This comes as no surprise; it’s just one of many failed reconstruction projects that have cost U.S. taxpayers millions. And this reckless spending seems likely to continue. The House of Representatives is on track to fully fund the Pentagon’s war budget request of $90 billion for 2012. Included in that request is billions for the Afghan security forces, ongoing U.S. military operations, and questionable Afghanistan infrastructure projects.

ARTICLES
5/9/12
Poll: Support for Afghan war at new low
AP by Anne Gearan
Support for the war in Afghanistan has reached a new low, with only 27 percent of Americans saying they back the effort and about half of those who oppose the war saying the continued presence of American troops in Afghanistan is doing more harm than good.

5/5/12
Obama: End Afghanistan war, rebuild USA
USA Today by David Jackson
Pledging to have U.S. troops out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014, President Obama said Saturday that money used to finance that long war can help rebuild the USA and pay down its debt.

5/7/12
Afghanistan commander: ‘My sound bite is, we’re being successful’
National Journal by Michael Hirsh
Gen. John Allen, commander of U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan, on Monday rejected statements made by the heads of the House and Senate Intelligence committees that the Taliban has grown stronger since President Obama’s surge of additional U.S. troops, and he suggested that “sound bites” from Washington were not helping.

OPINION
5/3/12
Why are we in Afghanistan for the long haul?
Washington Post by Eugene Robinson
The United States has agreed to support Afghanistan’s social and economic development and its security institutions through 2024. Does this sound like nation-building to you? Because that’s what it sounds like to me.

5/2/12
More questions than answers on Afghanistan
CNN by Richard Haass
Past sacrifice is a poor justification for continued sacrifice unless it is warranted. The truth is that while the United Sates still has interests in Afghanistan, none of them, other than opposing al-Qaeda, rises to the level of vital. And this vital interest can be addressed with a modest commitment of troops and dollars.

From ASG
4/30/12
USAID Spent $400 Million In Afghanistan “Despite Uncertain Results”
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
When a boondoggle like this is allowed to continue unchecked, it makes us wonder about other Afghanistan reconstruction projects. The Local Governance and Community Development program accounted for about one-third of total amount – $1.1 billion – that USAID has spent on Afghanistan reconstruction. What happened to the other $700 million? Were other aid projects just as ineffective as this one?

ARTICLES
5/3/12
US-Afghanistan 10-year security compact has loopholes for both nations
Fox News
The 10-year security agreement signed this week by President Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai is filled with fuzzy language and loopholes — and stands as more of a guide than a contract for the U.S.-Afghan relationship in the post-war years.

5/3/12
In Afghanistan, Obama says wars of 9/11 nearing an end
McClatchy Newspapers
President Barack Obama told Americans Tuesday that after a decade of post-September 11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, “we can see the light of a new day” – hours after signing an agreement that extended the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan.

OPINION
5/3/12
Rebuild America, not Afghanistan
USA Today by Sen. Jeff Merkley
There is no question that al-Qaeda is dangerous and that we need to stay on the offensive. That, after all, was the mission that brought us to Afghanistan in the first place. But trying to craft a modern nation-state in Afghanistan does not further that mission. It’s time to bring our troops home.

4/30/12
Finish Off Al Qaeda. Stop Trying to Fix Afghanistan
The New York Time by Eric Greitens
Because many Qaeda fighters were based and sheltered in Afghanistan in 2001, some Americans argued that to make victory permanent we had to not just oust the Taliban government, but also build a democracy, a modern economy and an effective national security apparatus for Afghanistan. It was like arguing that to put out a forest fire, we had to pave the forest.

5/1/12
Get U.S. troops out of Afghanistan
CNN by Rep. Keith Ellison
But with our core mission of decimating al Qaeda in Afghanistan accomplished, is the continuing military presence until 2014 worth the cost? More than 1,900 Americans have died in Afghanistan, and more than 15,000 have been wounded…Instead of spending billions on a war that is not making us safer, we could better advance U.S. national security by providing greater support to people in Middle Eastern countries fighting for freedom and democracy.

5/1/12
Obama Visits Afghanistan, Perpetuates Misguided Policy
The Cato Institute by Chris Preble
A majority of Americans want all U.S. troops out of Afghanistan within a year, and a large-scale military presence isn’t needed to continue to hunt al Qaeda. The organization is a shadow of its former self, and has shifted its operations and tactics to many other places. We are still spending tens of billions of dollars in a desperate nation-building mission; this money could be spent much more effectively elsewhere, including here in the United States.

Australian troops in Oruzgan Province, Afghanistan. Source: militaryphotos.net

The title of this audit report, the latest from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, says it all: USAID spent almost $400 million on an Afghanistan reconstruction project despite uncertain results.

The Local Governance and Community Development program, first approved in 2006,
was intended to help the Afghan government reach out into remote districts, encourage local communities to participate in development projects, and “create incentives for stability in critical border provinces.”

The program was supposed to last for three years and had a budget of no more than $150 million. However, USAID extended the program for two years past the deadline, and the total costs came close to $400 million – more than two and a half times the original amount.

The Local Governance and Community Development program wasn’t extended because it was an astonishing success. In fact, assessments by USAID and others indicated that the program produced mixed results. And an independent evaluation concluded that “although the project had pockets of success, it had not met its overarching goal of extending the legitimacy of the Afghan government.”

The program was also beset by delays and cost increases. SIGAR found that less than half of the amounts awarded to contractors by USAID went to reconstruction projects; the rest was eaten up by overhead costs.

Despite these concerns, and despite difficulty USAID encountered in determining if the program was effective or not, USAID continued to extend the program and increase its budget.

When a boondoggle like this is allowed to continue unchecked, it makes us wonder about other Afghanistan reconstruction projects. The Local Governance and Community Development program accounted for about one-third of total amount – $1.1 billion – that USAID has spent on Afghanistan reconstruction. What happened to the other $700 million? Were other aid projects just as ineffective as this one?

From ASG
4/23/12
How Much Will the Strategic Pact Cost US Taxpayers?
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
The end of the US combat mission does not mean the end of our relationship with Afghanistan. However, we need a new roadmap for engagement—not just a downsized version of the current strategy, but a strategy that is effective, efficient, and sustainable.

ARTICLES
4/26/12
Thousands of US Troops Likely in Afghanistan Beyond 2014 Withdrawal Date
US News by John Bennett
A former NATO commander this week offered a snapshot into the Pentagon’s thinking about just what kinds of troops and hardware will be kept in Afghanistan, offering a window into how many American boots will still be on the ground after a formal withdrawal.

4/23/12
Clinton, Panetta ask congressman to stay out of Afghanistan
CNN
A top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs committee was asked by the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense not to go to Afghanistan because President Hamid Karzai objected to the visit.

4/26/12
Congressman calls Afghan president ‘corrupt prima donna’
CNN
A U.S. congressman barred from visiting Afghanistan over the weekend minced no words when characterizing the incident. Afghan president Hamid Karzai is a “corrupt prima donna,” House Foreign Affairs Committee member Dana Rohrabacher of California said in an interview Wednesday

OPINION
4/25/12
Are we deluding ourselves about Afghanistan?
Reuters by Daniel Davis
After more than a decade of warfare, we have to look ourselves in the mirror and admit that we have lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the Afghan people.
Still, even at this 11th hour there are ways the mission could be salvaged. There is, for example, broad consensus among a number of key constituencies for a cease-fire. The best chance for a viable and lasting end to the war could be conducted in the absence of fighting, not during it.

4/26/12
Insurmountable Obstacles in Afghanistan
The National Interest by James Joyner
While coalition forces have indeed made tremendous strides on the security front, the all-important political and economic pictures are, if anything, less encouraging than they were before the surge began.

4/19/12
An Afghanistan Reality Check for Max Boot
The National Interest Editorial Board
The realities are these: A pro-Western government may survive in Kabul, but it will not maintain strong influence over the Taliban strongholds of the south and east. Western influence will wane severely in Afghanistan irrespective of America’s military strategy there. Influence in the region will flow to neighboring states—Pakistan, India and Iran—with much more powerful interests there than the United States has.

The US and Afghanistan have completed an outline of the US commitment to Afghanistan for the next ten years, the New York Times reports. The specifics haven’t been worked out yet, but if we continue down the same path, the deal could end up costing US taxpayers billions of dollars.

Funding for the Afghan security forces alone promises to be costly. The US is reportedly considering a commitment of anywhere from $2.3 billion to $4.1 billion per year, for a ten year total of $20 billion to $40 billion. Add to that the cost of maintaining US advisors for the Afghan.s The Congressional Budget Office estimates that going down to 45,000 troops by 2015 will bring war costs close to $500 billion through 2022.

Pouring billions of dollars into an unpopular war just doesn’t make sense. The US is about to make a multi-billion dollar commitment to the war in Afghanistan; at the same time we are cutting back spending on important defense and domestic programs. This level of spending is clearly unsustainable. How is Afghanistan, with domestic revenues of less than $2 billion per year, supposed to pay for security forces that cost more than $2 billion after the US leaves? They are not; we are.

Of course, there’s something to be said for making an explicit long-term commitment to Afghanistan. After all, the end of the US combat mission does not mean the end of our relationship with Afghanistan. However, we need a new roadmap for engagement—not just a downsized version of the current strategy, but a strategy that is effective, efficient, and sustainable.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai is asking for the US and NATO allies to spell out how much aid they are willing to contribute. In particular, Karzai has asked for the U.S. to commit to at least $2 billion per year for the Afghan Security Forces after 2014. This is in line with the $2.3 billion minimum that American officials have said is under discussion. Bottom line: The Afghan security forces will cost the U.S. at least $20 billion over the next ten years. Adding the $50 billion that we have already spent, and the total is $70 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars for security forces of dubious capability.

From ASG
4/17/12
Majority of Americans Believe the War Is Not Worth the Costs
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
Public support for the war in Afghanistan is at an all-time low. According to a recent Washington Post poll, 66% of respondents say the war has not been worth the costs, compared to only 30% who say it has. This represents a significant change from 2007, when 56% said the war has been worth fighting, and 41% said the opposite.

ARTICLES
4/17/12
Afghanistan wants firmer US commitment on funding
Associated Press
Afghanistan’s president raised another condition Tuesday for a long-awaited strategic partnership with the United States: The accord must spell out the yearly U.S. commitment to pay billions of dollars for the cash-strapped Afghan security forces.

4/16/12
The U.S. Spends $14K Per Afghan Troop Per Year, But Each Earns $1,872
Yochi Dreazen
A close look at U.S. military statistics shows that Afghan soldiers and police officers are far more expensive than you’d expect. They are paid an average of just $1,872 a year, but the overall cost of training and fielding a police officer is roughly $30,000 per year, while the cost of each soldier is nearly $46,000 per year. the United States bears virtually all of those costs, adding up to more than $3.5 billion a year.

4/17/12
War-zone contractors subject to more suspensions, debarments
Federal Times by Sarah Chacko
Government officials say they have gotten more aggressive in suspending and debarring companies that misbehave or perform poorly on overseas warzone contracts, such as for reconstruction and military support.

4/12/12
U.S. maps out special ops-heavy Afghan war plan
Associated Press
Adm. Bill McRaven, the head of U.S. special operations, is mapping out a potential Afghanistan war plan that would replace thousands of U.S. troops with small special operations teams paired with Afghans to help an inexperienced Afghan force withstand a Taliban onslaught as U.S. troops withdraw

OPINION
4/16/12
What do the attacks in Afghanistan mean?
Foreign Policy by Stephen Walt
Even a fairly rosy interpretation of the event raises questions about how well the war is ultimately going…The real question is whether trying to win is worth the cost, including the opportunity costs. Yesterday’s events may have some bearing on that larger issue, but do not provide a definitive answer one way or the other. It is good news that the Taliban attacks mostly failed, but by itself, that news does not tell you that “staying the course” is the right thing to do.

4/17/12
Taking Uncle Sam for a Ride: How Pakistan Makes Washington Pay for the Afghan War
TomDispatch by Dilip Hiro
As your planet-wide activities become ever more diverse, frenzied, and even contradictory, you expose yourself to exploitation by lesser powers otherwise seemingly tied to your apron strings.
Pakistan, twice during America’s 33-year-long involvement in Afghanistan made a frontline state, is a classic example of that. Current policymakers in Washington should take note: it’s a strategy for disaster.

In fact, public support for the war in Afghanistan is at an all-time low. According to a recent Washington Post poll, 66% of respondents say the war has not been worth the costs, compared to only 30% who say it has. This represents a significant change from 2007, when 56% said the war has been worth fighting, and 41% said the opposite.

The downward trend is especially interesting because war costs have actually started to decrease. U.S. casualties, on the rise since 2005, dropped 18% over the last year. The Department of Defense request for next year’s war costs, $88.5 billion, is a 26% decrease from last year.

Still, we are spending too much in Afghanistan, and getting too little for it. The American public knows this. After spending over half a trillion dollars to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan, 62% of Americans say most Afghans oppose what the U.S. is trying to do in Afghanistan.

The US has spent over $50 billion training and equipping the Afghan National Security Forces since 2001. A recently announced cut in force size will lower future costs. But the US and allies can still expect to pay billions for Afghan security well into the future. Anticipated costs: a total of more than $40 billion over the next ten years.

From ASG
4/10/12
$300 Million Taxpayer Dollars For A Broken Power Plant
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
Boondoggles like the Kabul Power Plant are a sign of where the U.S. strategy Afghanistan went wrong. Surely we could have used those funds for United States infrastructure projects.

ARTICLES
May/June 2012
When America Leaves: Asia after the Afghan War
The American Interest by Rajan Menon
The United States retains various means to help Afghans and shape competition in Afghanistan. Hence post-American Afghanistan need not become non-American Afghanistan. Yet the United States cannot determine how the states of Greater Central Asia conduct themselves in the competition to shape Afghanistan: it will be but one player among many—and a distant one at that.

4/7/12
Lynch reverses field on Afghan mission
The Boston Globe by Bryan Bender
Lynch, frustrated by a lack of progress, is now breaking with the Obama administrationand calling on the president to speed up American withdrawal from Afghanistan by at least a year.

4/11/12
Broke Afghans Will Cut Their Military — And Obama’s War Plan
Wired by Spencer Ackerman
The U.S. will still provide some funding for the Afghans it will continue to train after 2014. But if the U.S. isn’t going to pay for a super-sized Afghan security force, then the cash-strapped NATO allies, who are even wearier of the Afghanistan war than the U.S. is, definitely won’t…But the looming cuts pose a deeper question: why did the U.S. spend billions of dollars building the Afghan soldiers and cops to an unsustainable size?

OPINION
4/10/12
5 steps to better politics in Afghanistan
Foreign Policy by Paul Miller
The United States and United Nations should work with the Afghans instead to push for a grand political bargain that could actually make a difference in the counterinsurgency against the Taliban: a new Loya Jirga to amend the constitution, devolve power, adjust the electoral calendar, change the voting system, and invite the Taliban to form a political party.

4/4/12
Time to let Hamid Karzai kick us out of Afghanistan
Politico by Lawrence Korb
We have achieved our primary objectives of killing Osama bin Laden and decimating the leadership of Al Qaeda. No matter how long we stay, we cannot control the future of Afghanistan.