کابل پرس

Afghan Godfather, his Gangsters and the US Aid Cutoff during Covid-19 Crisis

Mohammad Amin Wahidi — 2020-04-05T04:37:29Z

Despite real danger of Covid-19 for the health of millions of citizens of Afghanistan, the populist leader of the Afghan Cabinet tries to stop breach of any news and real information to the media regarding their deficiency with the campaign against Coronavirus.

Prominent Hazara educationalist, founder and CEO of Star Educational Society, Ali Reza Yasa wrote on his social media page that he's lost a family member who couldn't get the services of Covid-19 special hospital in Herat city due to racism and systematic discriminations against Hazaras in that province.

Just a few days ago, unconfirmed news circulated in the social media that two physicians were fired from their jobs one in Kabul and one Herat after they complained from the shortage of facilities and the insufficiency of the resources to combat Covid-19 in Afghanistan, despite Afghan Government's wrong information circulation that assures everything is under control.

These days, Ashraf Ghani appointed Dawood Sultanzoy a famous former plane-hijacker as the Mayor of Kabul, an appointment that is against the article 141 of the Constitution that clearly states that “the mayors and city council members are elected through general free, secret and direct elections.”

One of Afghan Governments that is led by Ashraf Ghani (the other parallel government is led by his rival Abdullah Abdullah who claims to be the legitimate winner president) as a result of election dispute, tries to manipulate the information flow and uses it as much as possible for the favor of its power and legitimacy, while on the other hand, the other proclaiming president Abdullah Abdullah does not have enough resources and budget to make his independent parallel government begin functioning, so that to finish the electoral dispute here.
Their dispute on the result of election has brought reluctance of the International Community to the Afghan issues; especially the USA is not anymore interested to Afghanistan as it was in the last 19 years as the main aid provider and supporter of this country since 2001.

As announced by the US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo after his recent visit to Kabul, there will be a 1.B$USD One Billion Dollars cutoff from the US aid to Afghanistan during this year, as the USA is not happy with the political ongoing in Afghanistan, however it may not have any direct effects on the lives of millions of citizens of Afghanistan as long as the corrupt system in governance of Afghanistan is not very transparent an responsible for the foreign aid expenditure.

The current Afghan Regime is consisting of a bunch of corrupt incumbents most of whom are occupying their positions not for the expertise they own but for their relationship with Ashraf Ghani who is considered as the Afghan Godfather of the country. The people surrounding the Godfather Ashraf Ghani are not technically the most capable ones in the country but they are good at making fifty-fifty deals in mega embezzlements with the Godfather engaging some corrupt international counterparts in the ambiguity of disarray and lack of transparency in Afghanistan. At least 60 percent of the amount could go into the pockets of Afghan Ministers who invest their money in offshore companies in UAE or in property markets in Turkey.

As reported by the prominent daily newspaper in Afghanistan, Etilaatroz.com there is another easy way of embezzlement by the Godfather, from the national budget that is the Code 91 Fund, a special Emergency Fund allocated to the head of Executive Branch, spent only by the President's decrees in the time of need. The findings of EtilaatRoz showed that the Code91 https://tolonews.com/afghanistan/extra-money-allocated-code-91-documents" class="spip_out" rel="external">Fund was spent with millions of embezzlements at least 22mln$USD only in 2019.

Most of these office holders in the current government hold dual citizenships (an Afghan) and at least one from a Western country, for the day of their escape after they are done enough with project embezzlements, and then they easily leave the country. One of the recent examples was Eklil Ahmad Hakimi a Pashtun former Minister of Finance who fled from Afghanistan to the USA in 2018 with an American passport, after he wasn't able to respond the accountability of millions of dollars disappeared from his ministry and the accusations against him rose during the trial of Minister of Telecommunication and Information Technology who was actually guiltless. http://www.afghanpaper.com/nbody.php?id=152342" class="spip_out" rel="external">Eklil Hakimi as the Minister of Finance was responsible of accountability of ATRA (Afghan Telecom Regulatory Authority) that collected 10% Tax on mobile credits (that was mounted an amount of circa 105 million $USD in two years period from 2015-2017 but was disappeared in un unknown destination.

Right now there are six to seven former ministers who are accused of mega-embezzlements but they are not only immune to being trialed but also being generously rewarded with key positions in the government because they are praised and caressed by the Godfather Ashraf Ghani who need them in his business.
For instance, Farooq Wardak, another former minister who is accused of embezzlement of at least $USD 750,000,000 (seven hundred and fifty million dollars) for the famous ghost schools he'd created in Afghanistan during his time as the Minister of Education 2008-2015.

Despite his multi-million dollar embezzlement, Farooq Wardak not only was not trialed for corruption but also has been recently appointed as the Afghan Ambassador to Turkey as reported by the national media.

The other famous Afghan ex-minister is Omar Zakhilwal, who holds a dual citizenship (Afghan-Canadian) the former Minister of Finance is accused ofat least 40 million $USD embezzlement from the funds of International Aid to Afghanistan when he was President of AISA (Afghanistan Investment Support Agency) and had a link with Kabul Bank Scandal, when he was Minister of Finance in 2009. Currently he is the Ambassador of Afghanistan to Pakistan under Ghani Administration.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704254304576115780302300212" class="spip_out" rel="external">Hanif Atmar another former minister who served in different ministries is accused embezzlements from the scandalous Kabul Bank in the early years and then he was accused of creation of an ISIS-like group within the Intelligence Services of Afghanistan to hit the Taliban and the political opponents of Ghani through mysterious explosions.

Populism, nepotism, family-business and propaganda are the main pillars of this kind of regime.
The Godfather is at the top of executive power and controls the whole system and all others are his hand-kissers or followers each of who does their best to have a fair share of this business; it is seen in the structure of the NPA or the National Procurement Agency that controls all public purchases and contracts and chaired by the Godfather- Ashraf Ghani himself.

With a little research in the family relationship of who-is-who in the current Afghan cabinet, you find that most areclose family relatives and they are even known to the Afghans as the Brother-in-Laws in power. Taking everything in strict control by the Godfather prevents the oversight and transparency in the information outreach to the public regarding the public expenditure and national budgets.

The NPA or (National Procurement Agency) is considered as the chamber of the family business, with a lot of contracts each with values of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars given to their relatives and acquaintances such as relative ministers, and even the Afghan-Lebanese First Lady, Rula Ghani is accused of hundreds of millions of dollars embezzlements under the Women Supporting Projects.

The reconstruction companies that get the contracts of the Afghan Monuments Reconstructions as well as new structures such as Afghan Ministry of Defense new building, are mostly related to the Lebanese First Lady but the notices do not reach the English or other language media because they are being systematically censored in Afghanistan. Who investigates about these mega-embezzlements is being summoned to the Attorney General's office under accusation of finking into state affairs.

The Godfather's propaganda is focused on constructing the image of a National Hero out of himself to hide his other side of the medal. Ghani's reconstruction of some of old buildings which he considers them symbol of greatness of Afghanistan is a part of the propaganda which in reality does not help the betterment of conditions of lives of millions of needy people who live below poverty line.

Apart from nepotism in public recruitments, sexism is the other vulnerability of the Godfather Ashraf Ghani's regime. Most women, who want to get a job in pubic offices, face sex requests in exchange to being hired. This is very known regulation even in the Arg or the Godfather's Palace that is likely to become a Harem, and a lot of women are being hired there with sexual favors they had to undergo.
The saddest and the worst part of sexism in Ashraf Ghani's regime is taking place in the Ministry of Disabled and the Martyred where the widowers of the Afghan Army refer to get their lost's monthly wage as a life-compensation but they are faced with sex request and sexual harassments by the office incumbents of the ministry.
With all dimensions of existing corruption in Afghanistan, any kind of foreign aid is just a drop in a barrel and nothing could directly reach to the poor and needy population as long as the Godfather holds the power. In addition to the Godzilla of corruption, Coronavirus is yet another fatal challenge to overcome in a corrupt Afghanistan where over seventy percent of the population lives under poverty line and most of the politicians have their families resettled abroad in the islands of safety including Godfather's.
Only God knows what could happen to the Afghanistani people.

Ghani Ahmadzai's German Adviser Received US$41250.00 Salary per Month

Kabul Press - Investigative News & Analysis — 2019-09-21T17:52:14Z

Kabul Press^?: A document from Afghanistan's Ministry of Commerce and Industries shared by local journalists says a German adviser of Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai had US$41250.00 salary per month in 2017-18. The official document dated 29/07/1396 (21 October 2017) includes the signature of Ahmadzai and his order to add Dr. Wolfgang Plasa's $41250,00 monthly salary for one year into 1397's budget, starting from February 2017. According to the document, the annual wage of Wolfgang Plasa as Ahmadzai's adviser was US$495000,00.
Comparing the monthly salary of Wolfgang Plasa, it was/is at least 645 times higher than the regular monthly income of middle-rank government officials or teachers in so-called country Afghanistan. The monthly income of a teacher is 5000.00 Afghani (US$62.00-63.00), and most times, teachers do not receive any salary for several months.
Comparing the annual salary of Wolfgang Plasa to the highest salaries in Norway as a rich country, still, Wolfgang Plasa had/has 2.6 times higher income as Ahmadzai's adviser. The annual salary of Norway prime minister Erna Solberg is 1.680.277 kroner(about US$185779.83).
In October 2014, Kabul Press revealed an official document signed by Pashtun politician Hanif Atmar, where he categorized his advisers based on their ethnic and ordered a high salary for Pashtuns. As minister of education, in his list of 20 advisers, 16 were Pashtuns and 4 Tajiks.
So-called country Afghanistan is one of the most corrupted and most impoverished countries in the world. It is a multi-ethnic country, but the primary power is in the hand of Pashtuns. Many experts believe that the central government of Pashtuns and the Taliban as the military arm of Pashtunism are the sources of not only long-term conflicts but also corruption.

4GB USB Flash Memory Costs $100 in Karzai's Administration

Editorial Staff — 2013-03-28T14:48:51Z

Kabul Press^?: It has been published and revealed dozens of documents showing corruptions and miss-used by Afghan high ranking officials such as Anwar ul-Haq Ahady(Current Commerce and Industries minister), Omar Zakhilwal (Current Finance minister) and Hanif Atmar (former Education minister) in Kabul Press.

The following document obtained by Kabul press shows a small example of Corruption in Karzai's administration.

In Kabul market, a 4GB USB Flash Memory doesn't cost more than $8.00, but this document tells it costs $100 in Karzai's Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development.

Karzai's regime has formed by tribalism/ Talibanism, drag and corruption. According to Transparency International, Afghanistan under Karzai's administration is the most corrupt country in the world.

Document letter: Taliban leaders have close relationship with Military Intelligence of Pakistan

Editorial Staff — 2012-08-30T18:01:15Z

Islamic Emirates of Afghanistan

Islamic Emirates of Afghanistan

South West Zone
Date 28/5/2008

Dear Brother Mr.Colonol Usman,

Director Military Intelligence!

Salam Alaikum wa Rematullah wa Barakaat!

Two loaded Vehicles carrying goods for Talban mujahedeen (Muslim fighters) are entering Afghanistan via Noshki and Dalbandin. It is hope that entrée permission will be granted for both vehicles.

Vehicle black color 4x4, Vigo model 2006, plate No. Karachi Sindh CK ( 8091 )
Vehicle silver color Hi-Lux 4x4, Model 2003, plate No. Sindh Karachi CH ( 9316 )

I have sent my representative, Mullah Musa along with. Hopefully you will be co-operating.

Mullah Abdul Rahim
Governor Helmand (signature with stamp)

“Anti-Ambassador” Policy Hobbles U.S. Embassy in Kabul

Matthew J. Nasuti (Former U.S. Air Force Captain) — 2012-03-28T14:28:28Z

The cardinal rule of the U.S. Department of State is that no ambassador shall outshine the Secretary of State. As a result, U.S. ambassadors are almost invisible to the citizens of the countries where they are posted. They are not permitted to announce any policy changes (as all publicity must originate with the Secretary), and they are rarely permitted to give any interviews or hold press conferences because they are not allowed to say anything other than to repeat approved talking points. The Secretary-centric policies of the State Department and the emphasis on creating a cult of personality have had a debilitating impact on U.S. foreign policy.

It was not always that way. Over the centuries, American ambassadors have exercised crucial authority and have contributed significantly to the success of the United States. Beginning with its first ambassadors, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, U.S. ambassadors literally saved the nation. Other ambassadors such as John Quincy Adams and George H.W. Bush went on to become President of the United States. The list of distinguished, successful and publicly popular U.S. ambassadors is long and includes W. Averell Harriman, John Kenneth Galbraith, Shirley Temple Black, Dr. Jeanne Kirkpatrick who became as the first woman to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and the eloquent Daniel Patrick Moynihan. These Ambassadors, along with a host of dedicated State Department employees ranging from the daring John S. Service to USAID's legendary John Paul Vann, blazed new paths and bolstered America's standing around the world. They inspired people, which should be the goal of every diplomat.

Regarding this issue, some Secretaries of State deserve special mention, including former Secretary William P. Rogers. He understood the importance of dynamic ambassadors and thus permitted Henry Kissinger to shine and at times even outshine him regarding peace talks with North Vietnam. Likewise, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright deserves credit for giving over some of the limelight to the tenacious and confident Richard C. Holbrooke. He took center stage for a time in order to negotiate the crucial Balkans peace agreement. These Secretaries of State understood that the nation's interests are more important than the Secretary of State's vanity.

The role of U.S. ambassadors has steadily declined in importance since the end of the Clinton Administration. In 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton further downgraded the position of ambassador by her decision to appoint special regional ambassadors and “ambassadors at large” from a pool of her trusted associates. She also signed off on the present arrangement in which one third of America's ambassadorial positions are sold to rich campaign contributors. Imagine how difficult it must be for U.S. Embassy officials in Asia and Africa to preach honesty and to promote local anti-corruption initiatives when the U.S. Ambassador to that country was able to buy his or her position.

Those U.S. Ambassadors who do not purchase their posts are chosen from the ranks of the Senior Foreign Service. The selectees, however, have to agree to keep their heads low and voices silent. Not only do they have no voice, but little authority. The past decade has seen a surge in whole levels of senior bureaucrats at the State Department. Every year there are new “Directors” and “Assistant Secretaries” overseeing increasingly fractured programs and pet initiatives that strip authority away from the local ambassador. Since 2001, the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security has used the threat of al-Qaeda to amass an enormous amount of authority over embassy operations, all at the expense of the ambassadors. It is torture by a thousand cuts for the local embassies.

In 2011, Secretary Clinton selected a skillful but uncharismatic diplomat named Ryan Crocker and dispatched him to Afghanistan. What the mission required was an unconventional, brazen, larger than life, Dari-speaking U.S. Ambassador, but the State Department, true to form, sent the opposite. During the past year Ambassador Crocker has largely dropped from public view, relegated to the job of managing the embassy rather than being the public face of a re-energized U.S. war effort. A year later U.S./Afghan relations are at their lowest point in ten years. Ambassador Ryan Crocker's public efforts appear mediocre at best and disastrous at worse, but he continues to receive praise from the Secretary of State because he is performing as expected and as required. Within the State Department and in diplomatic-speak, Ambassador Crocker's performance would be called “robust mediocrity,” which is quite acceptable; in fact it is the required norm.

To be fair to Ambassador Crocker, not much could be expected of him. Due to the fractured U.S. military and civilian command structure in Afghanistan and in Washington, D.C., he has little real authority. As the near-invisible position of U.S. Ambassador holds little authority it garners little respect in many host countries. Ambassador Crocker's predecessor, Karl Eikenberry, used to appear on American news shows where he was limited to reading prepared statements and reciting approved talking points. It was painful and embarrassing to watch. If one could have looked under Ambassador Eikenberry's shirt one would have seen the leash.

All of this micro-management creates a cycle of failure. U.S. ambassadors are repeatedly denied the tools needed for success, which leads to a breakdown in host-country relations, which causes State Department officials to further limit the authority of ambassadors, which continues the downward slide. This was the situation with Anne Patterson, the former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan. While U.S./Pakistani relations plummeted under her watch, the fault may lie more with the Secretary of State's anti-Ambassador management style than with Ambassador Patterson. The same might be said of Margaret Scobey, former U.S. Ambassador to Egypt, who was unprepared, invisible and ineffective last year when pro-democracy forces began to array against Hosni Mubarak. It is sad to see so many highly qualified women being held back and kept in their place due to an insecure Secretary of State.

Insecurity is not a trait limited to female Secretaries of State. During the early stages of the Vietnam War, President John F. Kennedy wanted to appoint Asian counterinsurgency expert General Edward Lansdale as U.S. Ambassador in Saigon, but this daring and unconventional appointment was opposed by Secretary of State Dean Rusk who reportedly threatened to resign if it occurred. As a result, President Kennedy backed away from the Lansdale selection and a safe and non-controversial Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. was appointed instead. During Ambassador Lodge's tenure, South Vietnam almost disintegrated due to assassinations and coups. This situation occurred because there was no strong U.S. Ambassador who was able to thwart the amateurish CIA and Pentagon meddling in South Vietnamese politics. The State Department, content with ambassadorial mediocrity, then nominated as Ambassador Lodge's replacement, a well-respected, but safe and uncontroversial Ellsworth Bunker, who again was not the type of ambassador needed for a country in conflict that was fighting for its life.

The cult of personality within the State Department for the current Secretary could be characterized as “anti-American” because senior State Department officials would seemingly rather lose a war than have a visionary and dynamic ambassador posted to a country in conflict who might eclipse the Secretary of State or at least force her to share the stage.

While mediocre performance tends to escape notice during peacetime, it becomes a glaring problem during wartime. When the lives of U.S. troops are at stake, the lackluster performance by the local U.S. embassy can prolong the war, undercut the military's hard-fought efforts and ultimately get more people killed.

The overall U.S./NATO commander in Afghanistan, General John R, Allen, testified on March 22, 2012 before the Senate Armed Services Committee. To his discredit, General Allen ignored the continuing failure of the State Department's civilian “surge” in Afghanistan, despite the danger it poses to his troops and to his mission. That failure is the unanimous opinion of every audit and review ever conducted of the program. The reasons for the failure are multi-faceted and clearly foreseeable to anyone who has studied the State Department. Again, in Ambassador Crocker's defense, he lacks the authority to correct any of the core deficiencies in this effort.

The United States may very well lose its war in Afghanistan, not because the military did not do its job, but because the military was only assigned 50% of the mission tasks. The other 50%, which included governance, anti-corruption, nation-building, reconstruction and good relations with Pakistan, belonged to the State Department. Nothing positive can be said about the State Department's performance of any of its mission tasks.

Due to the deafening silence in Washington, D.C. regarding the deplorably sloppy, half-hearted and ineffective nation-building effort in Afghanistan, it will be up to historians to write an objective account of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. The title of that tome might very well be a twist of Secretary Clinton's happy exclamation when told about the murder of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi:

“The United States came, its diplomatic efforts were mediocre, no one cared, and the Taliban won.”

Image source

EXCLUSIVE REPORT: U.S. Probe into Missing Afghan Aid Funds Blocked

Matthew J. Nasuti (Former U.S. Air Force Captain) — 2012-01-19T22:11:42Z

In October 2010, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) was petitioned to investigate the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) regarding $3.8 million in missing Afghan aid funds. It was a test case to see if the OSC, under its new leadership, had actually reformed after the previous Special Counsel was arrested for allegedly abusing his authority. Sadly, Special Counsel Carolyn N. Lerner and Deputy Special Counsel Mark Cohen, opted to ignore the scandal. They have refused (without explanation) to direct Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah to explain the missing funds. Ms. Lerner then refused multiple requests to be interviewed regarding her inaction.

The USAID scandal involves $3.8 million in public funds disbursed on February 15, 2005 to Afghanistan Capital Partners, Ltd. (ACAP) under contract “JO#39-0003-ACAP.” ACAP, formed by a German national named Pierre Van Hoeylandt, had no office in Kabul and apparently no employees. The money was intended to underwrite the Afghanistan Renewal Fund (ARF). The scope of work was not clear and the circumstances surrounding this sole-source award were suspicious. The USAID officials involved in overseeing ARF included Frances Tooney, Daniel Miller, Margaret S. Kline, Robin Philips and Caroline Brearley. While USAID heralded ARF in 2005, by 2006 USAID dropped all mention of the project. Thereafter, rumors circulated that the money had been squandered and that the U.S. Ambassador in Kabul had personally intervened to protect Mr. Hoeylandt. USAID officials have to-date been either unwilling or unable to explain what happened to the money. The matter was eventually referred to the OSC. It has refused to act despite overwhelming evidence of a problem.

The OSC came into existence in 1979. Congress clearly stated that the OSC was to aggressively investigate corruption allegations and it was to function as a protector of those Federal employees who uncovered government corruption or mismanagement. The OSC has the power to demand answers from agency officials whenever the facts show a substantial likelihood of corruption or mismanagement. Ms. Lerner, and her predecessors such as Scott J. Bloch and Alex Kozinski, devised a series of tortured legal excuses to explain away their inaction against official corruption. They have ignored the Preamble to the Whistleblower Protection Act which instructs the OSC that its sole goal is to promote the disclosure and investigation of government corruption.

The OSC's own statistics reveal that the agency has no appetite for combating corruption or complying with its Congressional mandate. It has been highly successful at doing nothing. In FY 2010, the OSC received 1,086 complaints of mismanagement and corruption involving Obama Administration officials, yet the OSC only demanded explanations from agency officials in 26 instances. In FY 2011, the OSC received 928 complaints and demanded answers in just 47 cases. Of those 47 cases, most were either non-controversial or involved misconduct already reported in the news. When the OSC sent its FY2011 annual report to Congress, it inflated the 47 by adding in informal referrals to the Inspector General. Despite these dismal results, the OSC, in its “target” for 2012, is forecasting that it will be supporting 17% less corruption investigations in 2012 than 2011! These data reveal that tens of thousands of cases of potential government corruption have been quietly buried by the OSC since 1979.

Despite these large numbers, the reality is that the OSC should be receiving ten or perhaps 100 times as many complaints of official misconduct and corruption as it does. The 1,000 cases per year it receives represent a vote of official no-confidence in the agency by Federal employees. Entire Federal departments such as the State Department do not brief their employees about the OSC, even though Federal law mandates that they do. A 2011 survey by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management found that in some agencies, only 14% of the Federal employees believe that their agency would protect them if they expose official corruption (so the corruption is not reported). Ms. Lerner and Mr. Cohen are apparently quite comfortable with all of this.

The case of the missing $3.8 million was provided to the OSC as a small test, and the agency failed the test. Numerous other and larger USAID scandals sit in the wings and likely will never be investigated unless and until a new Administration takes office.

In 2009, The Kabul Press^? profiled Chemonics, Inc., which was awarded two contracts totaling $240 million by USAID in 2007, for agricultural support in northern and southern Afghanistan. Audits in 2008 could not be completed because no one in USAID ever monitored the work, therefore auditors could not verify if anything had actually been accomplished. Likewise in January 2010, James Rosen of Fox-News uncovered another scandal within USAID, which was an illegal $24 million award to Checchi and Company to provide “Rule of Law Stabilization Services” in Afghanistan. After the publicity USAID was forced to cancel the award, but only because of the publicity. Then Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley and USAID Director of Public Information Joseph A. Fredericks publicly defended the award, which is astonishing. These are investigations that should have been initiated by the OSC, if the agency was properly functioning.

One of the many dire consequences of the OSC's campaign against whistleblowers came to light in the Fall of 2010. A lawsuit was filed against Pentagon contractor Mission Essential Personnel (MEP) by one of its employees, Peter Funk. Mr. Funk alleged that MEP officials erroneously certified 28% of their interpreters as fluent in Dari and Pashto. MEP then dispatched those personnel to Afghanistan to support U.S. troops. The interpreters reportedly went along with this fraud because they were being paid $200,000 a year, with significant profits accruing to MEP. Mr. Funk alleged that the interpreters' inability to fully understand the local Afghan languages led to American troops being ambushed by the Taliban on several occasions. What he claims is that in some instances interpreters were handed notes by villagers warning of upcoming ambushes, but the interpreters were unable to read the notes, therefore the troops were never warned. Matthew Mosk, Brian Ross and Joseph Rhee of ABC News brought this story to light on September 8, 2010.

Mr. Funk should have gone immediately to the OSC with this information but as with many whistleblowers, he may have concluded that it was a waste a time to notify the OSC of fraud or corruption. Instead of working through the clearly broken system within the Obama Administration, Mr. Funk waited and then filed his lawsuit against MEP. Responsibility for the delay in publicizing the problems with MEP lay at the doorstep of the OSC. How many U.S. soldiers, sailors and marines may have been killed or injured as a result of whistleblower disclosures that either never occurred or were sidetracked by the OSC is not known.

It is not just dangers and safety problems that are not being promptly reported and investigated, but also the squandering of taxpayer dollars. Take the January 4, 2012 press release of Assistant Secretary of State Ann Stock. She proudly announced that the State Department is using public funds to sent American dance troupes overseas. The program is called DanceMotion USA. Secretary Stock, seemingly oblivious to the concept of fiscal responsibility, claimed that dance is a “diplomatic tool” and part of Secretary Clinton's “smart power” initiative. This is one of hundreds of expensive, artsy programs within the State Department that continue because employees are fearful of retaliation if they speak out against any of these extravagances.

Federal employees who uncover government corruption and are fired, demoted or transferred as a result are supposed to be able to turn to the OSC for protection. Congress mandated that such victims are merely required to make “an allegation” of retaliation to the OSC, which then has to “investigate” each and every case. Upon completion of its investigation, the OSC is required to prosecute all retaliation cases on behalf of the employee if the facts show “reasonable grounds” to believe that a retaliation had occurred. [See Title 5 of the U.S. Code, Section 1214]. Political appointees within the OSC and its sister agency, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), have taken this clear and simple law and turned it on its head in order to protect their political patrons. Officials now require Federal employees to “precisely plead” facts to the OSC, as if it were a court, and the smallest mistake results in the case being dismissed. Both agencies manufacture hypertechnical rules for how a disclosure of corruption must be made and to whom, despite the Federal Circuit court holding in Marano v. Department of Justice that “How a protected disclosure is made, or by whom, matters not.” Both agencies also ignore the holding in Frazier v. MSPB, “The Special Counsel should not passively await employee complaints, but rather, vigorously pursue merit system abuses.”

The OSC's statistics paint a grim picture of fear and abuse within the U.S. Government. In FY 2010, the OSC was only able to protect 55 of the 3,200 Federal employees who uncovered corruption and were being retaliated against by Obama Administration officials. In FY 2011, the OSC only protected 81 of the 2,583 employee-victims who asked for help.

It is not simply that the OSC statistics are dismal, but Ms. Lerner, in her 2011 Performance and Accountability Report, boasts of her agency's record! She represents that the OSC had a “perfect favorable outcome record before the MSPB” which is misleading because the OSC apparently never appeared before the MSPB in 2010 and perhaps only a few times in 2011. Ms. Lerner then informed Congress that the OSC has a “productive year” in 2011 in that it processed and closed out 870 retaliation cases. In OSC-speak, being productive means burying 870 retaliation cases by taking no action. In the surreal world of the OSC, being “productive” means doing nothing.

This calls to mind the popular American television show of the 1990's called The Seinfeld Show, which was a half-hour comedy about nothing. Each episode was about nothing in particular. The sad reality is that the Obama Administration has numerous “Seinfeld” agencies, offices and programs. Imagine entire Federal agencies in Washington, D.C. that see their job as doing nothing! Every day, officials arrive at work and labor at finding reasons not to do anything productive.

The most perplexing issue regarding the OSC and the MSPB is: How can these officials ignore the mistreatment and abuse of thousands of Federal employees every year? How can they come home from work and inform their spouses and children that they spent the day blocking safety investigations, ignoring false statements made to Congress, curtailing reviews of substandard body armor for the troops, and halting corruption inquiries? The scary reality is that, somehow, they are able to rationalize all of this away.

On January 16, 2012, the world was given a demonstration of courage by Pakistan's Supreme Court. As the first step in its contempt proceedings, it ordered Prime Minister Yousuf Rasa Gilani to appear before it to explain why his government had not moved more aggressively against official corruption. That is democracy at its very finest. In contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court appears tepid and near-comatose. The same could be said for the U.S. Department of (Political) Justice, which has shown no interest in prosecuting corruption cases. It was not always that way. The late U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy would have swiftly impaneled a Federal Grand Jury to investigate the gross abuses of authority outlined above, but that was another era.

One of the few remaining forums where Federal employees and U.S. citizens can turn in Washington, D.C. to combat official corruption is the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Representative Darrell Issa. Committee hearings by Chairman Issa are warranted into the OSC's misrepresentations to Congress, its on-going efforts to block corruption investigations and the refusal of both the OSC and the MSPB to comply with the law.

The next President of the United States needs to aggressively combat the pervasive culture of fear and corruption that exists in Washington, D.C. His first act should be to move against the numerous “Seinfeld” agencies, offices and programs that exist within the Executive Branch, consigning them to the dustbin of history. One place to start is to immediately abolish the OSC through the mechanism of a RIF (reduction in force) decree. Not only is the entire agency a waste of taxpayer dollars, but it plays a destructive role by derailing corruption investigations.
His second act should be to issue an expansive Executive Order, rigorously enforced, that protects and rewards whistleblowers.

The American and the Afghan peoples yearn to have their governments run by “untouchables.” This American term refers to legendary U.S. Treasury Agent Eliot Ness and his team of special agents who battled organized crime mobsters in old Chicago. They could not be touched by scandal or politics. Citizens of the U.S. and Afghanistan would rally around those who put their careers second and their oaths of office to the nation first. The road to the White House in 2012 and to ultimate success in Afghanistan belongs to those who can form and lead governments of untouchables.

Photo by Mariam Alimi Photo Services, www.mariamalimi.webs.com

Building Afghanistan into Ruin

Matthew J. Nasuti (Former U.S. Air Force Captain) — 2012-01-01T12:08:54Z

USAID's road and building construction efforts in Afghanistan continue to be so mismanaged that one could argue that USAID officials are providing aid and comfort to the enemy. The evidence for this harsh assessment comes from a seemingly endless series of audit reports that have revealed cheap, shoddily designed and poorly constructed projects. Many contractors continue to operate without any on-site supervision. Instead of being in the field supervising their projects, USAID officials refuse to leave the comfort of their offices in Kabul. Their excuse is that it is too dangerous to venture into the countryside. The Afghan countryside is safe enough for Afghans, for contractors and for U.S. troops, but not for USAID officials.

Once completed and turned over to the host country, the USAID projects almost immediately begin to decay as Afghanistan lacks the resources and skilled personnel to maintain these costly, modern structures. As a result most roadways are falling apart before they are even finished. Just one example was detailed by Alissa J. Rubin and James Risen of The New York Times, in their May 1, 2011 article: “Troubled Roadway.” They discovered that “the Gardez-Khost Highway is over budget and far from complete. Finished stretches are already falling apart and remain treacherous.” The same could be said for many of the school and other buildings the U.S. has constructed. Some schools have been declared completed even though they would be condemned if they were presented for use by American schoolchildren. To add insult to injury, huge bribes continue to be paid to the Taliban so that all this can continue. This situation is perfect for the Taliban because it is being paid not to interfere with projects that are so decrepit and counterproductive that it would not have interfered anyway.

USAID's response to debacle after debacle has been first to ignore the problems, opting instead to herald nothing but progress. If pressed, USAID spokesmen recite the familiar bureaucratic refrain that the agency needs more resources. The problem is not a lack of resources but a failure in leadership, skill and creativity.

For some of USAID's Afghan problems, the solutions lie in the past with old, but tried and true remedies; however USAID runs on press releases and the agency snobbishly feels that all its projects must at least appear to be state of the art. To agency political appointees, using Afghan aid on 50 or 100 year old designs is not acceptable, even though those designs include the brilliant “macadam” roads from the 1800s, and the wonderfully efficient World War II vintage Quonson Huts.

In 1816, a Scottish engineer named John Loudon McAdam oversaw the construction of a section of the Bristol Turnpike using his new invention. McAdam's pioneered the science of mixed aggregates. After grading the route at a sufficient elevation to ensure proper drainage, he built his turnpike with only a three-inch rise from shoulder to center point. The key to the success of the road was his use of three-inch (75 millimeters) aggregate for the road base, covered by a 0.79 inch (20 millimeters) surface crust. This was one of the first scientifically engineered gravel roads. McAdam used broken angular stones, which when compressed, pushed into each other like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. This process became known simply as “Macadam” roads. Later inventors would add sand and fines in order to improve the upper road surface's adhesion, and still later coal tar was added as a binder to create “tar macadam” or Tarmac. These original concepts remain valid today. In fact, one of the latest forms of modern asphalt highways is known as “superpave.” It is based on a reanalysis of the original macadam concept.

One or more versions of the original macadam roads would have been ideal for Afghanistan, but they were apparently all rejected by USAID. USAID also rejected constructing Afghanistan's roads with poured concrete, which was used to construct the Interstate Highway System in the United States. USAID instead selected the worse possible alternative, a cheap version of the modern asphalt roadway. We know they are cheap because most USAID roads in Afghanistan have reportedly been built for about $500,000 per kilometer, which is a fraction of the cost of building a quality roadway in the United States. Corners can be cut by eliminating grading and drainage; using low quality and poorly mixed aggregates and cutting back on the quality and thickness of the asphalt base layer and top coat. Amazingly, USAID reportedly waived all performance warranties from its road contractors. The USAID emphasis has been on quantity over quality. Even if adequate funding had been provided, modern asphalt concrete roadways are complex to construct, impossible to oversee from long distance, and they require constant maintenance and costly resurfacing, all of which are beyond the means of the present Afghan government.

The result of all this is manufactured decay. Afghanistan's ring road and its provincial connector road system are collapsing even before they are completed. USAID is seemingly unconcerned because it obtained what it wanted, which was to tout that it completed thousands of kilometers of roads. Incredibly the war effort takes a distant second place as nothing trumps the value of a press release filled with dubious metrics.

In this July 2009 photograph, an Afghan construction crew works on a planned 17.5-mile road in Ghazni province, Afghanistan, funded by the U.S. government. After three years and $4 million, only two-thirds of a mile was paved, and U.S. officials terminated the contract in October 2011.
By SHASHANK BENGALI, McClatchy Newspapers, Published: November 11, 2011.

++++

The United States did not always build junk. One of its greatest building successes began in 1941 at Quonset Point, Road Island, where the U.S. Navy manufactured its first Quonson Hut.

The brilliant design and utter simplicity of the Quonson Hut (which was produced in many different sizes) cannot be underestimated. It became an icon of the Second World War. Its rugged galvanized steel shell was sturdy and was made even more so by the corrugated design. The genius of combining the walls and roof helped to eliminate water leaks, eliminated snow buildups and eliminated the need for interior buttresses, which permitted a wide range of open floor plans.

Air gaps between the two layers of steel permitted the insertion of insulation for cold climates.

Quonset Hut T-Rib Model Wall Detail

The Quonson Hut design allowed for numerous alterations depending on site conditions. For example, knee-high or taller side walls could be poured using cement bonded mineralized wood fibers such as those contained in Durisol concrete. This material has an insulation “R” value of 1.75 per inch, and a pH greater than 10 so it inhibits mold. In addition, larger air gaps could be added to the walls permitting the insertion of additional rigid foam insulation and vapor barriers for wet or cold climates.

Another advantage of the Quonson Hut is that after laying the foundation or concrete slab, the Quonson Hut could be constructed in a matter of hours. Eventually an estimated 160,000 Quonson Huts were built as part of the war effort. Quonson Huts still exist across the United States. As long as their zinc-coated steel shells are kept painted, the buildings have an extensive service life.

In 2001 USAID could have embraced this reliable icon of America but it opted instead in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere to pay for more modern buildings, including modular structures. This effort produced a mix of fair to poor buildings and schools, all at a price wildly inflated compared to the frugal yet functional Quonson Hut, and all requiring periodic repairs and maintenance, which Afghanistan cannot afford.

In conclusion, a review of ten years of USAID construction efforts in Afghanistan reveals nothing complimentary. USAID has literally built Afghanistan into ruin. Five years from now there will be little to show from the billions in taxpayer dollars invested. Despite its stunning failures, USAID mission directors and country officials, who rotate in for short tours and then depart, continue to receive lavish praise and presumably promotions from their agency. USAID's Administrator, Rajiv Shah is primarily known for giving speeches in which he praises President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and for posing for more self-promotional publicity photos than all previous USAID Administrators combined.

Even though USAID has no clothes (to coin an American phrase), few in the Administration have been willing to acknowledge the obvious because loyalty is prized above competence. The thinking is that it is better to waste billions and lose the war than to hold inept, yet loyal, officials accountable. To some in the Obama Administration failure is an option and apparently a more attractive option to acting responsibly; which is incomprehensible.

Image sources:
1. The Rajiv Shah photo: Seattle times
2. The hut covered with USA bags: technoccult.net

U.S. Abandons Toxic Burn Pits as it Withdraws from Iraq and Afghanistan

Matthew J. Nasuti (Former U.S. Air Force Captain) — 2011-12-10T16:50:45Z

U.S. service members and their Iraqi and Afghan allies have a common enemy. It is not Iran, the Taliban or al-Qaeda, but the Pentagon which operated hundreds of toxic burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the U.S. completes its withdrawal from Iraq and begins to draw down in Afghanistan, the American military, pursuant to its “pollute and run” policy, is abandoning millions of kilograms of toxic and potentially radioactive waste. Everything is being buried and covered over, just as it did in Vietnam and in the Philippines when the U.S. withdrew from Clark Air Base and the Subic Bay naval installation. The Pentagon seems to hope that all the health problems of U.S. troops can likewise be buried and covered over.

The (U.S.) Air Force Times ran an editorial on March 1, 2010 that read: “Stamp Out Burn Pits.” We reprint the first portion of that editorial:

“A growing number of military medical professionals believe burn pits are causing a wave of respiratory and other illnesses among troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Found on almost all U.S. bases in the war zones, these open-air trash sites operate 24 hours a day, incinerating trash of all forms — including plastic bottles, paint, petroleum products, unexploded ordinance, hazardous materials, even amputated limbs and medical waste. Their smoke plumes belch dioxin, carbon monoxide and other toxins skyward, producing a toxic fog that hangs over living and working areas.”

On April 12, 2010, the Richmond Times-Dispatch carried an article by David Zucchino who investigated the American burn pits in Iraq. He interviewed Army Sgt. 1st Class Francis Jaeger who hauled military waste to the Balad burn. Jaeger told Zucchino:

“We were told to burn everything - electronics, bloody gauze, the medics' biohazard bags, surgical gloves, cardboard. It all went up in smoke.”

According to a website called the “Burn Pits Action Center” large numbers of American veterans who came in contact with burn pit smoke have been diagnosed with cancer, neurological diseases, cardiovascular diseases, breathing and sleeping problems and various skin rashes.

On October 28, 2009, President George W. Bush, signed into law H.R. 2647, which included the provisions of “The Military Personnel War Zone Toxic Exposure Prevention Act.” The Act was sponsored by Congressman Tim Bishop of New York and supported by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the National Guard Association of the United States, and the Military Officers Association banned the use of burn pits unless they were specifically deemed essential by the Secretary of Defense. Despite the law, burn pit use continued in Iraq and reportedly continues today in Afghanistan.

The impetus for H.R. 2647 was Lieutenant Colonel Darrin L. Curtis, Ph.D., who was a Bioenvironmental Engineering Flight Commander at Balad Air Base in Iraq in 2006. Lt. Col. Curtis wrote a December 20, 2006, report on the environmental and health impacts of the Balad burn pit. He stated that the burn pit was “the worst environmental site” he had seen in seventeen years of environmental work in the United States. He characterized the smoke released by the military as: “an acute health hazard” to everyone who has been deployed or will be deployed to Balad. Lt. Col. Curtis' report was reviewed and endorsed by Lieutenant Colonel James R. Elliott, Chief of Aeromedical Services. The Pentagon ultimately ignored the report just as it had ignored the Fall 2004 study in (U.S. Army) “Engineer - The Professional Bulletin” which found that by 2002, Kandahar Airfield was facing “a growing human health and environmental threat” from the uncontrolled burning of hazardous waste.

In June 2008, the U.S. Army Center of Health (USACHPPM) issued a “Fact Sheet” that downplayed any health problems associated with the burn pits. It stated that the safety of the burn pits had been independently validated by the Defense Health Board (DHB). It went on to claim that:

“The DHB is an independent board comprised of experts from private industry and recognized universities.”

Research into the DHB reveals otherwise. The Board is primarily composed of retired Generals, Admirals and Colonels, along with politically appointees from prior Administrations and civilian consultants currently under contract to the Pentagon and other government agencies. There is nothing independent about the Board. The Senate Democratic Policy Committee took testimony from Dr. Anthony Szema, an Assistant Professor of Medicine at SUNY and a physician with the Department of Veterans Affairs. He provided a detailed refutation of the DHB's flawed findings regarding the burn pits. His testimony is available on the Internet under the phrase: “Are Burn Pits Making Our Soldiers Sick?”

On October 3, 2008, the Military Times published a damning report by Kelly Kennedy entitled “Army Making Toxic Mess in War Zones.” The article was prompted by the release in September 2008, of a Rand Corporation study that detailed a horrific series of environmental spills, releases and disposals in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bruce Travis of the U.S. Army Engineering School told the Times that no environmental rules were complied with in Iraq from 2003-2008 (this would presumably apply to Afghanistan also). He went on to state that an estimated 11 million pounds of hazardous waste were disposed of in Iraq up to 2008. This practice did not end in 2008. A U.S. Government Accountability Report in 2010, detailed inspections in 2009/2010 of four American bases in Afghanistan and none were found to be compliant with environmental standards.

Most American military waste falls into one of the following twelve (12) categories. They are called the “dirty dozen:”

1. Paints, asbestos, solvents, grease, cleaning solutions.

2. Building materials that contain formaldehyde, copper, arsenic and hydrogen cyanide.

3. Hydraulic fluids (hazardous), aircraft de-icing fluids (toxic), antifreeze (poisonous) and used oil (cancer-causing).

4. Jet fuel, gasoline and diesel fuel.

5. Pesticides and various neuro-toxic poisons resulting from attempts to control flies, mosquitoes, ants, fleas and rodents. The military refers to such practices as “vector control.”

6. Lead, nickel, zinc and cadmium battery waste and acids (toxic/corrosive).

7. Electronic waste (or E-waste). This includes computers, printers, faxes, screens, televisions, radios, refrigerators, communications gear and test equipment. They contain cancer-causing chemicals such as the flame retardant PBDE (polybrominated diphenyl ethers), PCDD (polychlorinated dioxins), barium, copper, lead, zinc, cadmium oxides and cadmium sulphides and trivalent antimony.

8. Light bulbs containing hazardous levels of mercury. Disposal of these light bulbs in ordinary landfills is prohibited in the United States.

9. Plastics. When burned, many plastics release a deadly mix of chemicals including dioxins, furans, benzene, di 2-ethylhexyl phthalates (DEHP), hydrochloric acid, benzo(a)pyrene (BAP) and various acids and chlorine gas (which is a neurotoxin).

10. Medical/Infectious Disease waste and Biohazard Materials.

11. Ammunition waste. Lead, brass and other metals from ammunition along with all the constituents of the propellants, including trinitrotoluene, picric acid, diphenylamine, nitrocellulose, nitroglycerin, potassium nitrate, barium nitrate, tetracene, diazodintrophenol, phosphorus, peroxides, thiocarbamide, potassium chlorate, vinyl fluoride, vinyl chloride, sodium fluoride and sodium sulfate.

12. Radioactive waste. The American military routinely uses a large number of devices and equipment that contain radioactive elements or radioluminescent elements. These materials are referred to as “Radioactive Commodities” by the military. The primary radioactive materials are: Uranium, Tritium, Radium 226, Americium 241, Thorium, Cesium 137 and Plutonium 239. A partial list of radioactive equipment that may have been disposed of in burn pits or buried in Iraqi and Afghan landfills includes: night vision devices, calibration sets, engine components, weapon sights, compasses, fire control devices, level gauges, collimators, sensors, test equipment, vehicle dials, radios, chemical agent monitors and communication equipment, along with laboratory and hospital machines. In addition to these commodities, the military also uses 120mm depleted uranium (DU) warheads and 20mm DU ammunition along with DU armor plating.

The Pentagon admits operating 84 “official” burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet Adam Levine from CNN reported on October 15, 2010, that at least 221 burn pits were operated in Afghanistan alone. That number is believed to be only half of the actual burn pits operated in Afghanistan. On February 10, 2010, CBS News published a report by Nick Turse entitled: “the 700 military bases of Afghanistan.” CBS claims that about 400 bases, posts and camps belong to Coalition forces, most of which are American. Each of these facilities may have one or more burn pits, landfills, or disposal pits. The number of U.S. military bases in Iraq may be double this. Each needs to be excavated, sampled and analyzed.

The latest and perhaps the most disturbing burn pit information was published last month on “Wired.Com.” Written by Katie Drummond, it was entitled: “Congressman: The Military's Burn Pit Screwed Our Soldiers.” The Congressman is Todd Akin from Missouri. The outrage was over a press release issued on October 31, 2011 by the Institute of Medicine, which is the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences. It was unable to complete its report on the burn pits, a report that had been commissioned by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The Institute of Medicine found 53 toxins in the air above the Balad air base in Iraq but could not determine the sources for each due to a lack of assistance by the Pentagon. The Institute was unable to obtain information from the Pentagon as to what it burned and buried. The Pentagon claims it kept no records and has no scientific data,. The reason is that it apparently never sampled and analyzed the material in any of its Iraq or Afghan burn pits. The U.S. military is now simply covering them all over with dirt as the U.S. prepares to withdraw from Iraq and begins to draw down in Afghanistan.

In summary, there has been no competent assessment of the long-term environmental harm to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan from the abandonment of such a massive volume of toxic waste. The Pentagon has likewise abandoned its own solders, sailors, marines and airmen whom it poisoned and injured. Until all the burn pits are excavated and sampled, there is no way to determine the full makeup of the toxic soup of pollutants that U.S. military personnel were exposed to.

This “pollute and run” policy should not be permitted. If invading countries had to clean up and restore the country sides they invaded and damaged, and if they had to treat and care for all those they injured, perhaps they might in the future think twice before launching such wars.

Sources for Further Reading:

Houston Chronicle - February 7, 2010 - “GIs tell of horror from burn pits”

Los Angeles Times - February 18, 2010 - “Veterans speak out against burn pits”

Salem News - March 29, 2010 - “Sick Veterans Sue KBR Over Iraq and Afghanistan Burn Pits”

Kabul Press^? - April 25, 2010 - “EXCLUSIVE REPORT: American Military Creating an Environmental Disaster in Afghan Countryside” (Part 1 of 3)

Kabul Press - May 2, 2010 - EXCLUSIVE REPORT: American Military Burn Pits Pollute Afghan Countryside (Part 2 of 3)

Kabul Press - May 4, 2010 - EXCLUSIVE REPORT: American Military Burn Pits Pose Risk to Future Generations of Afghans (Part 3 of 3).

Image source

Afghan Metrics Show Taliban Winning & Losing

Matthew J. Nasuti (Former U.S. Air Force Captain) — 2011-11-16T20:13:11Z

The full metrics regarding the Afghan War have never been presented to the American, NATO or Afghan publics, thus permitting the unscrupulous on both sides (pro-war and anti-war) to argue their own dubious positions. Each side cherry-picks those statistics that seem to support their position, never mentioning or discussing the contrary information.

This article presents 40 apparently undisputed metrics which compare 2011 with the same period in 2010. The sources for this information are ISAF(NATO), the United Nations, the NGO Security Office, AusAID, the CIA, the World Bank and on-the-ground newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times and New York Times. These are the facts. It is up to the reader to draw his or own conclusions from these data:

Metric No. 1: Taliban attacks against Coalition forces are down.
Metric No. 2: Total Taliban attacks against Coalition forces and civilians are up.
Metric No. 3: Coalition casualties (killed, maimed and wounded) are up.
Metric No. 4: Afghan civilian casualties are up.
Metric No. 5: The Coalition is finding and destroying more IEDs.
Metric No. 6: The number of IEDs being used by the Taliban is up.
Metric No. 7: More Afghan villages in the South are “safe” from the Taliban.
Metric No. 8: More Afghan villages in the North and East are not “safe” from the Taliban.
Metric No. 9: Coalition night raids on Afghan homes are up.
Metric No. 10: The number of Taliban commanders killed and captured is up.
Metric No. 11: Taliban rocket and other attacks originating from Pakistan are up.
Metric No. 12: Predator drone attacks inside Pakistan are up.
Metric No. 13: Coalition air strikes inside Afghanistan are up.
Metric No. 14: Electricity availability and usage in Afghanistan is up.
Metric No. 15: The number of kilometers of roads in Afghanistan is up.
Metric No. 16: The number of audit reports showing mismanagement of Afghan aid funds is up.
Metric No. 17: The number of Afghan children enrolled in school is up.
Metric No. 18: The number of Afghan schools is up.
Metric No. 19: Afghan child malnutrition has increased.
Metric No. 20: The availability of basic health care for the Afghan people is up.
Metric No. 21: Overall Afghan life expectancy is up.
Metric No. 22: Afghan environmental damage has increased.
Metric No. 23: Afghan drought conditions are worse.
Metric No. 24: The number of acres of poppies being cultivated is up.
Metric No. 25: Attacks on Afghan poppy eradication teams are up.
Metric No. 26: Afghan security force corruption rates remain high.
Metric No. 27: Taliban assassinations of Afghan officials are up.
Metric No. 28: Taliban suicide bombings are up.
Metric No. 29: The number of women and children suicide bombers is up.
Metric No. 30: Coalition arrests of Afghan citizens are up.
Metric No. 31: The number of suspected insurgents in Afghan prisons is up.
Metric No. 32: The number of Taliban surrendering is up.
Metric No. 33: The number of Afghan soldiers deserting is high and unchanged.
Metric No. 34: The number of internally displaced people is up.
Metric No. 35: The number of Afghans both returning to and fleeing from the country is down.
Metric No. 36: Coalition troop levels are falling while Taliban troop levels may be rising.
Metric No. 37: The size of the Afghan National Army is up.
Metric No. 38: The size of the Afghan National and local police forces is up.
Metric No. 39: The number of local anti-Taliban militias is up.
Metric No. 40: Areas being turned over to Afghan security forces by the Coalition are up.

Other metrics are more blurry. For example Taliban attacks in Kabul are down but each attack carried out is more spectacular than the one before it. Overall the lethality of the Taliban attacks (more people killed/wounded per attack) may be up. Attacks may be down in the Kandahar Province countryside but appear up in urban areas. Unemployment is not clear as some statistics show it rising to 50% and other data shows a fall to 35%. Women and minority groups in Afghanistan have made some progress but have also suffered some serious reverses. Election participation is down and electoral corruption seems up. Afghanistan's Lower House (the Wolesi Jirga or House of the People) is more fractured and divided; and warlords have made comebacks in some areas of the South.

Finally, there are metrics that are simply manufactured. Former President Ronald Reagan once said that there are two kinds of facts, those you look up and those you make up. Such is the case with the Asia Foundation's just-released survey of Afghans. Paid for by USAID with $300,000 of U.S. taxpayer funds, the politically-connected Washington, D.C. consulting firm, produced the results that American officials wanted. It found that 73% of Afghans supported the Government in Kabul. This prompted the conservative Catholic OnLine to publish a response: Afghans Survey Too Good to Be True.” It said that “very few believe the results (of the survey) are credible.” It quoted Ramazan Brashardost, member of Parliament and former presidential candidate, as stating: “This is bigger than a white lie.” “It seems part of the illusion-weaving to get out.”

In summary, none of these individual metrics standing on their own convey much information. They have to be all be presented and assessed as a group, which has yet to occur. The good men and women in the Coalition and Afghan militaries should not be asked to give their lives or their limbs or their hearing or eyesight based on half-truths.

During America's Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln was known as “Honest Abe.” People rallied around him in part because they knew that he always told them the truth (good or bad). The truth has a place in wartime. It must be the centerpiece of any war effort, if in fact that war effort is worthwhile.

Image source

U.S. Officials Reveal Al-Qaeda Breakthrough in “Super Explosives”

Matthew J. Nasuti (Former U.S. Air Force Captain) — 2011-11-04T21:13:00Z

Several years ago an official with the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security disclosed to this author that al-Qaeda scientists had achieved a stunning breakthrough in non-nuclear explosives. At that time al-Qaeda experts were reportedly on the verge of developing a new class of “super explosives.” A more accurate description would be to refer to them as “sustained detonation” or “uncurved brisance” explosives. On October 29, 2011, those explosives may have made their debut when one of NATO's supposedly “bomb-proof” Rhino armored buses was hit by a suicide car bomb which threw the massive Rhino into the air and flipped it over along a Kabul highway killing all 13 military and civilian occupants.

The story begins at the Bureau of Diplomatic Security's training facility at Summit Point, West Virginia. This author, who was serving in the State Department at the time, was selected for an anti-terrorist training program run by security officials Brian Duffy and Martin Burk. On March 26, 2008, this author was given an unclassified briefing by one of the Bureau's senior ordinance experts. That official disclosed the al-Qaeda breakthrough. He described State Department officials as being fearful of the consequences of this new class of explosives. He went on to reveal that government experts were stunned because they did not know that sustained detonation or uncurved brisance explosives were even possible. True to form the Bureau and the State Department have concealed this information from the American public and more importantly from U.S. troops who would have to face these explosives. It is not clear if the information was ever disclosed to Congress. The resulting lack of public discussion means that the U.S. military is unprepared to deal with these new weapons; weapons which expose American personnel to new and heightened risks.

Chemical explosives, i.e., those which detonate rather than simply burn, obtain most of their destructive power due to a supersonic shock wave formed by the detonation impulse. The higher the velocity of the impulse the greater its shattering power. That is generally referred to as the “brisance” of the explosive. The name originated from the French verb “briser” meaning to break or shatter. The velocity can be depicted as a curve in which the impulse climbs, peaks and then falls. According to Diplomatic Security officials, the al-Qaeda's explosives rise and peak but do not immediately fall. Instead the peak can be maintained for a very short period. As a result there is no curve as with conventional explosives. This would magnify their destructive power considerably.

There is reportedly substantial research on-going in this area. The Pentagon had been the leader in new explosives due to its pioneering work in thermobaric explosives, which use fuel/air mixtures combined with powdered aluminum to achieve a longer duration blast. Other theoretical super explosive research has focused on using metallic hydrogen and cryogenics, including liquid oxygen (LOX). There was a report that the terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah used crude thermobaric explosives in its 2002, Bali bombings. This new threat prompted writer David Eshel in 2006, to coin the term “thermobaric terrorism.”

In the aftermath of the October 29, 2011, Kabul attack, U.S. and NATO officials released a misleading analysis of the attack. They stated that 700 kilograms of explosives were used. That comment was misleading because they could not possibly know the amount of explosives. The blast effects of 700 kilograms of ammonium nitrate, TNT and RDX explosives are considerably different. All that these officials could possibly say about the Kabul explosives is that the blast effects are consistent with that produced by 700 kilograms of a conventional explosive. The fact is that the same explosive effect could have been produced by perhaps 200 kilograms of a super explosive. If so, the Kabul attack may signal the ominous beginning of a new terrorist campaign wherein small quantities of super explosives might be used to bring down commercial airliners, destroy public buildings and attack infrastructure targets in the West.

Support for the premise that a super explosive may have been used in the Kabul attack can be seen in the following facts:
1. 700 kilograms is a massive weight for an average civilian passenger vehicle to covertly transport, which makes the U.S./NATO claims suspect;
2. This was clearly intended to be a demonstration of something new as the terrorists chose the most bomb-proof vehicle in the U.S./NATO inventory as their target;
3. We know from the State Department that terrorist groups have had these super explosives for at least several years; and finally,
4. U.S. officials cannot be relied on to publicly acknowledge the existence of these new al-Qaeda weapons or their use. They would likely view the truth as destabilizing because the increased risks to American forces might undermine the already dwindling support in the U.S. for the Afghan war. Deception fueled the Vietnam War (with the fabricated Tonkin Gulf incidents), the Iraq War (with Saddam Hussein's fabricated weapons of mass destruction) and it may now be fueling the Afghan War.

If these explosives exist and if their use is being concealed by the Pentagon and NATO, then billions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer funds spent on MRAPs (mine resistant vehicles) may have been wasted. With each new terrorist weapon, a counter needs to be devised and fielded as quickly as possible. The concern is that excessive secrecy may have delayed research into new equipment, armor and vehicles to counter this emerging threat. The consequences may be that more Americans troops will die needlessly, just as they did as a result of previous delays in fielding upgraded body armor, armored HUMVEES and the original MRAPs; and no Administration officials, Generals or Admirals will ever be held accountable.

The American way of war perhaps can be summed up in two rules:
“Rule 1: the truth gets concealed, inept officials prosper and soldiers die, and
Rule 2: no one seems to be able to change Rule 1."

کابل پرس

Afghan Godfather, his Gangsters and the US Aid Cutoff during Covid-19 Crisis

Ghani Ahmadzai's German Adviser Received US$41250.00 Salary per Month

4GB USB Flash Memory Costs $100 in Karzai's Administration

Document letter: Taliban leaders have close relationship with Military Intelligence of Pakistan

Table of contents

Islamic Emirates of Afghanistan

“Anti-Ambassador” Policy Hobbles U.S. Embassy in Kabul

EXCLUSIVE REPORT: U.S. Probe into Missing Afghan Aid Funds Blocked

Building Afghanistan into Ruin

U.S. Abandons Toxic Burn Pits as it Withdraws from Iraq and Afghanistan

Afghan Metrics Show Taliban Winning & Losing

U.S. Officials Reveal Al-Qaeda Breakthrough in “Super Explosives”