US military

The Wrong Time to Block Aid to Afghanistan

by: Daphne Eviatar Human Rights 1st

Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 13:14

On Monday, Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) announced she would not support foreign aid for Afghanistan until she was assured that the Afghan government had put an end to corruption.


"I do not intend to appropriate one more dime for assistance to Afghanistan until I have confidence that U.S. taxpayer money is not being abused to line the pockets of corrupt Afghan government officials, drug lords, and terrorists," said Lowey, who heads the House State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee. Lowey was responding to recent reports that more than $1 billion a year are flowing out of Afghanistan to elite Afghans outside the country, and that Afghan authorities have derailed corruption investigations of politically powerful Afghans.


Lowey's statement is an understandable expression of frustration. But cutting off foreign aid now is absolutely the wrong approach for the United States to take in Afghanistan.


After several visits to Afghanistan in the last few years, Human Rights First issued recommendations to the Obama administration last year specifically recommending that the United States help train Afghan investigators on evidence collection and documentation and help Afghan prosecutors provide fair prosecutions. Current plans do just that, in addition to working with Afghan officials on improving their own detention facilities and their judiciary.


Lowey's frustration is understandable, not only because of the Washington Post's recent news stories, but also because of this report prepared for the State Department last year that reviewed a broad range of Afghan institutions and concluded that corruption is rampant and growing. Not surprisingly, thirty years of war has undermined the development of reliable and legitimate institutions, and of a judicial system able to keep corruption in check. But to keep Afghanistan from returning to Taliban rule or simply descending into chaos, the United States has an obligation to help the Afghan government develop and enforce laws that reduce corruption and improve government transparency. Given the recent reports that Afghanistan has some $3 trillion worth of natural resources it's eager to exploit, transparency will be critical to make sure the proceeds of those riches don't just get shipped out of Afghanistan like the billion dollars a year flying out of there now.


Although our NATO allies should and will be helping in this effort, the necessary "nation-building" isn't going to happen unless the United States commits to funding carefully-targeted programs designed to improve governance and reduce corruption. Continued funding can be made contingent on the acceptance and participation of Afghan leaders and institutions with this anti-corruption agenda.


Lowey is right that US aid to Afghanistan should be spent wisely, and not indirectly fund warlordsto provide security or corrupt officials to spread as graft. But the State Department and the military's Joint Task Force in charge of detention facilities in Afghanistan are just beginning their work to improve local government enough to allow the U.S. military to transition out of there. Cutting off the funding that will allow that to happen would not only undermine the development of legitimate government institutions in Afghanistan, but would make the United States' goal of eventually leaving the country that much more elusive.

Discuss :: (0 Comments)

Giving Obama Cover on Don't Ask Don't Tell

by: Adam Bink

Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:45

Via David Kaib in Quick Hits, the NYTimes (via the Boston Globe) is reporting today that a Defense Department official wrote in Joint Force Quarterly that it is time to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

In an essay in Joint Force Quarterly that was reviewed before publication by the office of Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, an Air Force colonel, Om Prakash, writes that "after a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly."

Although the article carries no weight as a matter of policy, it may well signal a shift in the official winds. It won the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay competition.

Colonel Prakash, who researched the issue while a student at National Defense University in Washington and who is now working in the office of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, concludes that "it is not time for the administration to re-examine the issue." Instead, he writes, "it is time for the administration to examine how to implement the repeal of the ban."

I don't know much about the military infrastructure or publications like Joint Force Quarterly, except that it is an official publiciation of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen, and as the article says, was reviewed for publication. It certainly shouldn't be treated as a massive breakthrough of an endorsement, but probably shouldn't be taken lightly either. The entire article can be found here, and reads like an Atlantic or NYTimes magazine piece. The author effectively lays out sound rationale with a very scholarly manner of argument.

However we get to a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, I think one step is to give Obama cover to point to as many current and former members of the military as possible- both straight and gay, Gen. Shalikashvili and Anthony Woods alike- and say, "the military supports this." This is one good step in that direction.

Update: Also out today, Harry Reid sent letters last week to Obama and Gates calling for repeal and asking Obama to outline the administration's views.

Discuss :: (5 Comments)
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox