Mediaboss Marketing

Afghanistan experienced a weekend of carnage as scores died in a series of Taliban attacks across the country, according to local officials. There was also one incident of alleged friendly fire reported on an air base in the north.

Qaysardistrict in northern Faryab province is on the verge of falling to the Taliban Sunday, news agencies reported.

Heavy clasheswere reportedin the center of the district and the village of Kohi, the last remaining areas still controlled by the government.

Three officials told dpa the Taliban were able to capture both the police headquarters and the municipality building one kilometer (0.6 miles) from the center of the district.

The violence was initiated bya car bomb thatdetonated outsidedistrict police headquarters the day before.

Qaysar district governor Abdul Baqi Hashimi reported at least ten members of the Afghan security forces died in the blast. A different local official placed the number of dead closer to 30.

At least 20 additional security forces personnel were captured in the attack, which was followed by heavy clashes.An additional 18 were wounded.

The surge in violence comes as the US military continues to withdraw its remaining 2,500 troops from Afghanistan

Saidullah Nuristani, the provincial counselor or Nuristan to the east of the capital Kabul, reported government forces had abandoned the Doab district to the TalibanSaturdayfollowing 20 days of resistance.

The Taliban blocked the supply routes into Doab,forcingthe government to evacuate in a deal mediated by tribal elders.

Ismail Ateekan, a member of parliament representing the province, told dpa that without food and ammunition, the Afghan security forces had no choice but to flee. Theywere not met with resistance when they did.

Doab was the third district to fall to the Taliban since Thursday night. Two districts in southern Zabul and Uruzgan provinces fell late on Friday.

Also on Saturday, 11 civilians including three children were killed when the vehicle they were traveling in struck a landmine in the northern province of Bagdis.

The governor of the province, Husamudim Shams, blamed the Taliban for the attack on the vehicle as it was en route to the city of Qala-e-Naw. The Taliban did not immediately claim responsibility for the incident.

The attack occurred hours ahead of a scheduled meeting between senior Taliban leaders and UN officials in Qatar to discuss the so-called peace process and security for diplomats and aid workers.

Friday night, the Taliban killed at least six policemen including two police commanders in the northern Baghlan province, according to provincial police spokesman Ahmad Javid Basharat. Several others were wounded in the offensive launched on Julga district at midnight, a provincial counsilor, Firuzuddin Aimaq, said.

Also in the north Friday,13 pro-government fighters, including a key commander, were killed by the Afghan air force as they returned to a base in the Kohistan districtof Badakhshan provincefollowing an operation against the Taliban. Several others were wounded.

A member of parliament, Zabihullah Atiq, said the incident thatkilled Commander Ashur was a mistake. Atiq said one victim later succumbed to his wounds while another victim of the airstrike remains in critical condition.

The Taliban has intensified its attacks on provincial capitals, districts, bases and checkpoints across Afghanistan.Rahmatullah Andar, a spokesman for the national security council in Afghanistan, told dpa the Taliban have carried out 1,455 attacks sinceinternational forces began to withdraw.

Rohullah Ahmadzai, aspokesman for the Afghan Defense Ministry, sought to downplay the Taliban's conquests. Hesaid military plans are being made to neutralize the Taliban.

A handover ceremony to Afghan Defense Forces at Mike Spann Camp in Mazar-i-Sharif on May 5

Since the US and NATO officially withdrew from Afghanistan on May 1, seven districts have fallen to the Taliban.

International forces are set to completely withdraw from Afghanistan by September 11.

In April, the UN said almost 1,800 Afghan civilians were either killed or wounded in the fighting between government forces and the Taliban between January and March of 2021.

Tens of thousands of Afghans have been displaced by the fighting in recent weeks.

The "Islamic State" (IS) armed group is also active in Afghanistan.

ar/mm (dpa, Reuters)

Read the original here:
Afghanistan: Several killed in attacks blamed on Taliban - DW (English)

With the U.S. troop withdrawal well under way, the United States on Friday announced more than $266 million in new humanitarian aid for Afghanistan as part of what it called an enduring U.S. commitment to the war-torn country.

The announcement comes amid unrelenting violence and a stalled peace process that are fueling fears that the departure of U.S.-led international forces is putting Afghanistan on a path to all-out civil war that could restore Taliban rule two decades after the Islamists were driven from power.

Officials of the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden, who ordered an end to the 20-year U.S. troop presence by Sept. 11, have vowed to continue U.S. military and civilian aid to Kabul. But they warned it could be suspended if there is backtracking on progress made in human rights, especially those of women and girls.

As the United States withdraws military forces from Afghanistan, our enduring commitment is clear. We remain engaged through our full diplomatic, economic, and assistance toolkit to support the peaceful, stable future the Afghan people want and deserve, the State Department said in a statement.

The $266 million in new assistance brings to nearly $3.9 billion the total amount of such aid provided by the United States since 2002, the statement said.

The funds will help support some of the estimated 18 million Afghans in need, including more than 4.8 million who are internally displaced, 115,000 of whom have been driven from their homes by fighting this year alone, it said.

The funds, it continued, will go to providing shelter, job opportunities, basic healthcare, emergency food, water, sanitation, and hygienic services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

It also will support protection programs for the most vulnerable Afghans, including women and girls facing particular risks, including gender-based violence, it said.

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Here is the original post:
U.S. announces more than $266 million in new Afghanistan aid - Reuters

The withdrawal of U.S. and NATO troops from Afghanistan has made many Afghans fearful of the Talibans return to power, prompting the countrys last remaining Jew to make plans to leave as soon as possible.

God willing, I cannot say seven to eight months, but I will definitely leave by the time the Taliban come, said Zebulon Simentov, 62, who lives in Kabul.

The Taliban have increased their attacks on government-controlled areas in recent weeks, just as the United States and its NATO allies started withdrawing their remaining forces from the country.

The U.S. announced Tuesday that it had pulled out between 30% and 44% of its 2,500 troops in the South Asian country. A complete withdrawal of the U.S. and NATO forces is expected to take place by September 11.

Simentov has been the caretaker of Kabuls only synagogue for decades and lives in the synagogue complex. He hopes the government can hire a replacement when he moves to Israel, to which his wife and two daughters moved in the 1990s because of the civil war in Afghanistan. He has visited once, for two months in 1998, he said.

They know that I am working on it, getting my passport and leaving. They can have a watchman, and then, lets see what happens, he said.

Once a thriving community in Afghanistan, thousands of Afghan Jews have left for Israel and Western countries.

The migration started in the 1950s after the creation of Israel, though many left after the Soviet invasion in 1979.

Tolerant society

According to Hamayon Ahmadi, a conservator and restorer in Herat, more than 1,000 Jews coexisted with other residents of Herat City before the start of the war in 1978.

They were living together with others in a peaceful environment in Herat, Ahmadi said, adding that the city once housed four synagogues.

He said some Afghan Jews who left the country have visited the cemetery south of Herats Old City.

Simentov has been the only Jew living in Afghanistan, he said, since Isaac Levi, another Jew living in Kabul, died in 2005.

Other than being the synagogue caretaker, Simentov is jobless, though he said he ran a restaurant a few years ago and, he said, his family at one time had a carpet business that allowed him to travel the world.

Fear of violence

Lal Gul, chairman of the Afghanistan Human Rights Organization, said the country is undergoing a transformation that can have a lasting impact on minority rights. He warned that minorities can become particularly vulnerable if the peace talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government fail.

God forbid, if peace talks do not succeed, there would be another civil war in the country that will have [a] negative impact on everyone, particularly Afghan minority groups, Gul said.

No progress has been reported in the peace negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government that began September 12 in Doha, Qatar.

Meanwhile, violence has surged across Afghanistan in recent months. In March, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said women and minorities are the two main targets of the increased violence.

At least 10 people were killed Tuesday in two explosions that targeted buses west of Kabul City, where mainly Hazara Shiite Muslims live.

Last month, a bomb attack outside a high school in the same area of Kabul killed at least 80 people, mostly schoolgirls, and injured 150 others.

No group took responsibility for the school attack. The Afghan government blamed the Taliban, but the group rejected any involvement in the attack.

Little change

In a report published in June 2020, HRW said the Taliban have not changed much from the 1990s when they were in power, despite the militant leaderships claim to have walked away from some of their extremist ideologies and practices. The report stated that the Taliban had a record of "systematic violations" of human rights during their rule.

In its latest report published in April, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) said the Taliban continue to exclude religious minorities and punish residents in areas under their control in accordance with their extreme interpretation of Islamic law.

USCIRF recommended to the U.S. State Department to continue designating the Taliban as an entity of particular concern.

Continue reading here:
Afghanistan's Last Remaining Jew to Leave Over Taliban Fear - Voice of America

Rahmat Mokhtar, 34, hopes to soon become a U.S. citizen. Mokhtar worked as translator for the U.S. Army and Marines. In 2016 his visa to travel to the U.S. was approved, and he soon arrived in El Cajon, Calif. (Nelvin C. Cepeda, The San Diego Union-Tribune/TNS)

SAN DIEGO (Tribune News Service) Zohal Abdurahmanhas been waiting for three years to bring her brother-in-law to safety inthe United States.

And now that theU.S.military is leavingAfghanistan, the wait has reached new levels of urgency.

Her brother-in-law, who is not being named due to threats on his life, fought alongsideU.S.troops over the past decade and specialized in disarming explosives. He is still inAfghanistanwaiting on a special immigrant visa often referred to as an SIV that would allow him, his wife and their children to come live inSan Diegoand protect them from potential retaliation for the work that he did.

Abdurahmans brother-in-law is one among thousands still inAfghanistanwho helped theU.S.military and are now watching the days count down to PresidentJoe Bidensdeadline for troops to leave with increased worry that they will be left behind bythe United States and then tortured and killed by theTaliban.

Its one thing dying on duty, thats like an honor. If hes caught, they will literally mutilate his body, torture him as much as they possibly can, Abdurahman said. Thats what scares him and scares the rest of the family.

More than 300 people who worked as interpreters for theU.S.military, or family members of those interpreters, have been killed inAfghanistansince 2014, according to advocacy group No One Left Behind.

And though Bidens initial deadline gives the military until September to exitAfghanistan, reports have since indicated troops could be gone as soon as next month.

Bipartisan groups in both theSenateandHousehave sent letters to theWhite Houseadvocating for people like Abdurahmans brother-in-law. But with backlogs in processing these visas and rules restricting who can get them and the quantity given, many who helpedthe United Statesare likely to remain there unless something changes.

Three-year wait

The program is supposed to take no more than nine months, but the average wait time for SIVs at the beginning of 2021 was nearly three years, according toState Departmentdocuments.

The Biden administration has expressed support for interpreters and other Afghans who worked with theU.S., but it has not made clear what plans it has, if any, to protect them.

When asked about the issue, Pentagon press secretaryJohn Kirbysaidthat any changes to the program would have to be worked out between theState DepartmentandCongress.

The president has been clear. We have a moral obligation to these people, Kirby told reporters. He wants to take a fresh look at the SIV program to see how and to what degree it could be expanded and/or accelerated.

State DepartmentspokesmanNed Pricesaid that the department has increased staffing levels in bothWashingtonandKabulto work on SIV processing.

When it comes to SIVs, weve said this before, but we understand and we recognize that we have a special commitment and a special responsibility to the many Afghans who, over the years, have at great risk to themselves and even to their families have assistedthe United Statesin our efforts inAfghanistan, Price said. We are always seeking ways to improve the SIV process while ensuring the integrity of the program and safeguarding our national security and affording opportunities to these Afghans.

Abdurahmans brother-in-law got laid off last month as part of the withdrawal. Without hisU.S.colleagues, he already feels less safe, Abdurahman said.

He is already close to the end of the process. He and his family had their medical screenings in May, one of the final steps in the 14-part process outlined inState Departmentrecords. Hes just waiting to have the visa in his hands so he can leave.

Were just literally praying day and night that he gets his visa, Abdurahman said. We told him, Youre not bringing anything. If youre going to pack anything, pack now because as soon as you get your visa, youre coming here.

Even the distribution of visas once theyre approved is backlogged because theU.S.embassy there has been closed for much of the pandemic, according toJames Miervaldis, chairman of the board for No One Left Behind.

And while Abdurahmans family is close to the end of the process, many others have much less hope of getting out of the country in time.

Ali Rasouly, 39, andRahmat Mokhtar, 34, both know that anxiety well.

They worked as interpreters with theMarines, and both managed to get through the SIV process and resettle inEl Cajon.

Since fiscal year 2016, more than 2,400 people fromAfghanistan a combination of SIVs and refugees have resettled inSan Diego County, according toAbdi Abdillahi, county refugee coordinator.

Deadly secret

Rasouly waited about five years for his visa, he said. During that time, he was constantly moving, keeping his family in hiding to avoid being killed during the wait.

When he worked with the military, he kept his face covered so that he wouldnt be recognized. But sometimes neighbors or other observers would still figure out his secret, even in the time that he stopped working for the military to be an accountant. Each time, he quickly and quietly moved, sometimes to an entirely different province.

And though Rasouly and Mokhtar are now safe, their worries are not over.

They have parents, siblings and other family left behind, and on top of their concerns about theTalibanconnecting their families to their work with theU.S., they have another reason to be afraid for their loved ones. Rasouly and Mokhtar are part of the Hazara ethnic group that has been and continues to be targeted for persecution.

That persecution has been going on for centuries, Mokhtar said, referring to it as a genocide. Frequent news of suicide bombings targeting Hazara make him feel physically sick with worry.

Its super complicated and stressful, Mokhtar said. I cannot live it every day, and I cannot forget it. Its like a nightmare. Its like a coffin on my shoulder and following me, and Im carrying it everywhere.

Neither Mokhtar nor Rasouly have becomeU.S.citizens yet a process that has its own backlog and requires a five-year wait after getting a green card so they are not able to sponsor visas for their family members back inAfghanistan. Even when they do becomeU.S.citizens, that process would take many years because of country caps and additional backlogs in the family-sponsored visa queue.

Rasouly and Mokhtar hope that in addition to helping interpreters and others who worked in service to theU.S.leaveAfghanistan,the United Stateswill find a way to prioritize helping Hazara people leave.

On Saturday, about 100 people of Hazara descent who have settled in theSan Diegoarea demonstrated outside the County Administration Center to call for the formal recognition of Hazara genocide.

In the past 24 hours there have been four attacks in our very small area inAfghanistan, said participantAli Changiz Yasa, an English language teacher who worked with theU.S.military inAfghanistanas an interpreter and cultural adviser before fleeing toSan Diego.

The withdrawal ofU.S.forces will leave us once again under suppression and extreme oppression, he added.

TheState Departmenttold theSan Diego Union-Tribuneon background that there will be humanitarian and development assistance programs meant to support the rights of Hazaras, among other groups, after the troops are gone.

Veterans urge action

Some of the most vocal advocates for bringing people like Rasouly and Mokhtar and their families tothe United Statesare theU.S.military veterans who worked with them.

What we really ought to be doing is an immediate evacuation of these folks, saidShawn Vandiver, aNavyveteran and co-founder of theTruman National Security Projectchapter inSan Diego. We should be totally eliminating the cap on SIVs and immediately processing them. These folks served alongside us. They were armed. They killed their fellow countrymen while wearing uniforms withU.S.service members. Theyve already been vetted. Give them another quick background check, and get them over here.

Referencing what happened whenthe United Statespulled out ofVietnam a move that beganSan Diegoslong history of receiving refugees he suggested that theU.S.military transport Afghans to a safe place to finish any processing.

Our system is so broken that people are dying all the time over there, Vandiver said.

When asked recently about the possibility of evacuations, Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said that there are contingency plans for evacuations in different parts of the world, includingAfghanistan.

We have put some planning resources to this, no question, Kirby said. But there has been no tasking to carry such an evacuation out on any scale right now. And if that tasking comes, we will be ready to execute.

Amber Robinson, 43, ofChula Vista, served in theU.S. Armyfor 10 years and feels conflicted about the withdrawal, knowing that it will likely mean more harm to Afghan civilians, particularly women and girls, while also recognizing the human cost of continued war.

So many of my fellow veterans, were torn. Were just absolutely torn. I know thats how I feel, Robinson said. Weve just gone over and over and over again, and were used up. Were just exhausted. So when is enough enough?

But on the issue of SIVs, her feelings are much more straightforward.

They all have come over here just for safety. Its just so dangerous for them to stay, Robinson said. I shudder to think whats going to happen to everybody.

Staff photographerNelvin C. Cepedacontributed to this report.

(c)2021 The San Diego Union-Tribune

Visit The San Diego Union-Tribune at http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Continued here:
stripes - Fear mounts for many with loved ones left in Afghanistan as US begins to leave - Stars and Stripes

In April, President Joe Biden announced he would withdraw Americas 2,500 combat troops from Afghanistan before Sept. 11, 2021. Supporters praised the move for finally closing the book on Americas longest war and allowing Washington, in the words of Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, to refocus American national security on the most pressing challenges we face. Meanwhile, critics denounced the decision as reckless and dangerous. Former secretary of state Hillary Clintonwarned it could have huge consequences, including a surge in global terrorism and a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. Writing in War on the Rocks, Bruce Hoffman and Jacob Ware argued that withdrawal will be universally seen as defeat, thereby making America less safe.

Both sides of this debate, however, tend to exaggerate the importance of the U.S. troop departure. The key to the war in Afghanistan is not American soldiers but American dollars. The Biden administration should couple the withdrawal of soldiers with a long-term commitment to monetary aid which prioritizes sustainability, avoids unrealistic conditions, and shares the burden with foreign donors.

Small Footprint

U.S. forces in Afghanistan are doing valuable work mainly, training and advising Afghan troops. The American departure also means the withdrawal of the roughly 7,000-strong NATO-led contingent in the country. But the fixation on the number of U.S. soldiers reflects a certain strategic narcissism the American belief that the presence (or absence) of Americans is the decisive factor in any conflict combined with the medias disinterest in wars where Americans are not directly involved in the fighting.

In truth, there are stark limits on what a small U.S. and allied force can achieve in a country of nearly 40 million people that faces a nationwide rebellion. The current number of U.S. soldiers is the same as the enrollment in a large American high school and pales in comparison to the 300,000-strong Afghan security forces or the Talibans estimated 60,000 core fighters.

Furthermore, the departure of U.S. soldiers does not mean the end of Americas physical presence in Afghanistan. The CIA has reportedly deployed hundreds of covert operatives in Afghanistan to target al-Qaeda and ISIL. A smaller detachment of U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan beyond September 2021 to protect diplomatic facilities like the U.S. embassy. There are even creative ways to boost troop numbers beyond the official headcount. The true U.S. deployment was recently reported to be 3,500 rather than 2,500. In other words, the U.S. footprint in Afghanistan is already small and will get smaller but is not about to disappear entirely.

Mo Money, Mo Problems

The vital factor in shaping the fate of Afghanistan is not foreign troops but foreign aid. In recent years, Washington has given Afghanistan around $4 billion in security assistance and $500 million in civilian aid. Of this, $3 billion is used to bankroll the Afghan military, covering everything from salaries to helicopters. Since the war began, the United States has spent around $140 billion on aid to Afghanistan. Other countries also contribute, for example, through the World Banks Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, but the United States is by far the biggest donor.

U.S. aid to Afghanistan may be the most inefficient assistance program in the world. Stories of shocking mismanagement are rife, such as the industrial-scale theft of U.S.-provided fuel, the construction of a dining facility that didnt include a kitchen, or the $6.7 million compound for Afghan women police that was never used. One review found that 30 percent of American aid was lost to waste, fraud, and abuse. Foreign assistance can backfire by creating patronage opportunities for corrupt officials, dividing Afghan communities, and boosting the Taliban. American officials struggle to even know whether aid works or not, and they sometimes evaluate the effectiveness of assistance programs using dubious metrics like the amount of money spent.

Unsurprisingly, given these problems, foreign aid to Afghanistan has gradually declined, both in terms of the dollar amount and the length of commitments. In 2020, donors at the Afghanistan Conference in Geneva pledged $1213 billion for the period 2021 to 2024, a decrease of around 20 percent from the $15.2 billion that was promised for 2017 to 2020. Whereas the norm had previously been to make four-year pledges, Washington has now made any payments beyond 2021 conditional on consistent progress on transparency and accountability, as well as on the peace process, on the part of the Afghan government.

Political pressures in Washington cast even greater doubt over the future of U.S. assistance to Afghanistan. American aid faces a potential pincer attack from both the right and left. Conservatives are often skeptical of foreign aid as big government handouts: a kind of diplomatic Obamacare. Meanwhile, some on the left see foreign aid especially military aid as a form of imperialism that fuels the violence, lines the pockets of the military-industrial complex, and extends Americas forever wars. Given competing budget pressures, from tackling a rising China to domestic priorities, the idea of sending billions of taxpayer dollars indefinitely to Afghanistan may be tough to swallow. Its hard enough to agree on infrastructure spending in America, never mind in Afghanistan.

Its the Economic Aid, Stupid!

Yet despite its problems and unpopularity, foreign aid is indispensable to the future of Afghanistan. In the ninth most fragile state in the world, unfortunately, inefficiency goes with the terrain. In the end, what matters is not whether the aid machine runs smoothly. What matters is its net effect. The assistance program in Afghanistan may be the most wasteful around the globe, but it could also be the most valuable. After all, foreign aid is the main barrier preventing a Taliban victory. Kabul raises just $2.5 billion in revenue every year and spends $11 billion the other three-quarters of the budget comes from foreign donations. In 2018, Afghan president Ashraf Ghani said the Afghan army could not survive six months without assistance: [W]e dont have the money.

Turning off the spigot of assistance would likely trigger the collapse of the regime and allow the Taliban to capture much of the country, including Kabul. In turn, a Taliban triumph would have devastating humanitarian consequences in Afghanistan and could spur a blame game in the United States that would further inflame American politics and divide the United States from its allies.

By contrast, if the foreign aid keeps flowing, the Afghan government has a reasonable shot at survival. When Soviet troops left Afghanistan in 1989 after a decade of brutal warfare, many observers believed that Moscows client regime in Kabul would quickly fall to the insurgents. But the rebels were a disparate coalition that was bonded together by the shared Soviet enemy. When the Red Army departed, the insurgency splintered, and Kabul cut deals with local rebel commanders. Crucially, Moscow continued to supply aid to Kabul, including a weekly convoy of hundreds of trucks of weapons, fuel, and food. In the end, the Afghan regime survived longer than the Soviet Union itself and only disintegrated in 1992 when Moscow finally cut off support. Today, the withdrawal of foreign forces may also cause the glue bonding the Taliban together to come unstuck and create opportunities to drive a wedge into rebel ranks.

For all its flaws, foreign aid has helped spur impressive gains in Afghanistan, including a dramatic fall in infant and maternal mortality, huge advances in childhood education (especially for girls), and the construction of infrastructure like roads. In the last 20 years, Afghan life expectancy has jumped almost a decade, from 56 to 65 years.

The Price of Peace

What should Washington do? The United States has real, if moderate, interests in Afghanistan stabilizing the region, countering extremist groups, fulfilling a moral obligation to the Afghan people, and averting a Taliban triumph. These interests do not justify anything close to the peak U.S. commitment during the 20092012 Afghan surge, when Washington deployed 100,000 U.S. soldiers and spent over $100 billion per year. But they do justify a sustained program of American financial assistance. As a result, the Biden administration should build domestic support, among both Democrats and Republicans, for a withdrawal of U.S. troops combined with a long-term program of aid.

First, Washington should commit to a four-year plan of military and civilian assistance to signal that America intends to back Afghanistan for the long haul. The most effective way to encourage the Taliban to embrace peace talks is to alter their expectations about the future and diminish their confidence in an easy victory. Guaranteeing the flow of aid means that the Taliban may face a painful stalemate, boosting the attraction of a negotiated deal.

Second, Washington should focus on building sustainable military and civilian capabilities. There is little point in constructing a high-tech Afghan air force that cannot operate without American know-how. Rather, the key is to shore up the Afghan armys basic functionality for example, paying soldiers salaries in a timely manner to reduce attrition rates. Civilian aid should also be targeted toward areas of greatest need or projects with a track record of success for example, strengthening the Afghan Ministry of Finance so the country can eventually pay its own way or boosting the World Banks Citizens Charter Afghanistan Project, which delivers social services to local communities through elected community development councils.

Third, its important to establish conditions on aid without treating these requirements as a silver bullet. Monitoring projects effectively is necessary to convince taxpayers their dollars are being put to good use. After all, nearly one-third of U.S.-funded capital assets in Afghanistan weremisused, unused, or abandoned sometimes because the asset was destroyed by natural forces or war but often because the beneficiary was unable to maintain the asset or because U.S. officials failed to ensure the asset was constructed according to guidelines. But conditionality on aid should not be prioritized so much that it undermines the aids effectiveness. For instance, one study found that [s]ome benchmarks are largely irrelevant to achieving real progress. Furthermore, conditionality is essentially a threat to withhold aid which may serve to embolden the Taliban and increase Afghanistans need for support. In addition, conditionality can create perverse incentives. In 2020, Washington announced that future civilian assistance to Afghanistan would depend on progress in the peace process. But tying aid to advances in peace talks may encourage the Taliban to play spoiler and keep fighting. Similarly, the Afghanistan Partnership Framework, agreed to by Kabul and outside donors in 2020, made future foreign aid conditional on a peace settlement that lives up to highly idealistic principles, including democracy, human rights, and gender equality. Some compromise on these values is probably necessary to forge a deal with the ultra-conservative Taliban and donor righteousness is the ticket to forever war.

Fourth, at a time of budget pressure, its important to keep international donors on board. Fortunately, key partners like the European Union, Japan, and Norway remain committed to Afghan aid and, in 2020, largely stuck to previous funding levels and the traditional four-year program, albeit with a greater emphasis on conditionality. What about China? Wider strategic competition between Washington and Beijing undeniably complicates cooperation in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, this could be a case where the great powers can act in cautious partnership. The United States and China share an interest in tackling extremism, while Beijing has the capacity to invest in Afghanistan through the Belt and Road Initiative. Afghanistan is far from an existential threat to either great power, and Washington can tolerate a modest growth of Chinese influence in the country.

A U.S. aid program to Afghanistan of around $45 billion per year is affordable even indefinitely so. The figure equates to less than one percent of the U.S. defense budget. Indeed, to put the number in perspective, Washington spends over $300 million every year just on military bands. The aid program is also much cheaper than deploying U.S. troops. Washington can pay for around 50 to 100 Afghan soldiers for the same cost as stationing a single American soldier there (about $1 million per year). The aid program is only a tiny fraction of the expenditure in Afghanistan a decade ago.

Continuing aid to Afghanistan does not guarantee success, but curtailing aid guarantees failure. $4 billion is a lot of money. But it buys Washington a reasonable chance at creating military deadlock in Afghanistan, forcing the Taliban to make peace, and avoiding a repeat of Saigon 1975, with all the associated trauma and recrimination.

Dominic Tierney is a professor of political science at Swarthmore College and a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He has published four books most recently, The Right Way to Lose a War: America in an Age of Unwinnable Conflicts (Little, Brown, & Co., 2015). His work has also appeared in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, NPR, and various academic journals.

Image: U.S. Central Command (Photo by 1st Lt. Verniccia Ford)

Here is the original post:
The Future of Afghanistan Hinges on American Dollars, Not Troops - War on the Rocks