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
Havana, Cuba
Top Image Credit: Havana, Cuba, 2019. (CLWphoto/Shutterstock)

Trump lifted sanctions on Syria. Now do Cuba.

North America

President Trump’s new National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) on Cuba, announced on June 30, reaffirms the policy of sanctions and hostility he articulated at the start of his first term in office. In fact, the new NSPM is almost identical to the old one.

The policy’s stated purpose is to “improve human rights, encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and promote democracy” by restricting financial flows to the Cuban government. It reaffirms Trump’s support for the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which explicitly requires regime change — that Cuba become a multiparty democracy with a free market economy (among other conditions) before the U.S. embargo will be lifted.

keep readingShow less
SPD Germany Ukraine
Top Photo: Lars Klingbeil (l-r, SPD), Federal Minister of Finance, Vice-Chancellor and SPD Federal Chairman, and Bärbel Bas (SPD), Federal Minister of Labor and Social Affairs and SPD Party Chairwoman, bid farewell to the members of the previous Federal Cabinet Olaf Scholz (SPD), former Federal Chancellor, Nancy Faeser, Saskia Esken, SPD Federal Chairwoman, Karl Lauterbach, Svenja Schulze and Hubertus Heil at the SPD Federal Party Conference. At the party conference, the SPD intends to elect a new executive committee and initiate a program process. Kay Nietfeld/dpa via Reuters Connect

Does Germany’s ruling coalition have a peace problem?

Europe

Surfacing a long-dormant intra-party conflict, the Friedenskreise (peace circles) within the Social Democratic Party of Germany has published a “Manifesto on Securing Peace in Europe” in a stark challenge to the rearmament line taken by the SPD leaders governing in coalition with the conservative CDU-CSU under Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

Although the Manifesto clearly does not have broad support in the SPD, the party’s leader, Deputy Chancellor and Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil, won only 64% support from the June 28-29 party conference for his performance so far, a much weaker endorsement than anticipated. The views of the party’s peace camp may be part of the explanation.

keep readingShow less
Trump and Putin on phone
Top photo credit: Donald Trump (White House photo) and Vladimir Putin (Office of the Russian Federation President)
US-Russia talks: The rubber finally hits the road

Good, bad and ugly: Impact of US Iran strikes on Russia war talks

Europe

To a considerable degree, President Donald Trump won the presidency in 2024 because voters embraced his message of keeping America out of protracted conflicts and his promise to end the war in Ukraine.

The administration has made substantial operational headway, particularly in reopening stable channels for dialogue with Russia, but it has proven difficult to arrive at a framework for a negotiated settlement that enjoys buy-in from all the stakeholders — Ukraine, Russia, and Europe.

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.