4 ms·

That funding must flow through the massively corrupt Afghan bureaucracy before soldiers or police ever see it. Much of it gets skimmed, wasted, and embezzled. M

That funding must flow through the massively corrupt Afghan bureaucracy before soldiers or police ever see it. Much of it gets skimmed, wasted, and embezzled. Many nice houses in the D.C. area have been built with that money, not including the palatial mansions and homes of American defense contractors. >The Afghani soldiers and police are in it for a paycheck I think you meant, "Afghan soldiers and police." Afghani is (fittingly) the Afghan unit of currency. >...while the Taliban are fighting for an ideological cause they perceive to be just. It's not a matter of how many Afghans perceive a certain cause to be just. It's a matter of how many are willing to suffer and die for their cause to come out on top. Even if only a minority support the Taliban, as recent polling shows to be the case, they can impose their will on the majority if they're more willing to suffer and kill. Of course, suffering is easier to endure when you're getting paid.

pseudo0 5y ago
> That funding must flow through the massively corrupt Afghan bureaucracy before soldiers or police ever see it. Much of it gets skimmed, wasted, and embezzled. This isn't exactly a compelling argument for our continued support of Afghanistan's government... We've been funding them to the tune of $3-10 billion a year in defense funding, and the corruption is so extreme that they are failing against the Taliban, with estimated total funding of $300 million to $1.6 billion [0]? That's an obscene level of graft. If 20 years on we still haven't reduced corruption to a manageable level, is it realistically even achievable? > It's not a matter of how many Afghans perceive a certain cause to be just. It's a matter of how many are willing to suffer and die for their cause to come out on top. Even if only a minority support the Taliban, as recent polling shows to be the case, they can impose their will on the majority if they're more willing to suffer and kill. Of course, suffering is easier to endure when you're getting paid. I saw the 13.4% statistic that you cited elsewhere, but I'm inclined to think that's either a low estimate or there are an awful lot of people who are ambivalent as long as basic government services continue. If the Taliban were truly culturally incompatible with the average citizen, surely there would be more organized resistance? From the news reports I've seen, the Taliban typically move into a new area, the local government rolls over, basic services continue, and the average person shrugs and moves on with their life. [0] - https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/taliban-afghanistan https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/taliban-afghanistan
- lumost 5y ago
  Large external funding tends to build corrupt governments due to bad incentives. It's possible that the Afghan government was effectively built to simply appease American advisors and convince them to request more money rather than actually servicing the needs of Afghans. You don't get a renewed 10 billion dollars in defense grants by showing well maintained equipment and a well disciplined army.
- neartheplain 5y ago
  >This isn't exactly a compelling argument for our continued support of Afghanistan's government... I haven't made such an argument. Just outlining the problems.

pseudo0 5y ago

> That funding must flow through the massively corrupt Afghan bureaucracy before soldiers or police ever see it. Much of it gets skimmed, wasted, and embezzled. This isn't exactly a compelling argument for our continued support of Afghanistan's government... We've been funding them to the tune of $3-10 billion a year in defense funding, and the corruption is so extreme that they are failing against the Taliban, with estimated total funding of $300 million to $1.6 billion [0]? That's an obscene level of graft. If 20 years on we still haven't reduced corruption to a manageable level, is it realistically even achievable? > It's not a matter of how many Afghans perceive a certain cause to be just. It's a matter of how many are willing to suffer and die for their cause to come out on top. Even if only a minority support the Taliban, as recent polling shows to be the case, they can impose their will on the majority if they're more willing to suffer and kill. Of course, suffering is easier to endure when you're getting paid. I saw the 13.4% statistic that you cited elsewhere, but I'm inclined to think that's either a low estimate or there are an awful lot of people who are ambivalent as long as basic government services continue. If the Taliban were truly culturally incompatible with the average citizen, surely there would be more organized resistance? From the news reports I've seen, the Taliban typically move into a new area, the local government rolls over, basic services continue, and the average person shrugs and moves on with their life. [0] - https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/taliban-afghanistan https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/taliban-afghanistan

lumost 5y ago
Large external funding tends to build corrupt governments due to bad incentives. It's possible that the Afghan government was effectively built to simply appease American advisors and convince them to request more money rather than actually servicing the needs of Afghans. You don't get a renewed 10 billion dollars in defense grants by showing well maintained equipment and a well disciplined army.
neartheplain 5y ago
>This isn't exactly a compelling argument for our continued support of Afghanistan's government... I haven't made such an argument. Just outlining the problems.