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 »
ANNOUNCED BY SCARAMUCCI
Sarah Huckabee Sanders Is New Press Secretary
4 hours ago
THE LATEST
SAYS IT WAS “AN HONOR”
Spicer Staying on Through August
4 hours ago
THE LATEST
FIRST IN WEEKS
On-Camera Press Briefing Today at 2
5 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
HE LASTED SIX MONTHS
Sean Spicer Resigns
5 hours ago
THE LATEST

He resigned this morning, "telling President Trump he vehemently disagreed with the appointment of New York financier Anthony Scaramucci as communications director." Per Politico, "chief of staff Reince Priebus and chief strategist Steve Bannon" were opposed to the appointment, while "Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, and Deputy National Security Adviser Dina Powell" were supportive..."Another White House official said Spicer was gracious while breaking the news of his departure, offered some praise for Scaramucci, while saying he would help with a transition."

Source:
STAFF IS PUSHING BACK
Trump Wants Scaramucci to Helm WH Communications
8 hours ago
THE LATEST

"President Trump is expected to announce that Wall Street financier Anthony Scaramucci will be White House communications director, according to two sources familiar with the planning. Trump has left the role open since Mike Dubke resigned in May, and the President has vented frequently to his friends about the performance of his press operation." According to NBC News, Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus are resisting the move.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login