Aid Winds Up In Taliban Hands

No I am not saying that.

 

How do you propose we do that? (the "properly handled" part)

 

In other words, run their government for them.

 

What you haven't answered is how you propose to spend their money for them, without running their government for them.

 

It's our money. And it's being wasted along with a good portion of our youth. Alexander the Great and the Roman Empire couldn't conquer Afghanistan what could possibly make anyone think the collection of fools in Washington D.C. can do any better? Be realistic.

The Pentagon has still not even tried to account for three trillion dollars that went missing years ago. Donald Rumsfeld admitted 2.3 trillion was missing on national television on 9/10/01, Google it, Search You Tube.

The government has proven time and again it cannot manage our money at home and yet we just sort of take it on faith that it can manage our money in foreign countries?

The point is that sending aid money to Afghanistan is not making poor people over there better off. It is making poor people here worse off. Corruption is endemic to Afghanistan, with graft comprising about one fourth of their economy! Even though it is considered the second most corrupt nation in the world according to Transparency International, we still send the Afghan government billions of dollars in aid and are shocked to find it is not making its way out of the sticky fingers of the officials entrusted with it.

Robbing citizens here to fund corruption over there is not helping average citizens anywhere. We are sacrificing real economic opportunities at home for the opportunity to line corrupt pockets in Afghanistan. Not only that, but American soldiers are being killed and maimed. It is tragic and frustrating how much we have lost and wasted already. It is time to leave Afghanistan to the Afghans to sort out. I am glad more Americans are finally willing to face this reality. SOURCE

 

Agreed. But what will be the effect on the Afghanistan government of us stopping funding?

BTW: I take offense at "trying to justify the corrupt system"; that was the point of telling you what me and my crew accomplished. We didn't "justify corruption"; we did what we could, in our small part of the system, to prevent it. All I'm pointing out is the reality of the situation, and asking if you have answers beyond the simplistic "make it stop."

 

Wrong. The effect is, the Afghanistan government will take money from whoever will give it to them: Russia, Iran, China, etc. Is that what you want to happen?

Actually, I have no idea what was done with information. Remind me some day to tell you about the "cup tots."

Initially, my thought response was: I've already given you an example of what I and my crew did, so your guess work here deserves a great big hearty "bite my big toe." Then I realized, based on the over-simplicity of the rest of your thought process regarding this subject, with no intelligent thought of American interests in that region, that it's not actually worthy of a response. And yet, I've given a response. Meh, whatever.

You're obviously prepared for some of our biggest enemies to gain significant foothold in that region; how will that affect America?

If you're not considering such things, and focusing only on Afghanistan, well, that's why I keep calling your response simplistic.

 

That would include President Bush, since it started with him?

So you're okay with Russia, China, Iran, and other enemies of the US gaining influence and support?

Got anybody in particular in mind?

 

See, our problem with the missing money is this: We (our government) said "plus up the forces, so that we can do battle; spend what you need to make this happen." Then we sent military guys over to work with the Afghans to work the procurements; but those military guys get rotated out after a year, or only six months (sometimes less, depending on the situation). So that means in one area of Afghanistan alone, you had the potential from 2001-2010 for 18 different people trying to work the procurement process. Knowing as I do that stuff that's ordered can take between 6 and 18 months to be delivered, the guy who ordered sometimes never knows whether it actually got delivered or not; and the guy who receives the delivery sees a receipt that has a name on it that is usually completely unknown to him.

Further, the Afghan army is separated into multiple Corps, with multiple regional areas within each Corps. Each Corps may have procurement personnel; each regional area may also have procurement personnel. So now you have the potential for hundreds of personnel working procurement.

Even further, the Afghan police is separated into over 350 regional areas. So now you've got even more procurement personnel.

Worse, some of these procurement personnel -- well, procurement may not be their primary duty, and they end up learning the system as they go. So mistake are expected.

SO - how do we fix stuff like this? More audits and emphasis on nation-building. We were focused on fighting terrorists; we completely blew the part about how to help them stand on their own. Emphasis should have been on schools and infrastructure; we instead focused on building their own military, rather than leave them to disorganized "warlord" tribal bands of armed militants.

When you emphasize that you have to help the nation stand on its own, and implement controls on what support will be provided, and literally flood the process with audits and auditors, then you can effectively control--to a greater extent, anyway--the flow of money and how it's used.

 

China has not been a part of the coalition forces. Until a couple of weeks ago, Russia was not even considered for participation in the coalition forces effort. Until a week or so ago, the Afghan generals I personally dealt with wanted nothing to do with Iran; any "influence" Iran may have would have to have been covert.

What I mean by, "you have no problem with their increasing influence in that area" is: "you have no problem with them increasing their influence, with no counter-influence from America?"

I believe the answer you've given me is, you don't care if Russia, China, and/or Iran gain control there. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I proposed audits as a means to help reduce/control the corruption.

Question: You keep bringing up the traitor thing. No one's arguing that, so why do you keep bringing it up?

 

The only part I would comment on, is the military believing there is an acceptable number of casualties. This is a misnomer propagated by the negative viewpoint of the military portrayed on TV and the big screen.

There is no acceptable number of casualties. The reality is that there will be casualties. If we refrain from partaking in a mission because we're afraid we're going to lose people, then we would never embark upon any mission. We can hope for no casualties, or minimal; but something as silly-stupid as drowning in your vehicle when it rolls over into a river is a risk you have to accept.