Afghanistan Needs More Than U.S. Troops to Survive

While the U.S. waits for Afghanistan to sign a post-2014 troop deal, a new report shows the war-torn nation is going to need a lot more than that.

US Army soldiers attached to the 2nd platoon, C-Coy. 1-23 Infantry walk in line behind a designated mine-detecting device operator at Naja-bien village, notorious for IED caused injuries and deaths, in Panjwai district during a morning operation to find and destroy bomb traps made from IED's on September 23, 2012.
National Journal
Stephanie Gaskell, Defense One
Add to Briefcase
Stephanie Gaskell, Defense One
April 30, 2014, 7:21 a.m.

While the United States waits pa­tiently for the new Afghan pres­id­ent to sign a post-2014 troop deal, a new re­port shows that the war-torn na­tion is go­ing to need much more than a few thou­sand U.S. and NATO forces to stand on its own.

The U.S. Spe­cial In­spect­or for Afghan Re­con­struc­tion, or­S­IGAR, just re­leased his quarterly re­port and while there was “a rare mo­ment of op­tim­ism” when elec­tions were suc­cess­fully held earli­er this month, there is still much that could re­verse the gains Afgh­anistan has made over the past 13 years.

Cor­rup­tion tops that list, of course. Afgh­anistan is tied for last place with Somalia and North Korea among 177 coun­tries rated for cor­rup­tion by Trans­par­ency In­ter­na­tion­al. In 2012 alone, it’s es­tim­ated that half of Afghans paid nearly $4 bil­lion in bribes. And des­pite pour­ing nearly $200 mil­lion in­to help­ing Afgh­anistan col­lect cus­toms fees, a key stream of rev­en­ue, “U.S.ad­visors re­port that Afghan em­ploy­ees who try to prop­erly col­lect cus­toms du­ties have been kid­napped and in­tim­id­ated,” Spe­cial In­spect­or John Sop­ko wrote in the re­port.

Be­cause cor­rup­tion re­mains so per­vas­ive, draw­ing down the ap­prox­im­ately 33,000 U.S. troops in Afgh­anistan to zero or, com­bined with NATO, main­tain­ing a force of up to 12,000 for­eign fight­ers isn’t go­ing to make re­build­ing any easi­er. Part of the prob­lem, Sop­ko said, is that it’s un­clear what the ex­act defin­i­tion of cor­rup­tion is. Joint Staff of­fi­cials have used a defin­i­tion of cor­rup­tion as “ab­use of pub­lic of­fice and private gain,” but that doesn’t al­ways trans­late in Afgh­anistan “where gifts to of­fi­cials and fa­vors for eth­nic or tri­bal pat­ron­age net­works are nor­mal,” the re­port said. “ISAF even­tu­ally defined cor­rup­tion as ‘the mis­use of power for per­son­al gain,’ but found ap­ply­ing even that loose stand­ard chal­len­ging.”

An­oth­er ma­jor chal­lenge in Afgh­anistan is its abund­ant poppy fields that pro­duce opi­um and help fund the Taliban. The U.S.has tried nu­mer­ous ways to com­bat opi­um, but after spend­ing $7 bil­lion and a set­ting a goal to re­duce the cul­tiv­a­tion of poppy by half by 2016, it’s ac­tu­ally grown by nearly 40 per­cent, the re­port said. Afghan forces have tried to con­tin­ue erad­ic­a­tion ef­forts, but with erod­ing sup­port from U.S. and NATO, it’s un­clear how much of a pri­or­ity that will be.

Since 2002, Con­gress has ap­pro­pri­ated more than $103 bil­lion to help re­build Afgh­anistan. Now those con­struc­tion pro­jects are at risk simply be­cause, with or without in­ter­na­tion­al forces after this year, in­spect­ors can’t reach many of the sites due to a lack of se­cur­ity. SIGAR says Afgh­anistan’s “over­sight bubbles” — the abil­ity of U.S. forces to pro­tect re­con­struc­tion in­spect­ors — are, like the U.S. mil­it­ary foot­print, get­ting smal­ler and smal­ler. With Afgh­anistan es­tim­ated to be able to fund as little as one third of its $7.5 bil­lion budget this year, Sop­ko has ‘ser­i­ous con­cerns” that the bil­lions of dol­lars that have flooded the coun­try will go to waste.

What We're Following See More »
WITH LIVE BLOGGING
Trump Deposition Video Is Online
1 days ago
STAFF PICKS

The video of Donald Trump's deposition in his case against restaurateur Jeffrey Zakarian is now live. Slate's Jim Newell and Josh Voorhees are live-blogging it while they watch.

Source:
SOUND LEVEL AFFECTED
Debate Commission Admits Issues with Trump’s Mic
1 days ago
THE LATEST

The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.

Source:
TRUMP VS. CHEFS
Trump Deposition Video to Be Released
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."

Source:
A CANDIDATE TO BE ‘PROUD’ OF
Chicago Tribune Endorses Gary Johnson
1 days ago
THE LATEST

No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."

NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
×