Us Troop Presence In Afghanistan: Fueling Corruption Or Necessary Evil?

The presence of US troops in Afghanistan has been linked to an increase in corruption in the country. The US government's response to corruption in Afghanistan has been criticised as ineffective and, at times, counterproductive.

US anti-corruption efforts in Afghanistan have included the creation of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) in 2008, which is tasked with providing independent and objective oversight of Afghanistan reconstruction projects and activities. Another initiative is the Combined Joint Interagency Task Force (CJIATF) Shafafiyat, which was developed to coordinate anti-corruption efforts between various groups within the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

Despite these efforts, corruption in Afghanistan is still a widespread and growing problem. Transparency International's 2023 Corruption Perceptions Index ranks the country 162nd out of 180 countries.

The influx of US aid money into Afghanistan has been identified as a key factor contributing to corruption. US officials have been accused of turning a blind eye to graft and even fuelling corruption by doling out vast sums of money with limited oversight. The scale of corruption in Afghanistan has been described as an unintended result of swamping the war zone with more aid and defence contracts than the impoverished country could absorb.

In addition to financial aid, the United States has also been criticised for its alliances with Afghan warlords, many of whom had committed war crimes and human rights abuses. By bringing these warlords into government positions, the US inadvertently undermined the legitimacy of the Afghan government and strengthened popular support for the insurgency.

Furthermore, the US response to corruption in Afghanistan has been characterised by a lack of coordination and inconsistent political will. US agencies have been slow to acknowledge the systemic and entrenched nature of corruption in the country, delaying their awareness of how it threatened core US goals.

Overall, while there have been some positive steps taken by the US to address corruption in Afghanistan, the impact of these efforts has been limited due to various factors, including a lack of oversight, ineffective policies, and counterproductive alliances.

US funding of warlords and other unsavoury characters

The US has been accused of inadvertently funding warlords and other unsavoury characters in Afghanistan. A 2010 report by the House Subcommittee on National Security, titled "Warlord, Inc", revealed that the Pentagon's system of outsourcing to private companies the task of moving supplies in Afghanistan, and leaving it to them to provide their own security, was inadvertently lining the pockets of warlords and other unsavoury characters. The report found that the US was indirectly paying tens of millions of dollars in protection money to Afghan warlords, and potentially to the Taliban, to secure convoys carrying supplies to US troops in Afghanistan.

The report also revealed that the US was giving money to Afghan trucking companies, who would then pay for their own protection. This fuelled what the report described as a "shadowy network of warlords, strongmen and corrupt Afghan officials". The chairman of the subcommittee, John Tierney, called this "a protection racket in Afghanistan that would make Tony Soprano proud".

The report further revealed that there was little to no oversight over the contracts, with the US Department of Defense having "little to no visibility into what happens to the trucks carrying US supplies between the time they leave the gate to the time they arrive at their destination".

The US has also been accused of funding warlords and other unsavoury characters through its counterterrorism efforts. In the early years of the war in Afghanistan, the US turned to Afghan warlords for help in defeating al-Qaeda and the Taliban. However, these warlords were often corrupt and committed human rights abuses, which fuelled resentment and undermined efforts to foster good governance.

In addition, the US has been accused of funding warlords and other unsavoury characters through its contracting practices. A 2013 report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction found that corruption was a major impediment to the process of stabilising and reconstructing Afghanistan. The report found that corruption had resulted in the loss of billions of dollars in aid money and had severely debilitated the nation's military and police.

Overall, while the US has taken some steps to address corruption in Afghanistan, it has also been accused of inadvertently funding warlords and other unsavoury characters through its contracting practices, counterterrorism efforts, and lack of oversight.

The US's failure to acknowledge the systemic nature of corruption in Afghanistan

Firstly, the US's slow recognition of the systemic and entrenched nature of corruption in Afghanistan delayed their awareness of how corruption threatened core US goals. This delay resulted in a lack of coherent and effective anti-corruption strategies. While the US eventually established organizations and conducted studies to address different aspects of corruption, their initial neglect allowed corruption to become pervasive and entrenched.

Secondly, the US's partnership with Afghan warlords, many of whom had committed war crimes and human rights abuses, further undermined their credibility and efforts to combat corruption. By allying with these warlords, the US inadvertently signaled to the Afghan population that they tolerated corruption and other abuses, thereby undercutting their own credibility.

Thirdly, the influx of tens of billions of dollars into the Afghan economy, combined with limited spending capacity and poor oversight by the Afghan government, created vast opportunities for corruption. This was further exacerbated by the pressure to spend budgets quickly and the multiple layers of subcontractors beyond the reach of contract monitors. As a result, substantial US funds ended up in the hands of insurgent groups and abusive warlords, strengthening their power and undermining the legitimacy of the Afghan government.

Finally, the US's focus on short-term counterterrorism and political stability goals often took precedence over strong anti-corruption actions. Policymakers believed that taking a hard stand against corruption would impose unaffordable costs on their ability to achieve security and political goals. However, by repeatedly allowing these short-term priorities to trump anti-corruption efforts, the US ultimately allowed corruption to become so pervasive that it threatened the entire security and reconstruction mission in Afghanistan.

In conclusion, the US's failure to acknowledge the systemic nature of corruption in Afghanistan led to a delayed response, partnerships with corrupt warlords, a flood of money that fueled corruption, and a lack of coherent anti-corruption strategies. These factors collectively hindered the US mission and allowed corruption to become a significant threat to their goals in the country.

The US's failure to adequately monitor aid money

The US has been aware of the systemic and entrenched nature of corruption in Afghanistan since at least 2008, when SIGAR was created. However, the US was slow to acknowledge the issue, which delayed its awareness of how corruption threatened core US goals.

The US has also been criticised for its lack of oversight and poor contracting practices, which have resulted in US funds finding their way to insurgent groups. The US has also been accused of lacking the political will to address the issue, instead prioritising short-term counterterrorism and political stability over strong anti-corruption actions.

The US has also been criticised for its overreliance on contractors in Afghanistan, which has led to a lack of robust oversight. The US has relied on contractors to implement aid projects and address workforce shortfalls. However, the use of contractors has raised concerns about fraud, waste, and mismanagement.

The US has also been criticised for channelling much of its aid "off-budget", which has weakened the ability of the Afghan state to control resources and led to donor duplication and fuelled corruption.

The US has also been criticised for its overreliance on international technical advisors to build Afghan capacity, which may have undermined these efforts. Technical advisors are expensive and can be difficult to supervise. They may also fail to report evidence of corruption and may impose their own vision on institutions rather than training Afghans.

The US has also been criticised for failing to standardise Afghan salaries and work within Afghan Government staffing constraints, which has resulted in brain drain from Afghan institutions and made it harder to build Afghan capacity.

Overall, the US's failure to adequately monitor aid money has contributed to the systemic corruption in Afghanistan and undermined US efforts in the country.

The US's prioritisation of building up the number of fielded Afghan forces

The US prioritization of building up the number of fielded Afghan forces was a strategy that ultimately backfired. The idea was that in a fragile security environment like Afghanistan, building up the security forces should be the top priority, and that vital governance reforms could wait until enough security had been established.

However, this approach failed to recognize the role that corruption and poor governance were playing in fueling insecurity and providing recruits and resources to a resurgent Taliban. The US continued to arm and pour resources into a security sector riddled with patronage networks, and as a result, the security situation continued to deteriorate.

Over time, the ever-increasing corruption and predation by the Afghan government ground down the ability of dedicated security professionals to build a sustainable security sector. Reliable logistics and supplies for troops could not get off the ground because contracts were riddled with kickbacks (if they were fulfilled at all) and because some weapons, ammunition, food, and other necessities were diverted for personal gain. A corrupt personnel system meant promotions and key jobs went to politically connected Afghans or those who paid bribes rather than those most willing and able to fight.

Troops often faced battles knowing they may not be fed or paid because money and resources were being siphoned off. If they were wounded, they had to bribe medical staff for care and then pay for their food and medical supplies out of their own pockets. If they died, their widows would probably not receive their pensions without bribes or connections, leaving their families destitute. All of these problems degraded the ability of the Afghan government to hire, supply, and retain a competent force willing and able to fight.

The US's focus on building up the number of fielded Afghan forces without addressing the underlying issues of corruption and poor governance ultimately contributed to the collapse of the Afghan security forces and the triumph of the Taliban.

The US's failure to adequately address corruption in the contracting industry

• Lack of oversight: The US injected tens of billions of dollars into the Afghan economy, but poor oversight and contracting practices led to increased opportunities for corruption. The US military and civilian agencies lacked the capacity to effectively monitor the assistance provided.
• Delayed recognition of systemic corruption: The US was slow to acknowledge the systemic and entrenched nature of corruption in Afghanistan, which delayed its understanding of how corruption threatened core US goals.
• Alliances with malign power brokers: The US allied with Afghan warlords, many of whom had committed war crimes and human rights abuses. These alliances undermined the legitimacy of the Afghan government and gave the impression that the US tolerated corruption.
• Failure to prioritize anti-corruption efforts: The US repeatedly allowed short-term counterterrorism and political stability priorities to take precedence over strong anti-corruption actions.
• Lack of a coherent approach: The lack of coherence in the US approach to corruption undermined its efforts to fight it.
• Political nature of solutions: The US failed to recognize that solutions to endemic corruption are fundamentally political, requiring high-level political will and commitment.
• Inadequate monitoring of assistance: The US failed to effectively monitor the assistance it provided, allowing funds to be diverted to insurgent groups and abusive warlords.
• Subcontracting practices: The practice of subcontracting led to construction projects with little to no oversight, resulting in colossal waste and unusable infrastructure.
• Inadequate vetting of security providers: The US continued to rely on private security contractors despite reports of their involvement in bribery, extortion, and support for the Taliban.

Frequently asked questions