USAID Calls Accusations of Afghanistan Cover-Up 'Offensive' by Charles S. Clark, Government Executive
Tensions flared Thursday between a special watchdog and the agency charged with planting seeds of development in war-torn Afghanistan.
During a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subcommittee hearing, a U.S. Agency for International Development official said an accusation that the agency had covered up information on Afghan ministries’ ties to terrorism was “false” and “offensive.” …
Comments
Thank God Himself for John Sopko. His concerns are dead-on and, alas, about seven years late. The only reason why USAID does not provoke the same level of controversy as the military-industrial complex is that it is 2% the size. Indeed, USAID's aid-implementer complex is far more corrupt than President Eisenhower's concerns and far less efficient than C.E.R.P. (for all of its lessons-learned failings). To explain why that is the case and to defend C.E.R.P. would take forever. On the systemic level, the first two minutes of this clip say it all:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4487674%2Fcorruption-inafghanistan-cultur…
On the field-level, you can read my parting thoughts to USAID from four years before I entered the Peace Corps to be far more productive on 5% of the salary and 0% of the resources:
http://nedmcdletters.blogspot.com/2010/08/letter-15-closing-thoughts-on…
This artice le brings to the fore the necessity of the establishing the U.S.O.C.O., as I wrote in your esteemed journal seven months ago:
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/whole-of-government-support-for-ir…
In this respect of establishing a separate agency, I disagree with Mr Sopko and agree with Mr Stuart Bowen; the S.I.G.I.R. and S.I.G.I.R. would elevate to a permanent position of Inspector General for this CivMil planning and oversight agency on contingency operations.
The State Department (and USAID part of the overall D.o.S. function) -- as absent now as it was in the late 1930s and 1940s -- is madly opposed to H.R.-2606. Why? Because these agencies are really worried about duplicate operations? There is a reason why the implementing partners have the names they do...
DO HAVE: SHOULD HAVE
Chemonics = Demonics
Louis Berger = Really Burglar
Dyncorp = Swinepork
Creative Associates International = Creative Accounting Intl
DAI = Drink Alcohol Incessantly
ETC....