Follow us on social

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

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)
Reporting | Asia-Pacific
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

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.