U.S. to temper stance on Afghan corruption

[mike r]

Source: Washington Post

U.S. military commanders in Afghanistan are developing a strategy that would tolerate some corruption in the country but target the most corrosive abuses by more tightly regulating U.S. contracting procedures, according to senior defense officials. American officials here have not spoken publicly about countenancing potentially corrupt local power brokers. Such a stance would run somewhat against the grain of a counterinsurgency doctrine that preaches the importance of building competent governance.

But military officials have concluded that the Taliban insurgency is the most pressing threat to stability in Afghanistan and that a sweeping effort to drive out corruption would create chaos and a governance vacuum that the Taliban could exploit. "There are areas where you need strong leadership, and some of those leaders are not entirely pure," said a senior defense official. "But they can help us be more effective in going after the primary threat, which is the Taliban."

The issue of corruption in Afghanistan has taken on renewed urgency in recent weeks with the arrest of a senior aide to President Hamid Karzai and new questions about Kabul's commitment to fighting graft. Senior Obama administration officials have repeatedly emphasized the need to root out graft in Afghanistan and have deployed teams of FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration agents to assemble corruption cases. The United States has spent about $50 billion to promote reconstruction in Afghanistan since 2001... Some military and civilian advisers to the U.S.-led command in Kabul have argued for a more comprehensive effort to root out graft and other official abuses, contending that government corruption and ineffectiveness have prompted many Afghans to support the insurgency. "You can't separate the fight against corruption from the fight against the Taliban," one of the advisers said. "They are intimately linked."

But U.S. officials and defense analysts say challenging local power brokers and criminal syndicates, many of which depend on U.S. reconstruction contracts and ties to the Afghan government for support, would likely add to the unrest in Kandahar and produce a higher U.S. casualty rate. "Putting an end to these patronage networks would not come cheaply," said Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who has advised U.S. commanders in Afghanistan. By contrast, allowing some graft among Afghan power brokers on the condition that they agree to limit their take and moderate predatory activities, such as their use of illegal police checkpoints, could promote near-term improvements, Biddle said...




Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090305545.html

[Solly Mack]

1. ....

k/r

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. Ya know...

...I think military engagement is probably one of the most counter-productive means of defeating terrorism (books > bombs) but as long as we're there can't we at least try to do the most good for the most people?

Please?

[NCarolinawoman]

3. It Will Never End, even though our own country is broke;

and we are funding this whole damn war with money we borrow from China.

Or better yet, perhaps we are funding this debacle with money from our Social Security "trustfund"? :mad:

[dflprincess]

4. Am I the only one who sees a lot of irony that the article talks about

(Just think about Halliburton, etal as you read these)

"power brokers and criminal syndicates, many of which depend on U.S. reconstruction contracts...for support"

"Putting an end to these patronage networks would not come cheaply"

"allowing some graft among..power brokers on the condition that they agree to limit their take and moderate predatory activities,"

[Iowa]

5. K&R. Unbelievable.

[dipsydoodle]

6. $50 billion to promote reconstruction ?

Bung money more like it.