The U.S failure in Afghanistan | World Defense

The U.S failure in Afghanistan

Scorpion

THINK TANK: SENIOR
Joined
Nov 27, 2014
Messages
3,797
Reactions
4 3,139 52
Country
Saudi Arabia
Location
Saudi Arabia
Despite billions in U.S. funding, Afghan forces have a problem with boots



CAMP SHAHEEN, Afghanistan — If first impressions really can be gleaned from footwear, Afghan security forces may be about as disjointed and ragged as a state-run military can get.

As recruits stood in formation here last week, some wore nearly paper-thin black boots one stumble away from an exposed heel or toe. Others had on boots better suited for trekking through feet of snow than standing on sun-scorched gravel. The lucky ones had the same well-padded, sandy-colored boots worn by a visiting U.S. general and his support staff.

“This one, when it gets wet, they are not comfortable,” said one soldier, Abdul Ali, 21, pointing down at his crumbled black footwear.

The sad state of soldiers’ boots highlights something that U.S. military officials have known for about two years: Despite more than $68 billion in U.S. funding for Afghan security forces over the past 14 years, they still can’t even clothe themselves.

Because of widespread corruption and incompetence, the U.S.-led coalition has taken control of procurement of uniforms and boots for the Afghan army and the Afghan national police.


Now, the coalition is trying to airlift or ship in more than a million pairs of boots to make sure Afghan forces can properly walk onto the battlefield. Some of the orders for those boots were placed as far back as 2014.

The shipments of boots — which cost about $75 to $90 per pair — are projected to total about $100 million through the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. The coalition expects to spend an additional $215 million on boots, uniforms and gear for Afghan forces in fiscal 2017.

U.S. taxpayers will be picking up about 80 percent of the tab.

Ken Watson, head of essential functions for NATO’s Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan (CSTC-A), said the coalition had “no choice” but to get into the clothing business to avoid a barefoot army.

In 2012, as the coalition was preparing to withdraw most of its troops from Afghanistan, it transferred to the Afghan government responsibility for the purchase of soldiers’ and police officers’ boots and uniforms. But the Afghan procurement system was overwhelmed because of widespread corruption, poor management and overreliance on the lowest bidder, often from China.

As a result, Afghanistan became a model for how not to outfit an army.

Thousands of pairs of size 12 military boots flooded into the country, even though it’s rare for an Afghan’s foot to exceed size 10.


Some pairs arrived with each boot a different size. Even when both boots did fit, they were often so poorly manufactured that they quickly needed to be replaced.

“I’ve come across boxes of new boots with the soles already split, so we had to take them to the cobbler,” said Mohammad Zaman Momozai, the police chief of Parwan province.

Getting the Afghan government to handle its own military procurement has been further complicated by President Ashraf Ghani’s efforts to more closely scrutinize contracts to avoid fraud, Watson said.

“So we had to go back in. . . . You just can’t stop the flow of stuff,” Watson said. “He stopped buying, and that means someone has got to do it.”

While boots and uniforms account for a tiny fraction of Pentagon spending in Afghanistan, they highlight the choices facing President Obama and other world leaders over spending to prop up about 200,000 Afghan soldiers and 151,000 police officers.

At a summit in Warsaw in July, NATO leaders will seek commitments of an additional $4 billion annually for Afghan security through 2020. Western diplomats say the request will be in addition to about $3 billion in annual aid for Afghan reconstruction, which will be a topic at a summit in Brussels in October.

The stakes for Afghanistan are enormous, as the country’s battle against the Taliban insurgency shows no sign of subsiding.

According to the World Bank, Afghanistan is spending about 15 percent of its gross domestic product on security. Most Western countries, including the United States, spend less than 5 percent.

Afghanistan — where the poverty rate has crept up to 39 percent and where nearly one-fourth of residents are jobless — will be hard-pressed to sustain that level of spending.

But even if the international community keeps pumping in billions of dollars, there is growing concern about monitoring resources as the number of U.S. troops declines.

“The United States military has lost much of its ability to make direct observations, provide tactical mentoring and collect reliable information,” the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) said in a report to Congress last week.

Shipments of new boots from the United States, for example, are handed over to Afghans for storage in army and police supply depots.

From there, Afghan officials are responsible for distributing them. With CSTC-A officials housed on just four major bases and two smaller ones, Watson admits he’s not sure whether all the goods are going where they are supposed to.

“We can’t throw and catch and see where there may be problems along the supply chain,” said Watson, who estimates that 10 percent of the imported uniforms and boots will be lost, resold or stolen along the way. “The focus needs to be on controlling them to make sure they don’t disappear or show up in a bazaar somewhere.”

Even here at Camp Shaheen, the timely arrival and distribution of needed clothing and footwear isn’t guaranteed.

“We just received 2,000 pairs of boots, and 50 percent of them were size 12,” said Col. Christian Walking, a German adviser with the Afghan army’s 209th Corps.

That could be a sign that Afghan military leaders are trying to unload old stocks of boots, even though CSTC-A has shipped in 89,000 new pairs since October.

“We don’t even buy size 12,” Watson said.

For the past year, SIGAR has been conducting an audit of clothing purchases. In September, John F. Sopko, the inspector general, informed coalition commanders that preliminary findings revealed that tens of thousands of Afghan troops were not receiving “cold weather clothing” such as hats and gloves.

“When they come here, they just receive uniforms and nothing else,” said Col. Atei Ataoulah, head of training for the Afghan army in northern Afghanistan. “When they want to wash their feet, they don’t have shower shoes.”

The shower shoes will probably have to wait.

For now, the coalition is focused on just making sure good boots get on the ground.

As of earlier this month, just 23 percent of 388,686 pairs of army boots and 29 percent of 572,361 pairs of police boots ordered in 2014 and 2015 had been delivered, according to coalition records.

An additional 245,000 pairs are being ordered for soldiers and police officers this year.

Despite billions in U.S. funding, Afghan forces have a problem with boots - The Washington Post
 

explorerx7

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 17, 2016
Messages
220
Reactions
36 1
Country
Jamaica
Location
Jamaica
I believe this is a waste of resources. Maybe the United States is holding on to this situation because they may want to prove that they are superior to the Russians who had to abandon a similar cause in the same countries some time earlier, The terrain of Afghanistan has proved to be a be a very formidable barrier in defeating the Taliban Forces. After so many loss of money and resources without a great deal of success, I think it's time that the US gets the message and moves on.
 

RedViper

NEW RECRUIT
Joined
May 2, 2016
Messages
9
Reactions
1
Country
USA
Location
USA
I will never understand my country's obsession with turning tribally-affiliated irregular troops into multicultural standing armies.

Well I guess I sort of understand what the goal is, and after all, it is always easier to 'teach what you know'. But a lot of these guys (the ones that aren't insurgent plants that run of with their kit as soon as they can) are competent guerrilla war-fighters. Just let them do that. No, its not going to be pretty, and yes, they are going to use the opportunity to settle a few scores we'd rather not see settled, but that is going to happen anyway.

And there's so much money to be made fulfilling these government contracts for training and equipment, that there is no real pressure on the US Congress to take a long, hard look at where our resources are being allocated. Every disbursement of cash and kind is subject to fist, corporate greed, then foreign corruption, and finally local baksheesh. And that is the ideal scenario when the goods don't just get stolen or 'go missing'. I've heard it described as a force divider as opposed to a force multiplier.
 

joshposh

MEMBER
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
187
Reactions
47
Country
USA
Location
Philippines
It's all about money folks. That entire occupation was about money and greed. Why is it that $20-40 usd shoes cost $90? Who's getting the bigger cut here? Must be the lobbyist that collects from the million pairs of shoes being supplied.

Every occupation needs supplies. The USA never buys wholesale. It is always retail and I would love to get that contract. I would buy from China where everything else is being made and sell for a 100% profit.
 

remnant

MEMBER
Joined
Feb 21, 2016
Messages
157
Reactions
8 1
Country
Kenya
Location
Kenya
I have long known that some governments have a vested interest in continued instability in their countries. If the war in Afghanistan was summarily won as in the case of the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka vs the govt or an armistice was declared, this would result in aid taps drying closing a major revenue stream of illicit cash. This narrative is a sad reading. While the poor soldiers are out in the desert trying to eke a living precariously, the generals are ensconced in their offices cohabiting with the ruling elite to loot their bare necessities. Will we humans survive each other?
 
Top