Archive

ShareThis Page
Billions wasted on Afghanistan reconstruction effort, watchdog says | TribLIVE.com
News

Billions wasted on Afghanistan reconstruction effort, watchdog says

Tribune-Review
| Tuesday, March 29, 2016 11:00 p.m.
PTRsopko01033016
John C. Schisler | Tribune-Review
U.S. taxpayers have lost “billions” of dollars over rebuilding Afghanistan, said John Sopko, special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction. Sopko, who spoke with Trib editors and reporters for about 45 minutes, plans to talk about corruption in Afghanistan at the University of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at noon Wednesday.
PTRsopko02033016
John C. Schisler | Tribune-Review
U.S. taxpayers have lost “billions” of dollars over rebuilding Afghanistan, said John Sopko, special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction. Sopko, who spoke with Trib editors and reporters for about 45 minutes, plans to talk about corruption in Afghanistan at the University of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at noon Wednesday.
PTRsopko03033016
John C. Schisler | Tribune-Review
U.S. taxpayers have lost “billions” of dollars over rebuilding Afghanistan, said John Sopko, special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction. Sopko, who spoke with Trib editors and reporters for about 45 minutes, plans to talk about corruption in Afghanistan at the University of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at noon Wednesday.

American taxpayers have lost “billions” of dollars by pouring money into rebuilding Afghanistan with little planning or accountability, the government’s top watchdog for the region told the Tribune-Review on Tuesday.

The problem seems to stem from the United States’ lack of preparation rather than Afghanistan’s culture, said John Sopko, special inspector general for Afghanistan Reconstruction.

“The corruption is probably as bad as it was before,” Sopko told the Trib’s editorial board. “We didn’t help it any by pouring that much money in so quickly without really thinking too hard about what the impact was going to be on the culture, the economy and the corruption. So we made some serious mistakes early on.”

Sopko, who spoke with Trib editors and reporters for about 45 minutes, plans to talk about corruption in Afghanistan at the University of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at noon Wednesday.

Federal aid workers in Afghanistan need to understand the local context for their projects better, said Jennifer Murtazashvili, a Pitt political science professor who worked at the U.S. Agency for International Development.

“Money is not the solution,” she said. “It’s painful for people to hear … just seeing the waste and abuse, designing billion-dollar programs without thinking about how you can possibly oversee these resources, and then blaming the Afghans because they’re corrupt.”

Among people concerned about government waste, Sopko has reached rock-star status for his frank talk and reports highlighting billions of dollars that have been misspent out of the $113 billion that Congress has appropriated for rebuilding Afghanistan since 2002.

Among other things, Sopko found that the Defense Department spent $43 million to build a compressed natural gas station in remote northern Afghanistan, and that more than a third of the Pentagon’s building projects are so flawed, they could collapse.

He reported in January that despite spending $488 million, the government has shown “limited progress overall” at developing Afghanistan’s oil, gas and minerals industries.

Stories about military commanders simply handing out suitcases of cash to stop the fighting are not myth, he said.

“What we’re seeing are problems that are bigger than Afghanistan,” Sopko said. “I just want to fix things, and we really do need to fix how the government works.”

The United States has committed to a 10-year reconstruction program with billions of dollars in spending to come, so our nation must do better, Sopko said. He advocates for pursuing smaller projects with local involvement and closer accountability. Military and aid workers should rethink projects in remote, dangerous areas if they cannot directly oversee them or gain access to those areas.

For now, security remains the biggest concern, Sopko said. The Afghan unity government faces threats from insurgents, a poor economy, rampant corruption and a cacophony of outside advisers. Without continued U.S. support, he said, the government likely would fall.

“The security situation is deteriorating,” he said. “That’s the No. 1 issue because it impacts everything else. If the security goes, all of the reconstruction goes.”

Andrew Conte is a member of the Tribune-Review investigations team. Reach him at 412-320-7835 or andrewconte@tribweb.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.