Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
On Corruption (And Admitting When You're Wrong)
I know think tank researchers, like scholars in academia, are not supposed to admit when they have been wrong about something. But as regular readers of this blog know, I am not above doing that from time to time, in part because the learning process is usually more important than the conclusion at which I have arrived. In June of 2009, I wrote the following in a paper for CNAS:
The United States and its allies must work with the Afghan government before and after the upcoming election to expose and combat the egregious corruption that has eroded popular support for Afghanistan’s civilian institutions.
Yesterday in the New York Times, meanwhile, I said this:
Unless you are prepared to stay in Afghanistan with high troop levels for at least a decade, then an overt campaign to tackle corruption is a big mistake.
So, you're asking, what gives?
Between June of 2009 and May of 2010, when I wrote this paper, I have struggled to determine the wisest course of action for the U.S. government concerning corruption in Afghanistan. From what I can see, there are basically two schools of thought: On the one hand, you have serious people like Sarah Chayes who argue that corruption is the problem in Afghanistan. Afghanistan does not have a weak government, this argument goes. To the contrary, it has a quite effective government: it is "effective" at essentially lining the pockets of the ruling class at the expense of the people themselves. I remember talking with Sarah in Kabul in June of last year and being converted to this way of thinking.
But as I spent more time in Afghanistan last summer and talked to more people back in Washington, I starting wondering whether or not the United States had the time or committment necessary in Afghanistan to really tackle the issue properly. If Afghanistan was going to be our 51st state, then it makes sense to send Patrick Fitzgerald or whoever over to Kabul and let him do his thing. But the reality is that we are trying to leave Afghanistan. So the other school of thought on corruption argues that trying to target corruption in Afghanistan is, like counter-narcotics, the very definition of mission creep. Let's just train up the Afghan National Security Forces and trasition to a security force assistance-type mission as soon as is humanly possible.
I have more sympathy for that second school of thought these days. But I also think Sarah and others are correct that corruption might eventually undermine the very host nation government by, with and through which we plan on keeping al-Qaeda and its allies at bay. So what should we do?
I was greatly enlightened listening to a retired U.S. diplomat last spring who made the point to me that overtly pressing Hamid Karzai on issues related to corruption without first establishing a relationship of trust actually encourages the worst kind of political behavior. Karzai, he argued, goes into a defensive crouch and then lashes out. A better way to approach Karzai would be to first establish a relationship with him and convince him that we are in this conflict together. After establishing a relationship of trust, issues where our interests do not allign could then be tackled discretely. And where we ask Karzai to make what we feel to be necessary reforms, we could ourselves take steps mitigate the risks he would run by doing so.
These ideas made their way into this paper I wrote in May:
Hamid Karzai is, for better or for worse, the United States’ man in Kabul. He can be forgiven, though, for not knowing who his man is in the United States. The United States should settle upon one point person for dealing with the Afghan president, because a healthy relationship with Karzai is the “defeat mechanism” the United States and its allies are looking for in the fight against Afghanistan’s enemies. A political strategy aimed at Afghanistan’s leadership can just as easily rely upon a consensual approach as a coercive approach. But in order for the United States and its allies to not resort to coercive measures, they must first build a relationship with the Afghan president. Amb. Richard Holbrooke, living in and operating from Washington, has unsurprisingly failed to do this. So too, though, has the U.S. ambassador in Kabul. A new U.S. “tsar” for Afghanistan might succeed if he is actually based in Afghanistan, and so too might the NATO senior civilian representative if he is given the full support of the troop-contributing nations. Whoever takes the lead in building this relationship, though, must first convince the Afghan president he has an enduring partner in the United States and its allies and then move on to addressing difficult conflicts of interests.
I hope that all make sense. Corruption in Afghanistan is a difficult issue, and how to deal with it from a U.S. policy perspective is a question about which smart, well-informed people can and do disagree. But I do not feel that overt, U.S.-led or sponsored programs are the correct path forward unless they have buy-in from the highest levels of the Afghan government. And I am not sure that we should focus to heavily on corruption as an issue unless we plan on retaining a very strong presence in Afghanistan well past June 2011.
Really? Is this the only
Really? Is this the only thing you got wrong? I think there's still a longer list of mea culpas...
Exum is now pro-corruption. That's the corrective. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?
"I know think tank
"I know think tank researchers, like scholars in academia, are not supposed to admit when they have been wrong about something. But as regular readers of this blog know, I am not above doing that from time to time..."
I don't recall a mea culpa on your spirited defense of Gen. McChrystal's role in the cover-up of Pat Tillman's friendly-fire death last year (http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2009/11/martial-virtue-and-selling...), concluding with "Stan McChrystal is one of the finest men I have ever known, and I hope I have sons who serve under men like him." (it was good to see you & CNAS didn't throw him under the bus last June ... not)
A viewing of the documentary "The Tillman Story" would be enlightening (it's now showing in DC). Perhaps you could give your readers the benefit of your wisdom with a review of the film?
And you've even got a chapter devoted to you, "He Who Shall Not Be Fact Checked," in my latest "book," "The [Untold] Tillman Story" -- President Obama and the Bipartisan Whitewash of Gen. McChrystal, posted at http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com
I think that you also have
I think that you also have to differentiate between the types of corruption. Extortionary corruption is a red flag that shows that the government does not believe that it's position is tenable and is therefor aiming for the short term benefit of lining it's pockets. The non-solicited bribing of public officials should be seen as an indicator that something is going right. Nobody is going to try and bribe an official to get their way if they do not believe that the official is going to be around long enough to influence the situation. The trick is distinguish one from the other and identify the reasons why one happens vs the other. In this sense the ANP are a strategic liability as they have consitently extorted the populace. Those politicians that are linked to the war lords and receive bribes to provide a service (illicit or not) may be leveraged to further our strategic interests. After the government and society is stabilized then you can work to eradicate all corruption. I would caution that many societies see bribery as just another cost of doing business and that attempting to stamp it out would be a waste of limited time and dwindling assets.
A dear friend died in
A dear friend died in Afghanistan last year (of unexpected natural causes). She worked in women's welfare there and was married to a man in the security industry there. She frequently returned to the US to raise money for her charities. I recorded one of her presentations which included her assessment of Afghanistan. You can find it here http://sep.stanford.edu/sep/jon/family/jos/memories/rosemary.html
Shaking the sugar off, what
Shaking the sugar off, what you seem to be saying is that COIN has failed in Afghanistan and it's time to cut and run. We've just got to find the cover, particularly important because we don't have a leader with the stature of St. Ronnie to exit a la Beirut.
Not clear though if it you're rejecting the sacred teaching itself or asserting some problem with the objective conditions in Afghanistan.
An important lesson in morality as well.
Some forms of corruption are tolerable as presumably are some forms of abuse of women, children.
If CNAS proves boring, your flexible attitude assures a bright future for you in business or the political or ecclesiastical fields.
"Hamid Karzai is, for better
"Hamid Karzai is, for better or for worse, the United States’ man in Kabul. He can be forgiven, though, for not knowing who his man is in the United States."
That's a great line.
And yes you do have the integrity to mea culpa and question assumptions, despite the detractors.
I say this as someone who strives with thee from time to time. And my judgment on DC, is well...Jacobin.
But props on integrity points.
We can leave overseas as we wish, at will, and with no fear of the consequences. The front has shifted back to CONUS, to the exact spot where it began.
And all our hard work only bought them time.
Time to come home. Don't worry, garrison is not going to break out.
The "tsar" or "czar" theory.
The "tsar" or "czar" theory. When one is in knee-deep in shit and wishes to dodge responsibility while "doing something," one throws a "czar" at the problem. Karzai already has his very own "point person." U.S. ambassador. Works for you-know-who. Been confirmed by the Senate. Official dude, with Karzai part of his portfolio.
The "child" theory of coalition warfare. Even though it' s HIS country, and even though the other country—good old sucker U.S.—is spending mega dollars to keep him and his cronies in power, dealing with just any old senior official won't do with Karzai. He needs his very own baby sitter. A go-to guy for those times when he's feeling sad and lonely.
An mercurial megalomaniac who's also a kleptomaniac. A sound partner for successful mission accomplishment. It's a good thing everything's going so well.
I watched Charlie Wilson's
I watched Charlie Wilson's War the other night, and was reminded of Jack Abrams, although consequences, so far, have been very different in the Mariana Islands (not necessarily good, but different). The juxtaposition brought some clarity, finally, to my understanding of "trickle down" economics: it's a system where corruption is the preferred mechanism by which government functions.
NATO achievements in Afghanistan and Iraq make sense when understood as intended by the power brokers involved, who had and have little concern for any of the rest of us, as long as we allow them use of our blood and taxes. Going on a second trillion dollars (in the US) provides a lot of opportunity for private wealth to be skimmed from community resources.
That is wealth more than sufficient for the entrainment of legions eager to antagonize, provoke and polarize, rewarded by the redirection of fear and loathing from themselves to others.
All the attention paid to illegal immigration serves to obscure the abundant presence of bi-national citizens in our halls of power. Who are they, what are they doing, and by whom, in return, are they being used?
It's time to get a new job,
It's time to get a new job, Ex. I heard DSS is hiring, you can put your Ranger training and International relations background to work.
Yer looking at it.
Yer looking at it.
I like looking on the bright
I like looking on the bright side as much as the next guy, but what if a tactful, sensitive policy that keep Hamid Karzai out of his defensive crouch also results in nothing whatever being done about Afghan government corruption?
I can see, as a possibility in the abstract, that replicating American judicial procedures and applying them to an Afghan government struggling to establish its legitimacy might amount to treating the patient by throwing the kitchen sink at just one of his symptoms. We're not fighting this war in the abstract, and the Afghan President is someone we ought to know cold after almost nine years. Is the greater efficacy of the approach to corruption Exum now recommends something of which he knows, or merely something for which he hopes?
Person takes too many drugs.
Person takes too many drugs.
If your a Democrat, you legalize drugs. If you have common sense, you take the drugs away. One way the addict is "happy" the other they get get over the habit. Guess it is more meaningful to keep the voting base happy.
Stop giving foreign aid out like it is candy. There has to be another way to make friends.
If Republicans are the party of "NO". Democrats are the party of "TAX AND WASTE". (party of MO).
Let's send Karai a unified message...........NO MO.
Oops. Me and my pals (who
Oops. Me and my pals (who were sold as COIN experts to justify policies that had already been decided upon) need to start to leave the ship. Apparently the PC-COIN bit we helped sell to Obama isn't working so we'd better position ourselves to say we told you so. I wonder if many people will remember the damage we've done to the country?
Ex, not disagreeing
Ex, not disagreeing wholesale with your assessment above, but let me add an on-the-ground perspective...
Here on the ground as an advisor, I have had a horrendous month in the corruption/mismanagement fight with real consequences. The fact is, we cannot just turn our backs on corruption and look at it as the price of doing business in this society. As an American taxpayer, I find that approach wholly unsatisfactory, since I also know there are potentially billions of dollars fleeing this country in briefcases bound for Dubai. That's my money - I could overlook some of the corruption if I thought it was staying in country, but there's no "trickle down" when the money goes to Dubai.
Beyond my "pissed off taxpayer" perspective that hates to see any more of my money wasted, I also see corruption and mismanagement of US-provided resources as a real detriment to successful security/military operations. Bribes for positions in the ANSF put under-/unqualified personnel in positions of immense responsibility, where their mistakes WILL have consequences for our ability to hand off security to the Afghans. Siphoning off other resources (guns, ammo, fuel) for sale to drug runners and the insurgency also sustains their fight - with the same delaying effect on our turnover. When our Afghan Air Force (AAF) guys take bribes to fly non-scheduled missions in support of the ANA (flying paying civilians instead), it burns US-provided gas and airframe and engine hours that are needed for actual combat support missions. When money for ramp fees goes directly into the pockets of officers rather than back into the coffers for airfield maintenance, we're going to end up damaging an aircraft engine (which the US pays for), further delaying the AAF build-out.
Is there an acceptable level of corruption here? Yes - just as there is an acceptable level of violence. But we can't just turn our backs on the problem. Doing so does have tangible delaying/detrimental effects on the efforts to build security forces. As with everything here, we can't fix it to 100% for the Afghans and we can't devote all our resources to it, but to ignore corruption doesn't get us any closer to handoff any sooner.
"...but to ignore corruption
"...but to ignore corruption doesn't get us any closer to handoff any sooner."
Well, that's what it boils down to, doesn't it? What are the conditions for handoff? We embrace the Afghan way in that those conditions are 95% negotiable, eh?
Remember, our clients have only had to control a few square blocks of Mogadishu to create a Somali success.
The things that we were
The things that we were told, the things that we did, the things we trained and mentored locals to do...
makes me wonder if it was all just fundamental COINness packaged and marketed by modern day McNamara wizz kids with doctorates and bravado
Really, in government there
Really, in government there is no acceptable level of corruption.
You must be American@Advisor in Kabul. Our government has been getting away with too much already. Really ! Ben Bernanke claims that government had no "power" to stop the recent financial melt down(recent interview on the just passed banking rules that make banks hold a 7% capital reserve, yet the banks are still allowed to take large risks). How many regulatory agencies does the US of A have? The Federal Reserve/FDIC has the charter of managing risk in the banking system because the American taxpayer insures the entire system. It depends on how the law is interpreted. How long has government ignored FANNIE and FREDDIE? A lot of the looking the other way on mortgages is due to making sure there is money for low income families. The list goes on and on.....it is really getting old. At the city level.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1effEnDsrM&NR=1
Every City manager I know of gets a five year contract. Usually gets paid a very nice salary. Where do you think the City Manager in Bell. CA justified his salary? By producing statistics for all the city managers in America ! That is how it is normally done to justify "normal compensation". We hear it in the news every time a CEO gets a $100M salary. Here is the HOOT on city managers, there is also a city MAYOR. Niether the CITY MANAGER or the MAYOR is responsible. You hear "NOT MY JOB" a lot. When you do get traction on a city manager, the GOLDEN PARACHUTE clause in the manager's contract pretty much gives the manager his retirement.
Where is the job ownership? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WINDtlPXmmE&feature=related
My Congressman gets $175,000/yr. Many of the Congressional Aids that were brought in to push Obama's agenda get the same (what was it 200, 000 of them). We got more six-figure salaries in government than we need. They all get health care. Shit. My CEO took $65M for himself (that was not his salary just a perk for an IPO), off shored all the US jobs in the company.
They want me to pay for their agenda? That's a hoot.
My anwer is to demand US manufactured product. Stop off-shoring, buy American. Carbon and oil independence, buy locally and American. The US consumer is the most powerful organization on the planet, organize it and there would be a lot of Corporate ass holes sucking wind. Don't like Corporate lobbying controling Congress, buy American (If Corporations do not sell product, you will influence the lobby one heck of a lot faster). You can come up with your own reasons to go American. You'll get a blank look from your retailer! I looked my in the eye of my RETAILER and said, "If you're selling China and the guy down the street is selling China, why should I by off of YOU"........the response was,"Gee good question, I don't know".
RIght now the big discussion is Bush tax cuts. YOU WANT TAX REVENUE FOR YOR ADGENDA? Then make more American taxpayers, job generation by bringing home off shored jobs, BUY AMERICAN Then you can cut taxes and have more tax revenue.
Getting back on subject
Every one is talking about a "New Strategy". I want to hear people talk about ,"Do we really have to be in Afghanistan and WHY?" Going to the Strategy discussion makes the assumption that beening there is justified and that is the more KEY part of the whole discussion ! The game has changed from nine years ago and Al Queda is morphed and spread itself. You poke the black box and it squirts out some where else. Americans are fighting an idea just like we appoach Fannie and Freddie low mortgage incomes, "throw enough government employees and money at it and make sure the taxpayer is content:"
Interesting news piece, but
Interesting news piece, but I can tell you from experience that you have to be Dave Carroll to make it work.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/13/pf/dealing_with_customer_service.moneyma...
Been in a lot of faces of CEO's. Told John W. Snow of Cerberus fame that Robert Nardelli should be back selling 2x4's at Home Depot cause he was no car salesman. Cerberus sold Chrysler, but I never did get my complaint resolved. Been in Macy's CEO's face also...he could care less. Customer service supervisors are scripted too so getting a supervisor on the phones is worth less. Does work to put the CEO on TV, if a local station will support it.
Best thing is not to purchase the product until your satisfied with the service. Seven million people available on twitter, I like that. We just need to use it.
Buy American and you might be about to drive to the factory to touch someone.......they like customer feedback.
Could always make a ditty about Afghanistan......Karsai Corruption. Got nine years of source material to work from.
Too late.............
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8jecnNB_Qw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGkjDf0JIgg&feature=related (different spin)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xzpy626CHA&feature=related (stud spuds)
And the last http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9cZzvQDQTA&feature=related Watch this one close, you might see the future.
Why "Karsai corruption? Why
Why "Karsai corruption? Why not Bush corruption? Why not focus on the people and the policies that instituted an eight year regime in the United States in which all the bits and pieces of our government were auctioned off to whomever offered the highest kickback?
Exum, This post on
Exum,
This post on corruption displays how superficial your knowledge of how governance in the 3rd work actually works.
In many, if not most 3rd world countries, and especially a place like Afghanistan with no real sense of nationalism or national identity, corruption is an essential method of gaining the loyalty of large enough segments of the population.
The tribes have no real incentive to ever submit to central authority sans massive bribes. This is a tribal society. That's how tribal politics works. Period.
Do you really think that if Karzai was corruption-free that he would have any power at all with the main groups outside of the city? Seriously?
Massive bribery and corruption is probably the only way that Karzai gov ever has a chance.
I mean seriously.
I mean seriously. Afghanistan in so many ways is in the same stage developmentally that Europe was in say the 1000s.
Bribery was an essentiall part of politics -- in fact it was essential -- in the US up through the 20th century.
Does anyone actually think government in any major US state pre-WW2 would have been possible without massive corruption -- of the same type that the arm chair theorists today tell us is killing our chances in Afghanistan? Thats so laughable its no even worth answering.
Not with my tax dollars.....
Not with my tax dollars.....
Given Ashraf Ghani's
Given Ashraf Ghani's availability in the Afghanistan of 2001, what was Karzai's attraction for the powers that be in the U.S.? Established connections with wealthy religious extremists in the U.S.?
I am so slow sometimes.
I am so slow sometimes. That connection goes back to the 80's.
The highlight of the 1980s in the U.S. was Iran-Contra: Guns, drugs, dirty money. (And the rootin' tootin', wild cowboy milieu in which Iran-Contra occurred goes some way to explain the subsequent veer to religiosity on the part of many in the Republican party, a replacement of one form of extreme behavior with another.)
No f*cking wonder the Bush administration was so intent upon legislating the sequestration of information about 'national security' enforcement activity. Disclosure as required for due process would expose the hybridization of legal and illegal activity that has come to characterize capitalism as we know it.
It *is* time to question assumptions, to discuss both the types of capitalism and the forms of democracy.
More than ever, 9/11 is
More than ever, 9/11 is coming to look like a product with Brand America all over it.
I think you had it right the
I think you had it right the first time 'round. Corruption remains the single biggest irritant for the population and an easy way for the insurgents to demonstrate how this government is not for the people of Afghanistan (it's corrupt AND it cannot protect the people).
That's just the way it looks to me here in Loya Paktya so take it as you will.
Didn't we have a wonderful
Didn't we have a wonderful relationship with Diem in Vietnam?
Much of our military effort seems focused on building the instruments of a strong central government in Kabul. It's not clear that's what the Afghan people want, but we insist on trying to give it to them. Won't we gain more in the eyes of the people by simply ignoring the national government to the extent possible and working directly at the local level? Wouldn't it be better to have a loose confederation of good local governments than a strong, but corrupt, central government? I think we're trying to run before we can walk in our rush to get out.
@"Visitor wonders where
@"Visitor wonders where elf2006real went "
Still here in the USA, and still keeping it real.
it's gonna take a few months to sink in, but the Shankville PA submission will be the straw that broke Joe America's back.
Watch.
We are Codependent
We are Codependent self-victimizers.
Karzai stole an election to fake legitimacy.
HE IS NOT LEGITIMATE.
We know this, the Afghans know this.
Lacking any legitimacy, it doesn't matter what Karzai says or does. He's PART OF THE PROBLEM, not part of the solution. You may say that well, maybe he stole the election, but he's OUR dog(/bitch?) in Afghanistan. Except that MAKES IT WORSE from the perspective of a counterinsurgency campaign. (Might've been OK in the Cold War, but not now!)
Ghani won the election, Ghani isn't corrupt. Gahni would have the moral foundation to lead that Karzai, for all his ethnic-hat-wearing-ways, does not have.
Karzai is a crook, and WE'RE ENABLING HIM, like in some pathetic codependent relationship.
We can't build and defend a country where there is no legitimate government and where those in power steal everything not nailed down.
The US can't support both the Afghan people AND and crooks who steal from the Afghan people; that way lies madness.
It's time for a break with Karzai.
Well I have seen many post on
Well I have seen many post on different testkings and testking VCP-410 websites but this one is the testking 350-001 best one I have ever seen...I am glad that you have given quality testking 640-802 information to the users :) thank you for posting this.
Add your comment