I've been in Afghanistan 4 times over the years including the tribal areas of Pakistan. All of this was before the Taliban and occupation though and I have never been associated with the military in any capacity. I would agree with about 80% of the above and add a few things. First western soldiers usually treat locals very well. There have obviously been incidents and the callous bombing of villages and innocents. Each of these incidents is supposed to be investigated and so there is a measure of accountability. But we have to remember that the Soviet treatment of Afghans was much more brutal and the memory of this occupation may have influenced how they view soldiers. Almost 2 million Afghans have been repatriated over the last 3 years with the US in Afghanistan. Almost the same number fled under the Soviets. Afghan refugees would not be returning in these numbers if there was the type of fear that existed under the Soviets.
Afghanistan has been at war for almost 30 years. Life for Afghanis is based on tribal affiliation and all tribal leader are also war lords. Guns, opium, hashish are ubiquitous in Afghanistan and so a lot of people are involved with these. It’s not surprising that some of these individuals ended up in the government.
Many of the donor countries have reneged on their pledges and so there is a shortage of money for reconstruction. The US is spread very thin as a result of the invasion of Iraq and a lot of money has been diverted there.
The non government people are living it up in Kabul. The government only gets about 22% of international aid and the rest goes to the various international NGOs.
http://wwwa.house.gov/international_relations/109/rit030906.pdf.
So as western organizations get 78% of the money it is they who should be responsible. An Afghan warlord newly elected has no experience with expense accounts and budgets. So if he is a minister he will use money allotted to his department in ways that might make it appear that he is corrupt. He has a staff to pay but he does not keep a payroll schedule. It is easy to call this corruption when it is in fact redistribution. The war lord would not politically survive if he did not feed his people and take care of them.
The NGOs have a very bad reputation in the developing world and this includes Afghanistan. The best read on this is Graham Hancock’s Lords of Poverty. They are the ones who are corrupt but then this form of corruption is easy to conceal as overhead and cost of living expenses and of course they save receipts. And they probably blow their 78% share on everything but helping Afghans.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0871134691/104-8649899-0475141?v=glance&n=283155
Afghanistan has been at war for almost 30 years. Life for Afghanis is based on tribal affiliation and all tribal leader are also war lords. Guns, opium, hashish are ubiquitous in Afghanistan and so a lot of people are involved with these. It’s not surprising that some of these individuals ended up in the government.
Many of the donor countries have reneged on their pledges and so there is a shortage of money for reconstruction. The US is spread very thin as a result of the invasion of Iraq and a lot of money has been diverted there.
The non government people are living it up in Kabul. The government only gets about 22% of international aid and the rest goes to the various international NGOs.
http://wwwa.house.gov/international_relations/109/rit030906.pdf.
So as western organizations get 78% of the money it is they who should be responsible. An Afghan warlord newly elected has no experience with expense accounts and budgets. So if he is a minister he will use money allotted to his department in ways that might make it appear that he is corrupt. He has a staff to pay but he does not keep a payroll schedule. It is easy to call this corruption when it is in fact redistribution. The war lord would not politically survive if he did not feed his people and take care of them.
The NGOs have a very bad reputation in the developing world and this includes Afghanistan. The best read on this is Graham Hancock’s Lords of Poverty. They are the ones who are corrupt but then this form of corruption is easy to conceal as overhead and cost of living expenses and of course they save receipts. And they probably blow their 78% share on everything but helping Afghans.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0871134691/104-8649899-0475141?v=glance&n=283155