Here’s a hypocritical and ineffective idea
Readers of the blog know that I am not a real big fan of the war in Afghanistan. That being said, the House appropriation’s subcommittee on foreign affairs decision to cut $4 billion in aid to Afghanistan, but not cut the $110 billion military funding request is both hypocritical and ineffective. I am not sure which angers me more. The subcommittee claims they want to cut aid to reduce corruption, yet because aid is such a small part of the budget for Afghanistan and because most of the corruption comes from military spending, cutting aid will have a negligible effect on corruption.
If the subcommittee really cared about ensuring US taxpayer funds don’t fuel corruption in Afghanistan, it would cut defense appropriations. The DOD’s response would likely be that “corruption is a part of doing business in Afghanistan, so we can’t fight the war without bribing people.” This is exactly the point and it seems a little unfair to single out USAID for wasting taxpayers’ money there. The US is in Afghanistan because the Taliban poses a national security threat to the US (according to the US Government), yet the Government in Afghanistan it is trying to build is very corrupt. How does raking USAID over the coals help fix this problem? (Banging head on desk.)
FWIW, I don’t think aid to Afghanistan will be cut because DOD wants these projects.
3 Comments
Leave a comment
Sign up for our mailing list
Posts by Region
Posts by Topic
Recent Comments
Archives
- February 2012 (5)
- January 2012 (13)
- December 2011 (10)
- November 2011 (14)
- October 2011 (19)
- September 2011 (25)
- August 2011 (10)
- July 2011 (16)
- June 2011 (14)
- May 2011 (14)
- April 2011 (16)
- March 2011 (20)
- February 2011 (15)
- January 2011 (24)
- December 2010 (16)
- November 2010 (24)
- October 2010 (27)
- September 2010 (17)
- August 2010 (42)
- July 2010 (40)
- June 2010 (65)
- May 2010 (72)
- April 2010 (38)
- March 2010 (18)
- February 2010 (32)
- January 2010 (46)
- December 2009 (45)
- November 2009 (38)
- October 2009 (15)
- September 2009 (24)
- August 2009 (11)
- February 2009 (1)
Who we like
- AfPak Channel
- CIPE Blog
- Countries at the Crossroads
- Cyrus Samii
- Democracy Arsenal
- Democracy Dialogue
- Democracy Digest
- Democracy Resource Center
- EITI Blog
- ElectionGuide.org
- Fruits and Votes
- Global Voices Online
- One Blog
- Open Budgets Blog
- Open Democracy
- Policy and Power
- Progressive Realist
- Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Blogs
- Space for Transparency
- The Coming Prosperity
- The Democratic Piece
- The International Jurist
- The Kaufmann Governance Post
- United Nations Democracy Fund
- Zunia.org
(sidenote: what does FWIW mean?)
I agree with you on all counts. “If the subcommittee really cared about ensuring US taxpayer funds don’t fuel corruption in Afghanistan”–they don’t really care, at least not on a practical level. I do believe that Chairwoman Lowey is genuinely upset about the US $$ flowing out of Afghanistan, but I think that she’s aware that they can’t feasibly strip DOD of its funding, so going after a smaller account–in this case, humanitarian aid through USAID–feels like we’re doing something proactive, looks good politically, but avoids the huge ruckus that would be caused by refusing to fund DOD’s work over there.
The House Committee on Foreign Affairs does have an “Appropriations Subcommittee”. The House Committee on Appropriations has a “Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs”. You should know who you’re criticizing before doing so.
FWIW: For What Its Worth
Whoops! Thanks for pointing out that I got the committee names reversed (I have fixed it). I feel especially embarrassed about that because I used to work closely with that exact subcommittee when I was at the Treasury Department.