Follow us on social

google cta
US threw away $2.4 billion in Afghanistan: Internal report

US threw away $2.4 billion in Afghanistan: Internal report

In some cases, the US provided facilities or equipment to the Afghan government without asking if it wanted, needed, or could maintain them.

Reporting | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

The U.S. government spent at least $2.4 billion on properties in Afghanistan that were abandoned, misused, damaged, or destroyed, according to a February report by the government’s internal watchdog.

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D–Mass.) had asked the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, or SIGAR, in September 2019 to review U.S.-funded facilities in Afghanistan. The government watchdog reviewed its past investigations into U.S. investments in Afghanistan since 2008, worth $7.8 billion, finally releasing the results of its investigation late last month.

The report showed that only around $1.2 billion in assets — such as buildings, vehicles and equipment — were used for their intended purposes, and only $343.2 million in assets were still in good condition. Many projects were impossible to evaluate because they had not been completed the last time SIGAR inspected them, but the watchdog determined that $2.4 billion had simply gone to waste.

“While I believe that targeted humanitarian relief and construction assistance for Afghanistan was and is warranted, this SIGAR Report exposes serious gaps in planning and contract execution and provides guidance on how U.S.-taxpayer resources must be more wisely and carefully allocated to ensure they do not go to waste,” Lynch said in a Monday press release.

Of the $2.4 billion in assets that went to waste, $617.3 million were abandoned or never used, and $580.7 million were misused. More than half of the wasted assets — worth $1.78 billion — deteriorated or were destroyed.

SIGAR also conducted a follow-up review of 60 different assets worth $792.1 million, finding that 37 of them were being used as intended but 50 were damaged or destroyed.

The report states that SIGAR has found “a clear pattern of nonuse, misuse, deterioration, or destruction of many capital assets that the U.S. government has provided to the Afghan government” but U.S. government “agencies continued with a ‘business as usual’ approach with their reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan.”

The vast majority of the projects reviewed were funded by the U.S. Department of Defense.

In a response that was included in the SIGAR report, the Department of Defense argued that many of these projects had served their purpose for the U.S. government and fell apart only after being handed over to Afghan authorities.

SIGAR found that assets most often fell apart or were abandoned — or both — because the beneficiaries couldn't afford to use or maintain them.

In one case, a school renovated by the U.S. Agency for International Development had so much structural damage and so many electrical hazards that teachers simply held classes outside the empty building.

In another case, a $6.7 million academy for female police officers went unused because the Afghan government placed a moratorium on training women.

In the single largest case of waste, the U.S. military purchased 16 transport planes for the Afghan military at a cost of $486 million, then destroyed the planes and sold them for scrap, recovering only $40,257 in costs.

In some cases, the U.S. government provided facilities or equipment to the Afghan government without asking if it wanted, needed, or could maintain them.

SIGAR recommended that U.S. agencies develop a clear plan along with their Afghan counterparts on how assets should be sustained.

The report comes as President Joe Biden faces a deadline to decide whether to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

Under a peace agreement between the United States and Taliban rebels signed last year, the U.S.-led military coalition has until May 1 to leave Afghanistan. Some of Biden’s allies have urged him to keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan past the deadline, but others warn that breaking the deal could spark a renewed U.S.-Taliban war.

If the U.S.-led war effort drags on, the massive waste of resources will likely continue with it.

“My view is it’s impossible to imagine a war in Afghanistan, even a successful one, that doesn’t ‘waste’ much of its budget,” says Ben Friedman, policy director of Defense Priorities. “The problem is that even the unwasted money is throwing good after bad.”


KANDAHAR PROVINCE, Afghanistan ñ U.S. Army Sgt Michael Magnuson (Right) of Northampton, Mass. and U.S. Army Sgt. David Sterin (Left) of Boulder, Colo., members of the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team security force, lead members of the PRT through the Shur Andam Industrial Park in Kandahar City June 11. The PRT met with business leaders to assess the use of and need for electricity in the area. The PRT works with government and civic leaders at the district and provincial levels to improve infrastructure capacity in the province. (U.S. Air Force photo by Chief Master Sgt. Richard Simonsen) |Marines talk with an elder to offer assistance after heavy rains, Helmand Province, 2011. (USMC photo by Gunnery Sergeant Bryce Piper)
google cta
Reporting | Asia-Pacific
Dan Caine
Top photo credit: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine conduct a press briefing on Operation Epic Fury at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

Did Caine just announce the Morgenthau option for Iran?

QiOSK

Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation of American war aims in Iran is remarkable not because it is bellicose, but because it is strategically incoherent.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not describe a limited campaign to suppress missile fire, blunt Iran’s naval threat, or even impose a severe but bounded setback on Tehran’s coercive instruments. He described a campaign against Iran’s “military and industrial base” designed to prevent the regime from attacking Americans, U.S. interests, and regional partners “for years to come.” In an earlier briefing he put the objective similarly: to prevent Iran from projecting power outside its borders. Rather than the language of a discrete coercive operation, this describes a war against a state’s capacity to regenerate power.

keep readingShow less
Ilham Aliyev azerbaijan iran
Top photo credit: Azerbaijan president Ilham Aliyev visited Embassy of Islamic Republic of Iran, offered condolences over death of former President Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, in 2017. (Office of the President of Azerbaijan/public domain)

Neocons wanted an Azeri uprising against Iran. They didn't get it.

Middle East

With Iran resisting the U.S./Israeli onslaught for the second week, what was supposed to be a quick transition to a pro-U.S. regime following the decapitation strike that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is fast turning into a quagmire. While the U.S. and Israel continue to sow mayhem on Tehran from the skies, the previously unthinkable option of sending ground troops to Iran is gaining ground.

First, an apparent plan was being hatched to employ Kurdish fighters to take on Tehran. Then, when drones, allegedly flying from Iran although Tehran denied it, struck the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan — hitting an airport terminal and a village school, and wounding four civilians — the stage appeared set for the opening of a northern front against Iran. Here was an alleged act of aggression from Iranian territory against Israel's closest partner in the South Caucasus. It offered the pretext to goad Azerbaijan into joining the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.

keep readingShow less
Trump miami press conference iran
Top photo credit: Trump press conference on Iran, Miami, 3/9/26 (PBS screengrab)

Trump press conference reveals a man who wants out of war

QiOSK

Trump’s “all over the place” press conference at his Miami resort on Monday appears to have had two key objectives: a) Calm the markets by signalling the conflict may soon be over because it has been so "successful,” and b) Prepare the ground for Trump ending the war through a unilateral declaration of victory.

Though ending a war that never should have been started in the first place — rather than fighting it endlessly in the pursuit of an illusory victory as the U.S. did in Afghanistan — is the right move, it won’t be as easy as Trump appears to think.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.