every country in the world, rich countries should give 0.7 percent of their national income in annual aid to poor ones. So far, only the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands and Luxembourg (with real aid at 0.65 percent of its national income) even come close.

At the other end of the scale, the United States spends a paltry 0.02 percent of national income on real aid, which works out to an annual contribution of $8 from every citizen of the wealthiest nation in the world. (By comparison, Swedes kick in $193 per person, Norwegians $304, and the citizens of Luxembourg $357.) President Bush boasts of sending billions in aid to Afghanistan, but in fact we could do better by passing a hat.

The Bush administration often deliberately misrepresents its aid program for domestic consumption.

Last year, for example, when the president sent his wife to Kabul for a few hours of photo ops, the New York Times reported that her mission was "to promise long-term commitment from the United States to education for women and children." Speaking in Kabul, she pledged that the United States would give an additional $17.7 million to support education in Afghanistan. But that grant had been announced before; and it was not for Afghan education (or women and children) at all but for a new private, for-profit American University of Afghanistan. (How a private university comes to be supported by public tax dollars and the Army Corps of Engineers is another peculiarity of Bush aid.)

Ashraf Ghani, former finance minister of Afghanistan and president of Kabul University, complained, "You cannot support private education and ignore public education." But that's typical of American aid. Having set up a government in Afghanistan, the United States stiffs it, preferring to channel aid money to private American contractors. Increasingly privatized, U.S. aid becomes just one more mechanism for transferring tax dollars to the pockets of rich Americans.

In 2001, Andrew Natsios, then head of USAID, cited foreign aid as "a key foreign policy instrument" designed to help other countries "become better markets for U.S. exports."

To guarantee that mission, the State Department recently took over the formerly semi-autonomous aid agency. And because the aim of U.S. aid is to make the world safe for U.S. business, USAID now cuts in business from the start. It sends out requests for proposals to the short list of usual suspects and awards contracts to those bidders currently in favor. (Election time kickbacks influence the list of favorites.) Sometimes it invites only one contractor to apply, the same efficient procedure that made Halliburton so notorious and so profitable in Iraq.

The criteria for selection of contractors have little or nothing to do with conditions in the recipient country, and they are not exactly what you would call transparent.

Take, for example, the case of the Kabul-Kandahar Highway, featured on the USAID Web site as a proud accomplishment. (In five years, it's the only accomplishment in highway building in Afghanistan -- which is one better than the U.S. record building power stations, water systems, sewer systems or dams.) The highway was also featured in the Kabul Weekly newspaper in March 2005 under the headline, "Millions Wasted on Second-Rate Roads."

Afghan journalist Mirwais Harooni reported that even though other international companies had been ready to rebuild the highway for $250,000 per kilometer, the Louis Berger Group got the job at $700,000 per kilometer -- of which there are 389. Why? The standard American answer is that Americans do better work. (Though not Berger, which at the time was already years behind on another $665 million contract to build schools.)

Berger subcontracted Turkish and Indian companies to build the narrow two-lane, shoulderless highway at a final cost of about $1 million per mile; and anyone who travels it can see that it is already falling apart. (Former Minister of Planning Ramazan Bashardost complained that when it came to building roads, the Taliban did a better job.)

Now, in a move certain to tank President Hamid Karzai's approval ratings and further endanger U.S. and NATO troops in the area, the United States has pressured his government to turn this "gift of the people of the United States" into a toll road and collect $20 a month from Afghan drivers. In this way, according to U.S. experts providing highly paid technical assistance, Afghanistan can collect $30 million annually from its impoverished citizens and thereby decrease the foreign aid "burden" on the United States.

Is it any wonder that foreign aid seems to ordinary Afghans to be something only foreigners enjoy?

At one end of the infamous highway, in Kabul, Afghans disapprove of the fancy restaurants where foreigners gather -- men and women together -- to drink alcohol and carry on, and plunge half-naked into swimming pools. They object to the brothels -- 80 of them by 2005 -- that house women brought in to serve foreign men.

They complain that half the capital city lies in ruins, that many people still live in tents, that thousands can't find jobs, that children go hungry, that schools are overcrowded and hospitals dirty, that women in tattered burqas still beg in the streets and turn to prostitution, that children are kidnapped and sold into slavery or murdered for their kidneys or their eyes.

They wonder where the promised aid money went and what the puppet government can do.

Ann Jones is the author of "Kabul in Winter," a memoir of Afghanistan, where she lived for several years. A longer version of this piece appears at www. tomdispatch.com.


How U.S. dollars disappear in Afghanistan: quickly and thoroughly

[taimikhan]

U.S. Aid to Afghanistan by the Numbers

The United States is once again sending aid to Afghanistan. The country received billions in assistance during the 1980s as a front in the Cold War, only to have it recede after the Soviet Union withdrew. The country was devastated by the war, and in the absence of a sustained development program from the United States, the country descended into a failed state, making it vulnerable to extremism in the forms of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Afghanistan is now a major front in the war on terrorist networks. Aid has returned with the new conflict, but it is mostly in the form of military assistance. The United States’ commitment to development and reconstruction in Afghanistan has been detoured by the war in Iraq. A new sustainable security strategy is needed that focuses on rebuilding the country and helping the Afghan population lift themselves out of poverty.

Afghanistan is still waiting for needed aid

$36 billion: Amount the United States is spending on military action in Afghanistan annually.

$10.4 billion: Amount of aid the United States pledged for development in Afghanistan from 2002 to 2008. The United States provides a third of all development aid to Afghanistan.

$5 billion: Amount of aid the United States has actually dispersed.

$50 billion: The amount the Afghan government has requested from international donors to be used over the next five years for development.

The country is desperately poor

Over 2 million: Number of Afghans who do not have regular supplies of food.

70 percent: Percentage of Afghanistan’s population that is illiterate.

50 percent: Percentage of Afghanistan’s population that lives in absolute poverty.

40 percent: Percentage of Afghanistan's population that is unemployed.

The increasing narcotics trade diminishes government revenue

Over 14 percent: The percentage of Afghanistan’s population that is involved in poppy cultivation. Between 2002 and 2006, the United States spent nearly three times as much on counternarcotics in Afghanistan than on investing in agricultural systems and helping develop alternative livelihoods. When surveyed, 98 percent of Afghan poppy cultivators said they “would be ready to stop opium production should access to alternative livelihoods be provided.”

90 percent: The percentage of the Afghan government’s spending that is funded by foreign assistance. The lack of private sector investment combined with the growing narcotics industry leaves the government with a weak tax base.

The conflicts in Afghanistan over the past 30 years have caused major damage to the country’s infrastructure. A starting point for development assistance should therefore be to focus on repairing roads, which would provide citizens with better access to markets. This step would also link rural villages to the rest of the country and integrate villagers into the country’s economy. Increasing aid to the National Solidarity Program’s Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, which manages rural infrastructure and reconstruction projects at the community level, would be a way to do this.

The current U.S. counternarcotics strategy should be combined with a development strategy based on the Afghanistan National Development Strategy released earlier this year by the Afghan government. The strategy lays out the government’s goals for economic growth, governance, and security. The United States should also disperse the full amount of aid it has promised. Taken together, these steps could put the United States on a track to stabilizing the country and preventing the further spread of extremism in a critical region.


U.S. Aid to Afghanistan by the Numbers

[adeos amigo]

i dont think S-2 would even like to visit this page

[taimikhan]

Originally Posted by adeos amigo

i dont think S-2 would even like to visit this page

Yeah , i know, it won't be the first time

happened before too

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Its their money we are no one to advice them to spend their mony in Chinese Relaxtion centers in Afghanistan or on to the private security contracters being contracted to protect the Afghan Opium Lords .

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

No wonder the Chinese are best at doing business

[M Zulfiqar Asad]

Something related.

YouTube - Afghan Police surrender to Afghan Liberation Fighters(TALIBAN)

YouTube - Afghan Police surrender to Afghan Liberation Fighters(TALIBAN)

[gambit]

Originally Posted by taimikhan

The United States is once again sending aid to Afghanistan. The country received billions in assistance during the 1980s as a front in the Cold War, only to have it recede after the Soviet Union withdrew. The country was devastated by the war, and in the absence of a sustained development program from the United States, the country descended into a failed state, making it vulnerable to extremism in the forms of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

That is funny...And sad. People talk as if the US was the only one in Afghanistan during the attempted Soviet takeover of the country.

It was the US, not Pakistan, who provided the corporate training to the mujahedeen?

It was the US military, not the muslims in the region, who provided the bulk of the ground forces against the Soviets?

It was the US, not the muslim countries in the region, who provided the funds to buy arms, from AK rifles to Stingers missiles?

So once again, the muslims are absolved from any problems in the ME as long as there is an infidel or a Jew around to serve as a convenient scapegoat.

Afghanistan a 'failed state'? In order to BECOME a 'failed state' or descended to such status there must have been a successful and respected state prior. Was Afghanistan such? Even before the Soviets?

Nation - A people with a common history.

Country - A geographical locale.

State - A politically recognized body composed of members of the Nation that has ministerial responsibilities over the Country.

Failed state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term failed state is often used by political commentators and journalists to describe a state perceived as having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government. In order to make this definition more precise, the following attributes, proposed by the Fund for Peace, are often used to characterize a failed state:

* loss of physical control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein,
* erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions,
* an inability to provide reasonable public services, and
* an inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community.

Common characteristics of a failing state include a central government so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory; non-provision of public services; widespread corruption and criminality; refugees and involuntary movement of populations; and sharp economic decline.

Heck...I say the conflict between the Soviets and US-ME alliance, which included Pakistan, turned Afghanistan into a failed state and that Afghanistan needed someone like the Taliban after the Soviet withdrawal. It was the Taliban with their robes, turbans and beards that best fit for Afghanistan, not Americans with our morally questionable women, right? If the muslims do not want the Soviet infidels, why should they want American infidels, other than to ship in a few pieces of hardwares? So where were the 'sustained development program' from successful and oil wealthy muslims nation-states to the Taliban so they can elevate Afghanistan to even higher level of development? After all, who but the locals knows best for the region? Were the muslims broke from financing the war against the Soviets?

A Soviet 'sustained development program', which Ivan did tried to install, would have given Afghanistan -- Marxism, vodka, The Bolshoy Ballet, dancing bears, waxy toilet papers, long queues at the state run stores, matryoshka dolls, scowling political leaders with insanely bushy eyebrows and huge red posters of Lenin everywhere.

An American 'sustained development program' would surely bring to Afghanistan -- Christian evangelists, neo-cons, Disneyland, breast enhancements for women , hair plugs for men, pornography , homosexuals, militant vegans, PETA, radical environmentalists, country music, Jerry Springer , and a whole lot more schlock.

No 'Inshallah' here, do we?

It is Man, not machines, that either build or destroy. I say America did the right thing when we left Afghanistan to the mercy of the Muslim Man after we gave him our machines to evict the Soviet Man. Let the world see what the Muslim Man will/can/have do/done in the ME. The result -- Paltry Arab aid to the Palestinians but none to Afghanistan. This is by design, not accident or neglect or lack of (oil) wealth to contribute. Each arena serves a purpose and both have been successful so far on the PR front -- blame America for both.

[taimikhan]

Originally Posted by gambit

That is funny...And sad. People talk as if the US was the only one in Afghanistan during the attempted Soviet takeover of the country.

It was the US, not Pakistan, who provided the corporate training to the mujahedeen?

It was the US military, not the muslims in the region, who provided the bulk of the ground forces against the Soviets?

It was the US, not the muslim countries in the region, who provided the funds to buy arms, from AK rifles to Stingers missiles?

So once again, the muslims are absolved from any problems in the ME as long as there is an infidel or a Jew around to serve as a convenient scapegoat.

Afghanistan a 'failed state'? In order to BECOME a 'failed state' or descended to such status there must have been a successful and respected state prior. Was Afghanistan such? Even before the Soviets?

Nation - A people with a common history.

Country - A geographical locale.

State - A politically recognized body composed of members of the Nation that has ministerial responsibilities over the Country.

Failed state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heck...I say the conflict between the Soviets and US-ME alliance, which included Pakistan, turned Afghanistan into a failed state and that Afghanistan needed someone like the Taliban after the Soviet withdrawal. It was the Taliban with their robes, turbans and beards that best fit for Afghanistan, not Americans with our morally questionable women, right? If the muslims do not want the Soviet infidels, why should they want American infidels, other than to ship in a few pieces of hardwares? So where were the 'sustained development program' from successful and oil wealthy muslims nation-states to the Taliban so they can elevate Afghanistan to even higher level of development? After all, who but the locals knows best for the region? Were the muslims broke from financing the war against the Soviets?

A Soviet 'sustained development program', which Ivan did tried to install, would have given Afghanistan -- Marxism, vodka, The Bolshoy Ballet, dancing bears, waxy toilet papers, long queues at the state run stores, matryoshka dolls, scowling political leaders with insanely bushy eyebrows and huge red posters of Lenin everywhere.

An American 'sustained development program' would surely bring to Afghanistan -- Christian evangelists, neo-cons, Disneyland, breast enhancements for women , hair plugs for men, pornography , homosexuals, militant vegans, PETA, radical environmentalists, country music, Jerry Springer , and a whole lot more schlock.

No 'Inshallah' here, do we?

It is Man, not machines, that either build or destroy. I say America did the right thing when we left Afghanistan to the mercy of the Muslim Man after we gave him our machines to evict the Soviet Man. Let the world see what the Muslim Man will/can/have do/done in the ME. The result -- Paltry Arab aid to the Palestinians but none to Afghanistan. This is by design, not accident or neglect or lack of (oil) wealth to contribute. Each arena serves a purpose and both have been successful so far on the PR front -- blame America for both.

Out of so much information you had to pick just this one line of no importance or emphasis & rant about it ??? That is all you could say about the ineffectiveness of US aid & its other side of the picture ??

U had nothing else to say about the US aid dollars going to the Taliban & funding their insurgency with your tax payers money & your soldiers getting killed with weapons acquired with your money then you come to us & ask us to do more, when your own aid is going to your enemy & being used against American itself. U place restrictions on the aid given to us while your own aid in Afghanistan is flowing to the Taliban without any restrictions. U don't provide us with sufficient equipment or funds or place restrictions of weapons to fight the taliban, while your aid money is being used without any restrictions by the taliban to buy whatever they deem fit. Ur country's weapons provided to the Afghan security forces are showing up at our doorsteps & our soldiers are getting killed with them.

Ur congressman / women & senators & taxpayers & U whine about how Pakistan is doing or what is being done with our 10B$ aid while due to your govt policies we have so far taken a loss of more then 35B$ & you provide free money to the Taliban or the corrupt Afghan govt which has shown no progress in 8 years. We lost 35B$+ due to your govt policies & you cry about 10B$ in which billions went back again to your govt. U couldn't make any difference in Afghanistan in 8 years time with hundreds of billion dollars spent & destroyed our economy & getting our thousands killed & still provide free money to Afghanistan & the Taliban, while we get all the restrictions on just 10B$ & the do more ranting from your politicians, when you can't do anymore in the country you occupied with billions spent.

A true double faced pathetic attitude from a so called super power.


And before you had started your ranting on one single line, should have checked the source of the information or article pasted below the post. It has not been written by some Muslim researcher or published at some Muslim website, its written by your countrymen & published at an American organization's website. This one line is the thought of one of your own countrymen.

So next time before you start your pathetic whining, do check the complete picture & source & also do whine about your own govt ineffectiveness & policies instead of just blazing your guns towards us. Sometimes looking into your own self is good to get a better perspective & a new approach to see things differently.

[gambit]

Originally Posted by taimikhan

Out of so much information you had to pick just this one line of no importance or emphasis & rant about it ??? That is all you could say about the ineffectiveness of US aid & its other side of the picture ??

And before you had started your ranting on one single line, should have checked the source of the information or article pasted below the post. It has not been written by some Muslim researcher or published at some Muslim website, its written by your countrymen & published at an American organization's website. This one line is the thought of one of your own countrymen.

So next time before you start your pathetic whining, do check the complete picture & source & also do whine about your own govt ineffectiveness & policies instead of just blazing your guns towards us. Sometimes looking into your own self is good to get a better perspective & a new approach to see things differently.

Au contraire, mon frere...The 'single line' that I selected is very appropriate to whine about. And the muslims might do well to take your advice about looking at one's self.

It is about money, after all.

It is telling that so many want US out of their lives but when a disaster happens somewhere, it is...'Where is America(n money)?' that so many people asked for. And when we, in all of our flaws, failed in execution of those aid, or when our aid is misused like now, we are condemned for being incompetent and everything else negative under the sun. US aid has become an entitlement.

Do you really think that people care on who wrote that piece? No...They will wonder how did it become so misused and more importantly WHO is taking advantage of that money. Well meaning ineptitude accompanying the money is far the better choice than malicious intents, if anything, it is an indictment against the recipient of those aid. Regardless of who is critical of US aid to Afghanistan, people will wonder why are there no mention of aid from the muslims. Doh!! There are none? Why not?

Do not deny that you agree with that criticism from whoever wrote that tripe. You brought it on, obstensibly for 'discussion' and if you agree with him -- you are doing the pathetic whining. I heard a Mongolian yak herder asked -- Why were there no muslim aid to Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal? The argument is that because of US that Afghanistan the sorry state it is. Pure bunkum, buddy. If machines cannot administer a country then it must be Man and who is the better Man to tend to Afghanistan than the locals? If the Taliban are not muslims then what are they? Let me put it another way...Ineffective police work does not justify criminal behavior. Neither is our ineptitude or even if we are neglectful with our money. If we should be criticized for having our aid misused and abused, then why should the muslims be immuned from criticisms about Afghanistan when they are the ones who have taken upon themselves to bear the ministerial responsibilities for that country?

Look at your own source, pal...

In Afghanistan — the world’s fifth most corrupt government on the Transparency International index

Do you really think that the muslims in Afghanistan will be any less corrupt if the money come from fellow muslims? First is the complaint that there is no 'sustained development program' from US, then when we try, corruption on the muslims' side does not help but all the attention is on how screwed up is our effort.

Here is an example of muslim aid when they do give to a supposedly important cause...

SPME: Arab Aid to Palestinians Often Doesn't Fulfill Pledges

"Most of them make the pledges reluctantly, on the basis that the United States wanted them to do it," said Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat professor for peace and development at the University ofMaryland. "There is frustration that nothing is happening in the peace process, and so they would be throwing good money after bad."

May be the US should take that attitude regarding our foreign aid, we certainly are throwing money at the Palestinian ingrates who rejoiced on Sept 11, 2001. We should examine in details the causes that call to US 'Show me the money !!!' and be more assertive and frequent at saying 'No'.

So take your own advice and examine yourself before you sneer at US in creating this thread -- If we withdraw our foreign aid do you think the muslims will do any better? The reason you sneer at US and eagerly grasp at any straws from anyone who can point out the errors of our ways is because you know the muslims cannot do any better. Or probably even worse. That is why the Arabs paid out so little to the Palestinians compared to what they pledged.