The U.S. House of Representatives just passed a bill authorizing that $4.8 billion be spent on “reconstruction and fighting terrorism” in Afghanistan over the next three years. That’s $1.6. billion per year.
Meanwhile, the $100 billion Iraq funding bill also contains billions in set-asides for dairy farmers, airlines, and rural counties “hurt by cutbacks in federal logging.” The dairy farmers alone, which are already subsidized by the unbelievably expensive agriculture bill, received $1.2 billion—over five years, granted, but the discrepancy is rather stark. Congress can muster up more money each year for pet projects than the war it voted to start.
The $100 billion Iraq bill supposedly funds operations in Afghanistan as well. Thanks to the lazy reporters here who think the Democrats’ capitulation is bigger news than the actual content of the bill they signed, I have no idea what else might be flowing Afghanistan’s way. The point, however, that I’ve been making for years—Afghanistan’s systematic and deliberate underfunding is the reason we’re still dealing with the Taliban, and why we can’t fully deal with them now—still apparently hasn’t reached any of the right ears. And so the men who actually did attack us on September 11 continue to attack us in Afghanistan, with only periodic shrugs from the Capitol or White House.
This post was written by...
Joshua Foust – author of 1771 posts on Registan.net.
Joshua Foust is a Fellow at the American Security Project and the author of Afghanistan Journal: Selections from Registan.net. His research focuses primarily on Central and South Asia. Joshua is a correspondent for The Atlantic and a columnist for PBS Need to Know. Joshua appears regularly on the BBC World News, Aljazeera, and international public radio. Joshua is also a regular contributor to Foreign Policy’s AfPak Channel, and his writing has appeared in the New York Times, Reuters, and the Christian Science Monitor. Follow him on twitter: @joshuafoust
{ 5 comments }
Actually the reason we’re still dealing with the Taliban is because people generally don’t like living under foreign occupation, especially when that occupation is killing large numbers of civilians, as it has been doing in Afghanistan recently. In that situation, the people who “win the hearts and minds” are the people who are willing to stand up and fight…and that, for the present, means the Taliban. This means that the only way to reduce support for the Taliban is to end the occupation of Afghanistan. This might sound counterintuitive to you, but as long as the occupation continues, support for the Taliban will keep growing. No amount of US dollars can change that fact.
Yes, surely the Afghans love the Taliban—life was so picturesque, so upward bound when they (kind of) ran things.
That’s a bit snide, Joshua, how about responding to my argument? Under normal circumstances, no, I don’t think Afghans would opt for a Taliban government, but right now their role in the resistance to the occupation is winning them support…can’t you accept that basic fact?
Sorry for the tone. But I really don’t see where or how the Taliban are gaining support over NATO. NATO is certainly losing support, but that’s not necessarily translating into movement toward the Taliban.
I get the impression that they have become so disillusioned by the allied forces (there was a lot of genuine relief when we first went in in 2002) that they just want to be left alone… including by the Taliban.
David, most afghans don’t like the Taliban, though your point about those guys garnering more legitimacy because of the occupation is right.
How does the old proverb go?
“Guests, like fish, begin to stink after the third day.”
NATO and Americans have been there for 7 years, so must be smelling pretty ripe right now.
SEVEN YEARS! Yeesh has it been so long?