e-Ariana - Todays Afghan News
 Home 
 News 
 Articles 
 Cartoons 
 Feedback 
 Opinion  
 Contact Us  
 An Ariana Media Publication 02/05/2012
 House lawmakers, citing corruption, may block $4 billion in aid to Afghanistan

The Paul Richter
07/29/2010
By Matthew Rosenberg

[Printer Friendly Version]

Lawmakers say they lack confidence in Afghan officials' pledge to end corruption, and are concerned about plans to funnel more of the U.S. money directly to the Afghan government.

Washington - House lawmakers voiced deep doubts on Wednesday about the Obama administration's efforts to fight corruption in Afghanistan, and warned that they may block $4 billion in U.S. aid unless they are convinced it will not be stolen or wasted.

At a time of growing skepticism in Congress about the Afghanistan mission, lawmakers told U.S. envoy Richard C. Holbrooke that they lacked confidence in the Afghan government's promises to end corruption, and the Obama administration's capacity to get the Afghans to do so.

"Despite efforts by our government, and reformers within the government of Afghanistan, corruption is endemic," said Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), chairwoman of a House Appropriations subcommittee.

Lowey announced last month that she would hold up $4 billion in requested civilian aid for fiscal 2011 while her panel investigated the adequacy of spending controls. The move was unusual from a Congress that has rarely challenged administration requests for spending on the Afghanistan mission.

The panel could restore the money in the fall. Even if the funds are excluded from the bill, civilian aid programs for Afghanistan could proceed as planned because of the ample U.S. aid already in the pipeline, said Lowey, who generally has supported the administration's approach to the war.

Lawmakers from both parties criticized aspects of the mission, including the administration's plans to funnel more of the U.S. money directly to the Afghan government rather than to nongovernmental organizations. The Obama administration's two-year goal is to increase its direct aid to the Afghan government to 50% of the total, up from 20%, a move intended to build up Afghan government agencies' capacity to provide public services.

Rep. Kay Granger (R- Texas), the ranking minority member, said U.S. officials need to ensure that the money "goes to Afghan ministries for the right reasons and to achieve real results, not simply to meet an arbitrary goal of sending a certain percentage of assistance through the government."

Holbrooke, the Obama administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, listed several corruption-fighting programs that have been set up with international help, including a task force to fight major crimes in Afghanistan, and an anticorruption unit. He said that fighting corruption was a top administration priority.

"Is this enough? Of course not," he said. "It is a start.... But it's daunting. It's tough."

Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) described a drift in public opinion about the war.

In meetings in his home state, "I am noticing a change in my constituency about the direction of American activities in Afghanistan, and it's not good," Rehberg said. Though Montana has supported the effort, "as I travel around, I see a problem," he said.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D- Burbank) questioned whether the corruption may be too deep-seated to be eliminated by efforts to root it out at the higher levels of government.

He said there may be "a sort of day-to-day graft which is so widespread that a relatively small number of cases at the higher levels of Afghan government may not deal with the endemic problem."

paul.richter@latimes.com

Back to Top



Other Stories:


Driven Away by a War, Now Stalked by Winter’s Cold
The New York Times (02/04/2012)

Civilians among 49 killed in Helmand
Pajhwok (02/03/2012)

U.S.-Held Taliban as Bargaining Chips Draw Republican Criticism
Bloomberg (02/03/2012)

Adios Afghanistan
Fox News (02/03/2012)

Snowfall, rains to end drought, hope growers
Pajhwok (02/03/2012)

No winners in Afghanistan’s war
The Financial Times (02/03/2012)

Plan for early end to US combat role catches Afghan officials by surprise
The Christian Science Monitor (02/03/2012)

Premature Evacuation?
Foreign Policy (02/03/2012)

Panetta comment prompts questions, concerns in Afghanistan
The Washington Post, Editorial (02/03/2012)

The administration’s muddled message on Afghanistan
The Washington Post, Editorial (02/03/2012)

Panetta Draws Fire Over Afghan Shift
The Wall Street Journal (02/03/2012)

NATO members rattled by U.S. combat plan on Afghanistan
The Los Angeles Times (02/03/2012)

The Taliban who may leave Gitmo
CNN (02/03/2012)

Afghanistan fears early US pull-out
The Financial Times (02/03/2012)

'This terrible war could have ended in a month’
Telegraph (02/03/2012)

U.S. tries to ease confusion over Afghan plans
Reuters (02/03/2012)

'Substantial’ British troop pull-out from Afghanistan planned for early 2013
Telegraph (02/03/2012)

In winding down war, a fundamentally different challenge in Afghanistan than in Iraq
The Washington Post (02/03/2012)

To the Afghan Exits
The Wall Street Journal (02/03/2012)

Romney Criticizes Afghan Pullout Plan, but Obama Is Eager for the Debate
The New York Times (02/03/2012)

50pc of US aid to be used in 2 years: Zakhilwal
Pajhwok (02/03/2012)

Is Israel preparing to attack Iran?
Reuters (02/02/2012)

Plan to scale back U.S. Afghan role worries, surprises
Reuters (02/02/2012)

U.S., NATO seek to clarify Panetta comments on ending Afghan mission
The Washington Post (02/02/2012)

Courting Disaster In Afghanistan
The Weekly Standard (02/02/2012)

The Hard Way Out of Afghanistan
The New York Times (02/02/2012)

"Peace with Honour" is Another Way of Saying Defeat
The Huffington Post (02/02/2012)

The Empire’s graveyard
Khaleej Times (02/02/2012)

Sacrifices in vain on the Afghanistan war path
ABC (02/02/2012)

Reading the Taliban
The Economist (02/02/2012)


Back to Top