ASG Blog
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Controversy over Karzai Airstrike Ban
Published: February 22nd, 2013
Although 34,000 U.S. troops will leave Afghanistan over the next year, the war is far from over. NATO and Afghan forces continue large-scale operations, with a recent strike killing 25 insurgents. Earlier in the week Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s order preventing local security forces from requesting international airstrikes was met with criticism. While military officials say the ban will not affect U.S. and allied operations, some argue that the ban may limit Afghan forces’ effectiveness.
From ASG
2/21/13
Asking the Right Questions on Afghanistan
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
We need a better strategy for winding down the war and continued engagement in Afghanistan, because if the current strategy continues, we could end up spending billions of dollars ineffectively.ARTICLES
2/18/13
Critics worry airstrike ban will hobble Afghan forces ahead of withdrawal of foreign troops
Associated Press
Critics expressed worries Monday that a presidential order barring Afghan security forces from requesting international airstrikes during operations in residential areas could hobble government troops even as they prepare to take over full responsibility for security in the country from international forces.2/15/13
As Afghan army gets cash to buy its own supplies, some worry about corruption
McClatchy by Jay Price
The Afghan army is one of the least corrupt parts of a society where more than two-thirds of the citizens think it’s fine for bureaucrats to take bribes. Now that reputation is getting its biggest test: access to more money. Billions of dollars more.2/16/13
Kabul vendors of stolen U.S. goods fret about future
Washington Post by Richard Leiby
If a case of soap is pilfered from a U.S. military base here or pinched from a NATO shipping container, it will probably, sooner or later, end up for sale in the Bush Market, a sort of thieves’ outlet mall in central Kabul.2/15/13
Main Hurdle in Afghan Withdrawal: Getting the Gear Out
New York Times by Thom Shanker
As the military begins carrying out President Obama’s order to cut force levels in Afghanistan by half over the next year, getting 34,000 troops out is the easy part: just deliver them to an airfield, march them by the hundreds onto transport planes and fly them home.OPINION
2/11/13
Afghan War Cost: We’re Not Done Paying
Huffington Post by David Wood
President Obama insists that the big U.S. role in Afghanistan is coming to an end…What’s not coming to an end is the gusher of billions of dollars the United States is pouring into support of Afghanistan’s army and national police.2/9/13
How Burr’s bill colors our Afghan decisions
Raleigh News & Observer by Matthew Leatherman
“Crackdown and negotiate” likely framed Obama’s recent conversations about the plan for our long-term military commitment as well as for achieving our political goals. Burr’s bill pushed the White House to shift that balance. -
Asking the Right Questions on Afghanistan
Published: February 21st, 2013
In last week’s State of the Union address, President Obama announced that 34,000 of the 66,000 U.S. troops stationed in Afghanistan will be withdrawn by this time next year. The announcement clarifies the pace of the drawdown, but it doesn’t represent a change in policy. The U.S. commitment to Afghanistan will continue even after combat troops are withdrawn by the end of 2014.
We need a better strategy for winding down the war and continued engagement in Afghanistan, because if the current strategy continues, we could end up spending billions of dollars ineffectively.
Ongoing military operations have been the main driver of the war budget over the past eleven years. These costs will decline as troops leave, but the costs of supporting an enduring military presence will continue.
Of course, troops are just one component of the U.S commitment to Afghanistan. Training and equipping local security forces has been a cornerstone of the U.S. plan in Afghanistan. To date, the U.S. has allocated over $50 billion in security aid to Afghanistan. But the capability of the Afghan security forces is questionable. According to a Pentagon assessment, only one of the Afghan National Army’s twenty-three brigades is capable of operating independently.
A look into economic and development aid is just as troubling. The U.S. has spent tens of billions of dollars on reconstruction projects in Afghanistan that were later found to be unnecessary and unsustainable. The lack of a long-term, comprehensive plan for Afghanistan funding led to an unusual circumstance, Steve Clemons and Richard Vague noted in a recent interview: some years the U.S. spent more than one hundred billion dollars in a country with a GDP of fourteen billion.
Pouring billions of aid dollars into Afghanistan created more problems than it solved — an artificial aid bubble that will burst when international donors pull out.
The direct costs of the war, from military operations to economic aid, are just the tip of the iceberg. The indirect costs — from caring for the veterans of Afghanistan (estimated at $1 trillion) to payment on the national debt — will continue long after the war is declared over.
If the economic consequences were not enough to condemn the current strategy, consider the human cost: over 2,000 U.S. troops lost their lives in and around Afghanistan since October 2001; over 18,000 were wounded in action.
The high costs of the war in both blood and treasure should prompt a reevaluation of U.S. policy towards Afghanistan. This does not mean abandoning Afghanistan, nor does it mean surrendering. It simply means recognizing that the current strategy is not working, and that continuing an ineffective strategy puts U.S. security at risk.
It’s time to go back to the drawing board on our Afghanistan strategy, starting with the simple question of what we hope to achieve. Is the goal to disband and disrupt al Qaeda? Or is it to build a stable, secure nation? The answer may be both; the goals may be related. But articulating our goals is crucial. Uprooting a terrorist organization and nation-building are distinct objectives that require different tactics and different resources.
The Afghanistan debate often focuses on the number of U.S. troops that will remain after the 2014 deadline. This is an important , but we should be asking more fundamental questions about our Afghanistan strategy.
After eleven years and $600 billion, we can’t afford to continue along the current path. Asking pointed questions about our Afghanistan policy will not be easy — but it will lead to a more effective and cost-effective — strategy.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Long-term Plan Unclear Despite Drawdown Announcement
Published: February 14th, 2013
In the State of the Union address, President Obama announced that 34,000 of the 66,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan will be withdrawn over the next year. The post-2014 military presence is still unclear, though the Pentagon reportedly favors a phased reduction, starting at 8,000 troops and declining over the next two years. Meanwhile, on the nonsecurity side, a U.S. government watchdog called for more oversight of Afghan aid programs, finding that Afghanistan lacks the capacity to manage the large amount of funding promised by international donors.
From ASG
2/11/13
Report: Afghans Paid $3.9 Billion in Bribes Last Year
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
Half of Afghanistan’s population paid at least one bribe to public officials over the past year, for a total of $3.9 billion, according to a recent UN report on corruption.ARTICLES
2/13/13
Decision on Afghan Troop Levels Calculates Political and Military Interests
New York Times by Michael R. Gordon and Mark Landler
President Obama’s decision to remove 34,000 American troops in Afghanistan by this time next year represents a careful balancing of political interests and military requirements.2/12/13
Afghanistan can’t handle direct aid, U.S. watchdog says
Reuters by Susan Cornwell
Afghanistan’s government does not appear able to manage the large amounts of direct aid that the United States and other countries have pledged, the U.S. watchdog monitoring funds spent on Afghan reconstruction said.2/10/13
Rural Afghanistan force with shady reputation may grow
LA Times by David Cloud and Shashank Bengali
In an effort to fight the insurgency after U.S. troops leave Afghanistan by the end of next year, officials in Washington and Kabul are planning to dramatically expand a 3-year-old rural police force that has been implicated in human rights abuses and criminal activity.2/11/13
In Afghanistan pullout, Pentagon favors phased reduction over 3 years
Washington Post by Rajiv Chandrasekaran
The Pentagon is pushing a plan that would keep about 8,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan once the NATO military mission there ends in 2014 but significantly shrink the contingent over the following two years, according to senior U.S. government officials and military officers.OPINION
2/13/13
Face reality in Afghanistan
Philadelphia Inquirer by Daniel L. Davis
It is time to accept that we are not going to turn 12 years of a failed Afghan tail into a strategically successful leg by leaving a few thousand combat troops on the ground after 2014. To do so would be to increase the cost of failure. -
Report: Afghans Paid $3.9 Billion in Bribes Last Year
Published: February 11th, 2013
Half of Afghanistan’s population paid at least one bribe to public officials over the past year, for a total of $3.9 billion, according to a recent UN report on corruption. $3.9 billion is twice Afghanistan’s domestic revenue, and one quarter the amount international donors have pledged in civilian aid to Afghanistan over the next four years.
The findings highlight ongoing concerns over the effectiveness of U.S. reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. Over the past eleven years, the U.S. has allocated close to $90 billion for Afghanistan aid, including over $20 billion for governance and economic development.
The effectiveness of U.S. aid to Afghanistan has long been questioned. On the security side, the U.S. has appropriated over $50 billion to train and equip Afghan forces since 2002. Yet according to a Pentagon assessment, only one of the Afghan National Army’s 23 brigades is capable of operating independently.
The story is similar on economic and development aid. According to one estimate, 70 percent of aid to Afghanistan goes to overhead costs, 15 percent goes to the intended recipient, and 15 percent is “lost, stolen or misappropriated.”
The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the U.S. government watchdog that oversees efforts in Afghanistan, wrote in 2010,
“The majority of U.S. assistance to Afghanistan has been provided without the benefit of such a strategy [to combat corruption]. While the Afghan government has established a number of anti-corruption institutions, they lack independence, audit authority, and capacity. U.S. anti-corruption efforts in Afghanistan have provided relatively little assistance to some key Afghan oversight institutions.”
International donors have tied future funding to improvement on humanitarian and anticorruption efforts. The Afghanistan government remains publicly committed to reducing fraud and abuse, but progress seems uncertain.
For example, according to the UN report, the number of bribes in Afghanistan decreased by 9 percent since 2009. But the total amount paid in bribes increased by 40 percent.
Similarly, a recent SIGAR report found that Afghan officials are stonewalling U.S. efforts to track the flow of cash out of the Kabul airport. An estimated $4.5 billion was carried out of Afghanistan in 2011, raising fears of money laundering and cash smuggling.
Although the U.S. has committed to withdrawing combat troops by the end of 2014, continued support for Afghanistan’s security forces and efforts to build economic stability and governance will likely cost billions of dollars each year. Without a new strategy for our efforts in Afghanistan, billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars could be lost through waste and corruption.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Afghanistan, Pakistan Commit to Talks with Taliban
Published: February 8th, 2013
At a meeting in London this week, Afghan and Pakistani leaders agreed to a six-month timeline to reach a agreement with the Taliban. However, ongoing violence in Afghanistan, including a recent bombing in that left five dead, indicates that peace negotiations will be difficult. In the U.S., new reports by a government watchdog suggest billions of dollars have been wasted on unsustainable reconstruction projects in Afghanistan.
From ASG
Billions Of Dollars At Risk In U.S. Reconstruction Efforts In Afghanistan
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
Congress has appropriated close to $90 billion for Afghanistan reconstruction projects, but the U.S. has yet to see a return on the investment. The latest report from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction found “delays, cost overruns, and poor construction of infrastructure projects…[that] resulted in lost opportunities and in incalculable waste.”ARTICLES
2/4/13
Afghan Peace Deal Sought in 6 Months
Wall Street Journal by Maria Abi Habib
Afghan and Pakistani leaders agreed to seek a six-month timeline to reach a peace settlement with the Taliban, the first concrete target set for the long-sputtering reconciliation process.2/3/13
Pentagon Expects U.S. to Retain Presence in Afghanistan
New York Times by Thom Shanker
The Pentagon’s top civilian and military officials on Sunday expressed an expectation, even a desire, that American troops would remain in Afghanistan after the NATO mission ends in December 2014, although they emphasized that no decision had been made.1/31/13
Inspector general for Afghan reconstruction: Problems remain
Stars and Stripes by Heath Druzin
More than 11 years after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, Wednesday’s quarterly report from a key government oversight agency paints a grim picture of reconstruction efforts in the country as military operations wind down ahead of the 2014 deadline for international combat troops to head home.1/30/13
Wasting Away Again in Afghanistan
Washington Free Beacon by Adam Kredo
American inspectors have found that a $7.3 million security facility in Afghanistan remains largely unused and unkempt months after being turned over to Afghan security forces, raising further concerns about United States taxpayer waste in post-war Afghanistan.2/4/13
U.S. Military Suspends Ban on Afghan Airline
New York Times by Alissa J. Rubin
The American military on Monday lifted at least for now a recent decision to blacklist one of Afghanistan’s main airlines, Kam Air, on suspicion of drug smuggling, and it agreed to share details of its accusations with the Afghan governmentOPINION
2/3/13
What’s the Afghanistan mission?
LA Times by Doyle McManus
At this point, deciding on a number is less important than deciding on a mission. We shouldn’t ask American troops — or our Afghan allies — to risk their lives for a cause that can’t be won. -
Billions of Dollars at Risk in U.S. Reconstruction Efforts in Afghanistan
Published: February 6th, 2013
.jpg)
Congress has appropriated close to $90 billion for Afghanistan reconstruction projects, but the U.S. has yet to see a return on the investment. The latest report from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction found “delays, cost overruns, and poor construction of infrastructure projects…[that] resulted in lost opportunities and in incalculable waste.”
Some of the highlights of SIGAR’s investigation into U.S. reconstruction efforts over the past year include $12.8 million in electrical equipment that is sitting unused; $6.3 million paid to maintain Afghan Army vehicles that had been destroyed; and a $400 million for a governance project that actually set back counterinsurgency efforts.
Most recently, SIGAR found that the U.S. $1.1 billion spent on fuel for the Afghan Army — fuel that may have come from Iran, in violation of U.S. sanctions.
These incidents were uncovered recently, but they follow troubling pattern. As the report notes, “SIGAR’s work since 2009 has repeatedly identified problems in every area of the reconstruction effort — from inadequate planning, insufficient coordination, and poor execution, to lack of meaningful metrics to measure progress.”
More than ten years since the Afghanistan war began, U.S. has not resolved persistent problems in reconstruction efforts. As the military drawdown progresses, billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are at risk.
The steady stream of aid to Afghanistan is expected to slow in the coming years. But the U.S. and allies have already committed to $16 billion in economic aid to Afghanistan over the next four years. Costs for maintaining the Afghan security forces is expected to come to over $4 billion per year.
The IMF and World Bank report that Afghanistan’s ability to close the gap between domestic revenue and spending “is becoming a more distant goal, likely to be reached only after 2032.” In the meantime, the U.S. and allies may have to cover the balance.
Expensive, unsustainable reconstruction projects have become a burden not just to Afghanistan’s economy, but to U.S. taxpayers as well. Moving forward, SIGAR writes, “lawmakers and Executive Branch agencies have an opportunity to conduct a strategic reexamination of reconstruction issues.” Policymakers owe it to the Americans to take advantage of this opportunity by ensuring that taxpayer dollars are not wasted in Afghanistan.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Commander Calls for Sustained Military Presence
Published: January 31st, 2013
General John Allen, the outgoing commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, recommended maintaining a substantial military presence in Afghanistan through the summer, according to a Wall Street Journal interview. The White House has yet to announce a plan for the drawdown of the 68,000 troops still in Afghanistan. Also undecided is the number of troops that will remain after 2014 for training, advising, and counterterrorism operations.
From ASG
1/28/13
Afghanistan War Takes A Toll On The U.S. Economy
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
Is it too late to address the effect the Afghanistan war will have on the U.S. economy? Maybe, there are certainly some steps we can take. The first one is ending the war and developing a new strategy for more effective (and less costly) engagement with Afghanistan.ARTICLES
1/29/13
General Seeks Sustained Afghan Role
Wall Street Journal by Maria Abi-Habib
The commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan said he has recommended that the White House maintain a substantial U.S. military presence through the summer fighting season, giving new details about commanders’ preferences as President Barack Obama weighs the pace of withdrawal.1/25/13
US blacklists Afghan airline accused of smuggling opium
BBC
Afghanistan’s largest private airline, Kam Air, has been barred from receiving US military contracts amid allegations of drug smuggling, officials say.1/24/13
No US peace dividend after Afghanistan
Financial Times by Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes
Nearly 12 years after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan began, a war-weary America is getting ready to leave. But there will be little in the way of a peace dividend for the US economy once the fighting stops.1/1/13
Money Pit: The Monstrous Failure of US Aid to Afghanistan
World Affairs Journal by Joel Brinkley
The total amount of nonmilitary funds Washington has appropriated since 2002 “is approximately $100 billion”—more than the US has ever spent to rebuild a country. That estimate came out in July. Since then, Congress has appropriated another $16.5 billion for “reconstruction.” And all of that has not bought the United States or the Afghans a single sustainable institution or program.OPINION
1/24/13
How We Fight: Fred Kaplan’s ‘Insurgents,’ on David Petraeus
New York Times by Thanassius Cambanis
The counterinsurgency cult was more than a fad, Kaplan establishes. But it was much less than a revolution.1/27/13
Counting Down to 2014 in Afghanistan
Huffington Post by Ann Jones
Compromise, conflict, or collapse: ask an Afghan what to expect in 2014 and you’re likely to get a scenario that falls under one of those three headings. -
Afghanistan War Takes a Toll on the U.S. Economy
Published: January 28th, 2013
“The true cost of the [Afghanistan] war is only just beginning,” Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes recently wrote in Financial Times. “Indeed, the costs after withdrawal may exceed those during the war. Choices made in the past decade mean high costs for years to come – and will constrain other national security spending.”
Stiglitz, recipient of the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics, and Bilmes, a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, are no strangers to the concept of hidden and delayed war costs. In 2008 they authored a groundbreaking study showing that the Iraq war, officially counted at $800 billion, would likely cost on the order of $3 trillion.
The same thing will happen in Afghanistan, the authors of The Three Trillion Dollar War write. The direct cost of the war has already topped $600 billion. Ongoing military operations will bring that total to at least $700 billion through 2014.
Even after U.S. forces transition from a combat to a training and advising role, the financial burden of the war will continue. Stiglitz and Bilmes highlight some of the big costs, like caring for the veterans of the Afghanistan war (total estimated cost: $1 trillion); supporting the Afghan security forces ($5 billion to $8 billion per year).
U.S. aid to Afghanistan is also sure to be a significant issue. Congress has already appropriated close to $90 billion — over $50 billion for security assistance and close to $40 billion for economic and humanitarian reconstruction. Despite this significant investment, the Afghan security forces remain largely incapable of operating independently of U.S. and allied trainers. Meanwhile, billions of aid dollars have been wasted on unneeded and unsustainable projects, or simply lost to fraud and corruption.
Congress is taking small steps to increase transparency and accountability in U.S. aid to Afghanistan. But it may be too little too late.
“In all of their nation’s history, Afghans have never seen such wealth or experienced such beneficence as the West is providing now,” writes Pulitzer prize winner Joel Brinkley. “But instead of creating a model program of nation building, all of that has badly distorted the economy and the people’s expectations.”
In Afghanistan, the U.S. strategy has created an aid bubble and made little sustainable progress on the security front. In the U.S., the war has been a drag on the economy, driving up the projected national debt.
“The legacy of poor decision-making from the expensive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will live on in a continued drain on our economy – long after the last troop returns to American soil,” Stiglitz and Bilmes conclude.Is it too late to address the effect the Afghanistan war will have on the U.S. economy? Maybe, there are certainly some steps we can take. The first one is ending the Afghanistan war and developing a new strategy for more effective (and less costly) engagement with Afghanistan. Another essential step is reining in government spending (and the out-of-control defense budget in particular). These won’t be easy steps, but they are crucial if we want to get our fiscal house in order.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Insurgent Attacks in Afghan Capital
Published: January 24th, 2013
Last week’s suicide bomb attack on Afghanistan’s intelligence agency was followed by an attack on the headquarters of the Kabul traffic department a few days later. The coordinated assaults have raised questions about Afghanistan’s security forces and intelligence capabilities, and whether the billions the U.S. has spent on security assistance has been effective.
From ASG
1/22/13
Report: U.S. spent $6.8 million on nonexistent equipment
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
According to a new audit by the U.S. Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the U.S. spent $6.8 million on maintenance for vehicles that had not been seen in over a year, had never been seen, or had been destroyed.ARTICLES
1/21/13
Taliban Stage Attack on Kabul
Wall Street Journal by Maria Abi-Habib and Ziaulhaq Sultani
Insurgents Monday stormed the traffic-department headquarters in Kabul, using the compound to target nearby Afghan police headquarters and setting off a gun battle that continued for hours.1/19/13
Sen. Claire McCaskill leaps hurdles to overhauling wartime contracting
McClatchy by Lindsay Wise
This month – after half a dozen years of hearings, reports, overseas fact-finding trips, painful compromises and some last-minute, round-the-clock negotiating – the first substantial overhaul of the federal government’s wartime contracting practices since World War II finally became law, with McCaskill as its chief architect.OPINION
1/22/13
Time to Pull the Plug On Afghanistan War
Wall Street Journal Letter to the Editor
We’ve already paid a huge price in lives, misery and money, including multiple deployments and suicides…Does anyone really believe that keeping large numbers of our military there will lead to a long-term, satisfactory outcome?1/22/13
Afghanistan’s colossal intelligence failure
Foreign Policy’s AfPak Channel by Candace Rondeaux
[Perhaps] NATO and U.S. officials will finally sit down to hash out what to do next with America’s top partner in the fight against terrorism in South and Central Asia. The White House in particular, might want to consider whether it can continue to tie America’s fortunes to intelligence outfits like NDS without first figuring out how (and whether it’s possible) to help governments like Karzai’s to clean these agencies up.1/22/13
Deconstructing Afghanistan
Foreign Policy by John Arquilla
After more than a decade of nation-building in Afghanistan, with at best mixed results, perhaps it is time to take an opposite tack…This would mean challenging the guiding notion of democratization that has, thus far, cost us and our allies several thousand casualties and about a trillion dollars — to little effect. -
Report: U.S. spent $6.8 million on nonexistent equipment
Published: January 22nd, 2013
The U.S. has provided some 30,000 vehicles to the Afghan National Police (ANP). Since the ANP cannot afford maintenance costs, and likely will not be able to do so for several years, the U.S. has been picking up the tab. But we may not be getting what we think we’re paying for.
According to a new audit by the U.S. Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the U.S. spent $6.8 million on maintenance for vehicles that had not been seen in over a year, had never been seen, or had been destroyed.
The problem, the report concludes, was that the U.S. command that awarded the contract did not adjust the terms to reflect the number of police vehicles requiring maintenance.
$6.8 million is small fraction of the billions the U.S. has spent in Afghanistan. Since 2002, Congress has allocated over $50 billion to train and equip the Afghan security forces.
Still, $6.8 million is not an insignificant amount, especially when the U.S. is looking for ways to cut back on unnecessary spending. Across the country budget cuts are hitting local police forces hard. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to spend billions on Afghanistan aid projects — $28 million per day, according to the Inspector General.
Some policymakers are starting to call for more transparency and oversight in Afghanistan aid. And we are making some progress. For example, the U.S. agency that oversaw this particular boondoggle has already made changes, updating its tracking system and removing over 7,000 vehicles that should not have been on the maintenance list. The Inspector General estimates that this improvement will save U.S. taxpayers $5.5 million per year.
It’s a step in the right direction, but it’s not enough. Eliminating a few unnecessary and unsustainable programs will yield some savings, but the problems will continue until the U.S. develops a new strategy for Afghanistan that links long-term strategic goals with smart budget choices.
