President Hamid Karzai? His CIA-connected brother?
Joanna Nathan, writing at Foreign Policy, reports that the media present Afghanistan's corruption as occurring "despite the best efforts of American paymasters" though in fact it's "because of the very structure of an intervention emphasizing co-option over accountability."
The US seems to believe it's impractical to operate with clean hands.
The ineffective hypocrisy of the U.S. government demanding anti-corruption action even as elements of it pay and protect some of the same figures demonstrates a lack of seriousness and fuels discontent. The United States has had an enormous hand in picking the post-2001 economic winners and embedding them at the heart of the state amidst a climate of impunity.
If a militia that works with U.S. personnel in Kandahar can kill the province's police chief in the center of town (as happened in June 2009) and face no apparent consequences what does this say to the local population about the U.S.'s commitment to rule of law? About their personal safety?
If gaudy new mansions built in the local "narco-tecture" style are rented for thousands a month by U.S. contractors, UN agencies, foreign embassies and even rule of law projects, what does that say of the Western commitment to accountability?
Imagine the extent to which this complicates the decision President Obama faces about expanding the American presence in Afghanistan.
... Before the U.S. administration is in any real position to make demands of the Afghan government, it needs to get its own act together. Over-reliance on expensive private contractors needs to be severely curtailed with the focus put on injecting money through Afghan government systems in a way that strengths local institutions rather than subverts them. The measure of effectiveness needs to be on impact on the ground rather than the sheer amounts poured in. Overarching this must be a cohesive approach across U.S. government agencies as to who is being engaged and ensuring that that no one has impunity.
Nathan was interviewed this morning on NPR about the US's role in widespread corruption and the fragmentation of the military throughout Afganistan.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post and the New York Times both report that a key figure in President Obama's decision-making team is against an increase in troops. The issue? Corruption.
The U.S. ambassador in Kabul sent two classified cables to Washington in the past week expressing deep concerns about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan until President Hamid Karzai's government demonstrates that it is willing to tackle the corruption and mismanagement that has fueled the Taliban's rise, senior U.S. officials said.
Karl W. Eikenberry's memos, sent as President Obama enters the final stages of his deliberations over a new Afghanistan strategy, illustrated both the difficulty of the decision and the deepening divisions within the administration's national security team. After a top-level meeting on the issue Wednesday afternoon -- Obama's eighth since early last month -- the White House issued a statement that appeared to reflect Eikenberry's concerns.
