Is reconstruction aid a waste of money and resources?

[irishmick79]

After reading various sources on the pace of Iraqi and Afghan reconstruction programs, it becomes readily apparent that serious problems emerge when trying to structure how aid is spent. Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder if it's even worthwhile to spend money on reconstruction programs until Afghanistan and Iraq are in post-conflict enviroments.

Let's take a look at the number of factors which hinder successful reconstruction:

1. Astronomical security costs - numerous sources have shown how the high costs of providing security to employees and corporations working in Iraq and Afghanistan are exhorbant, if not outright prohibitive. I recall one aid organization spending almost $3 million on security for one outpost in Helmand province alone. Numerous contractors have pulled out of Iraq because security costs in some cases were driving up expenditures by 50% at least.
2. Gross mismanagment/poor planning - A general problem which seems to plague a lot international aid programs, even in non-conflict environments. With so much money being spent on aid programs, lots of people in Washington, regardless of political affiliations, put a heavy amount of pressure on the people in the field to show results. Consequently, the people in the field have to spend a lot of their time making their bosses in DC or elsewhere happy. A common critique of aid programs in general has been that they are initially conceived on too grand of a scale. Support for aid often is present only when the goal is something big, like "fostering civil rights in Afghanistan", and support isn't as strong when the program is "giving farmers in such a such province a few tractors" becuase micro-programs like that aren't nearly as interesting politically.
3. Direct conflict with insurgents - both Iraqi insurgents and the Taliban have made a point of targeting aid workers and any locals who work with them. Almost as soon as some projects have been completed, the insurgencies have moved against them. Aid workers also become a target for insurgent propaganda, and consequently locals tend to treat them with a great deal of suspicion and mistrust.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm all for helping to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem is that there are numerous ways in which an aid program can be undermined in a non-conflict zone, and there are even more ways in which a program can go wrong in a war zone. Any one of the above factors has the ability to cripple the effectiveness of international aid, and they've all been present in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Basic question - is reconstruction even possible in a war zone? If it's not, what do we do about the reconstruction aid we're spending? Wouldn't it be a giant waste of money and resources if you can't accomplish anything? If it is possible to reconstruct a society in a war zone, how do you do it? Our programs in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a mixed bag at best. How do you create an effective reconstruction program in an active war zone?

[Lochgelly]

It would be worth it if companies like Halliburton, Bechtel and others didn't steal 1/2 of it.

[Todd Farkman]

Originally Posted by Lochgelly

It would be worth it if companies like Halliburton, Bechtel and others didn't steal 1/2 of it.

Yeah, my point exactly.

It's amazing how many people don't realize that certain politicians get into office simply to raid tax monies. To dole out contracts to their buddies so they can simply take tax money with no effort.

Case in point. Cheney worked for Halliburton, owns Halliburton stock....and amazingly Halliburton gets no-bid contracts. AMAZING!

The ****ing ineptitude of your average idiot voter who simply votes on emotion, like Bush's call against gay marriage or his "I will defend you" ****ing bull****.....

Meanwhile he's giving wealthy friends tax cuts, dividend cuts and helping his oil buddies make boat loads of $$$.


And you don't even have to debate me to see this is the fact. LISTEN TO BUSH HIMSELF and his comments about "tax payers" and "some people call you elite, I call you my base".

Voters are dumb. Iraq is a sieve of money into nowheres-ville.

Dems are equally gullible. Look at the city of Detroit and all the corruption there.

How do you stop it?? YOU STOP GOVT SPENDING. That's how.

[greenjoker]

Originally Posted by Todd Farkman

Yeah, my point exactly.

It's amazing how many people don't realize that certain politicians get into office simply to raid tax monies. To dole out contracts to their buddies so they can simply take tax money with no effort.

Case in point. Cheney worked for Halliburton, owns Halliburton stock....and amazingly Halliburton gets no-bid contracts. AMAZING!

The ****ing ineptitude of your average idiot voter who simply votes on emotion, like Bush's call against gay marriage or his "I will defend you" ****ing bull****.....

Meanwhile he's giving wealthy friends tax cuts, dividend cuts and helping his oil buddies make boat loads of $$$.


And you don't even have to debate me to see this is the fact. LISTEN TO BUSH HIMSELF and his comments about "tax payers" and "some people call you elite, I call you my base".

Voters are dumb. Iraq is a sieve of money into nowheres-ville.

Dems are equally gullible. Look at the city of Detroit and all the corruption there.

How do you stop it?? YOU STOP GOVT SPENDING. That's how.

Politicians should pay those in their district money to represent them - the higher "gift" giver is deemed the winner.

[Lenin's Tomb]

This pisses me off. You get a lot of people complaining about the inefficiency and waste in the public education system. And slowly but inevitably school systems are forced to work with less and less money. Turn around and look at the military. The military is inefficient and wasteful, and the companies they hire are also. But that budget seems to increase without bounds, especially when engaged in whatever overseas folly of the moment is in effect.

Well, I for one would much rather "waste" money trying to get every child a good education than "waste" money nation building in the Middle East, or Africa.

This spending in Iraq and Afghanistan really does seem like a big taxpayer giveaway to corporate power, education spending rarely seems that way, at least IMO.

[Todd Farkman]

Originally Posted by Lenin's Tomb

This pisses me off. You get a lot of people complaining about the inefficiency and waste in the public education system. And slowly but inevitably school systems are forced to work with less and less money. Turn around and look at the military. The military is inefficient and wasteful, and the companies they hire are also. But that budget seems to increase without bounds, especially when engaged in whatever overseas folly of the moment is in effect.

Well, I for one would much rather "waste" money trying to get every child a good education than "waste" money nation building in the Middle East, or Africa.

This spending in Iraq and Afghanistan really does seem like a big taxpayer giveaway to corporate power, education spending rarely seems that way, at least IMO.

The problem is that the military is on a federal level, schools on a local level.

On a federal level there is no oversight, none whatsoever. Who would do it? The foxes guarding the henhouse?

This is why federal spending should be completely reduced ABSOLUTELY TO A MINIMUM.

Now schools on the other hand are at a local level and have a good deal of oversight. So spending is watched like a hawk and performance is demanded always....uh, outside of Detroit.


Just think about it. It's amazing the federal gov't gets anything done. Incumbants keep getting re-elected, if they don't they become lobbyists. And who does the oversight? Which body does oversight when they're all pork-barrelling it? What citizen group aside from TaxPayers of America or whatever.....who have ZERO power compared to some Military Industrial Corporation.

That's why ALL spending at the federal level should be SQUASHED or at least the absolute most you can get rid of.