Afghan highway barely built after 12 years, millions of U.S. tax dollars: SIGAR

From NBC News


Call it the road to nowhere.

A highway in Afghanistan, partly funded by U.S. taxpayer dollars, is largely unbuilt after 12 years of construction work according to inspectors who say it might never be completed.

The 145-mile section of road, from Qeysar in northern Faryab province to Laman in western Badghis province, was supposed to form part of the country’s orbital freeway — a major economic thoroughfare connecting major cities.

But only 15 percent of the expressway is finished, even though one-third of the budget has been spent.
Auditors blame the country’s increasingly dire security situation, as well as more conventional problems such as local contractor incompetence.

COMMENT:-

there was NEVER any reason for the US military to be in Afghanistan, nor Iraq.

G W Bush & those that he convinced to go to war should ALL be in prison cells for the abomination they created.

cuban smokes said:

there was NEVER any reason for the US military to be in Afghanistan, nor Iraq.

G W Bush & those that he convinced to go to war should ALL be in prison cells for the abomination they created.

Click to expand...

Sigh.

There is no reason for the U.S. military to keep festering and lingering about, but there were absolute reasons for the U.S. military to be in Afghanistan and Iraq.

TU Curmudgeon said:

From NBC News

Afghan highway barely built after 12 years, millions of U.S. tax dollars: SIGAR
​

Call it the road to nowhere.

A highway in Afghanistan, partly funded by U.S. taxpayer dollars, is largely unbuilt after 12 years of construction work according to inspectors who say it might never be completed.

The 145-mile section of road, from Qeysar in northern Faryab province to Laman in western Badghis province, was supposed to form part of the country’s orbital freeway — a major economic thoroughfare connecting major cities.

But only 15 percent of the expressway is finished, even though one-third of the budget has been spent.
Auditors blame the country’s increasingly dire security situation, as well as more conventional problems such as local contractor incompetence.

COMMENT:-

Your tax dollars at work, eh wot?

PS - After adjusting for inflation, the US has already spent more money on "reconstruction" in Afghanistan than it spend on "reconstruction" in Europe after WWII. 15 years after WWII the European GDP was around US$358.94 Billion. 15 years after the invasion of Afghanistan, the Afghan GDP is around US$19.47 billion.
​

Click to expand...

I don't understand the point of the highway. I was thinking it was going to be a direct supply route from Iran. But it appears to run internal to Ring Road. Were they going to connect it to Highway 1, thereby creating its own small ring?

MSgt said:

I don't understand the point of the highway. I was thinking it was going to be a direct supply route from Iran. But it appears to run internal to Ring Road. Were they going to connect it to Highway 1, thereby creating its own small ring?

Click to expand...

US policy is never about an 'end game' ............... it's typically about running around in circles .............

TU Curmudgeon said:

From NBC News

Afghan highway barely built after 12 years, millions of U.S. tax dollars: SIGAR
​

Call it the road to nowhere.

A highway in Afghanistan, partly funded by U.S. taxpayer dollars, is largely unbuilt after 12 years of construction work according to inspectors who say it might never be completed.

The 145-mile section of road, from Qeysar in northern Faryab province to Laman in western Badghis province, was supposed to form part of the country’s orbital freeway — a major economic thoroughfare connecting major cities.

But only 15 percent of the expressway is finished, even though one-third of the budget has been spent.
Auditors blame the country’s increasingly dire security situation, as well as more conventional problems such as local contractor incompetence.

COMMENT:-

Your tax dollars at work, eh wot?

PS - After adjusting for inflation, the US has already spent more money on "reconstruction" in Afghanistan than it spend on "reconstruction" in Europe after WWII. 15 years after WWII the European GDP was around US$358.94 Billion. 15 years after the invasion of Afghanistan, the Afghan GDP is around US$19.47 billion.
​

Click to expand...

What the hell is the matter with you, mon. When you got a cost plus contract, you fail when you end it. I can see a clever Military contractor convincing them that they need to turn the highway 180 degrees and head back the other way to accomodate expected heavy traffic. I'm sure if any part of the highway went through the Poppy Fields (opium) it is being used daily and not to put out fires in the fields. Distribution is key. "Reconstruction." A young Vietnamese girl once asked me, "how do you heip us by bringing war and death to our country?" I can see a young Afghani girl asking the same question.
/

MSgt said:

I don't understand the point of the highway. I was thinking it was going to be a direct supply route from Iran. But it appears to run internal to Ring Road. Were they going to connect it to Highway 1, thereby creating its own small ring?

Click to expand...

No, Qeysar and Laman lie on the ring road. This was a section of it.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgKfTBQU8AATGHd.jpg

cuban smokes said:

US policy is never about an 'end game' ............... it's typically about running around in circles .............

Click to expand...

I got it. Clever...clever. But I am genuinely curious what this highway was about because of its location.

In 2000, when the CIA pulled it's head out of its extremely deep butt, there was official engagement with Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance. He had been petitioning for U.S. aid since his Northern Alliance lost the civil war against the Taliban some six years prior. In the mean time, Iran, Russia, and India had been economically and materially supporting his opposition while we supported Pakistan, who was supporting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The CIA came to an understanding with Iran in 2000 that a direct American support route from Iran to Massoud was necessary to defeat this Al-Qaeda thing we had still yet to grasp. The plan was to eventually support Massoud and his brand of governance against the Taliban and their support of Al-Qaeda when it came to take them out. Massoud's answer for Afghanistan was to re-institute the same government of province autonomy that was making it successful before the Soviets invaded.

However, the Taliban, through Al-Qaeda agents, was finally able to assassinate Massoud on September 10, 2001. Coincidental...eh? They knew for years that his leadership was a threat and that the Northern Alliance needed him. After September 11, 2001, the U.S. was left with figuring out how best to wreck out the Taliban and replace it with the garbage of choices left over. Of course, then Bush would go ahead and drop Iran into his "Axis of Evil" speech in 2002 to incite that good ole habit of fabricated hatred that demands an absolute disregard for the history and evidence.

Again....I damn digress! I think I need somebody sitting next to me to pull my leash when I venture off. To get back to your post...yeah...US policy running in circles. Wait a minute. That wrapped it right back to my beginning. That's the sign of a good and handsome writer.

brothern said:

No, Qeysar and Laman lie on the ring road. This was a section of it.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgKfTBQU8AATGHd.jpg

Click to expand...

Oh. I didn't realize that there was a disconnect. I never made it to those Provinces. I was embedded in Helmand and Nimroz. But I don't seem to remember any disconnects in the maps I used.

cuban smokes said:

there was NEVER any reason for the US military to be in Afghanistan, nor Iraq.

Click to expand...

Sure there was.

As with all "colonial wars" businesses made a whole lot of money out of them and that money came from the people of the "liberated" country as well as the taxpayers of the "liberating" country.

cuban smokes said:

G W Bush & those that he convinced to go to war should ALL be in prison cells for the abomination they created.

Click to expand...

Putting roughly 50+% of the American people in jail is going to be rather difficult. On the other hand, it will set a record for "percentage of population incarcerated" that will likely NEVER be beaten.

MSgt said:

I don't understand the point of the highway. I was thinking it was going to be a direct supply route from Iran. But it appears to run internal to Ring Road. Were they going to connect it to Highway 1, thereby creating its own small ring?

Click to expand...

The "point" of the highway is that it allowed American companies (and American owned "Afghan" companies [and American owned "Afghan" sub-contractors {and American owned "Afghan sub-sub-contractors < and ... >}]) to make a whole lot of money without actually making any investment.

barry was potus for 8 years...sounds about how a socialist "gets things done".

DaveFagan said:

What the hell is the matter with you, mon. When you got a cost plus contract, you fail when you end it. I can see a clever Military contractor convincing them that they need to turn the highway 180 degrees and head back the other way to accomodate expected heavy traffic. I'm sure if any part of the highway went through the Poppy Fields (opium) it is being used daily and not to put out fires in the fields. Distribution is key. "Reconstruction." A young Vietnamese girl once asked me, "how do you heip us by bringing war and death to our country?" I can see a young Afghani girl asking the same question.
/

Click to expand...

The amount of profit that a company can make on a "cost-plus" contract is limited by laws/regulations. What you have to do is create a second company to which you sub-contract at the maximum allowable profit. Then you create a third company to which the second company sub-contracts at the maximum allowable profit. Then you create a fourth company to which the third company sub-contracts at the maximum allowable profit. Then you create a fifth company to which the fourth company sub-contracts at the maximum allowable profit. Then you create a sixth company to which the fifth company subcontracts at the maximum allowable profit. Then you create ...

By the time you have created your tenth company, you have raised your (let's say 10% maximum allowable profit) to around 160% - but it's all legal.

itsforthekids said:

barry was potus for 8 years...sounds about how a socialist "gets things done".

Click to expand...

And Mr. Bush was President for 8 years - during which time there wasn't a single dime that wasn't spent with 100% efficiency.

Oh sure - and the Easter Bunny is shacked up with the Tooth Fairy.

TU Curmudgeon said:

The amount of profit that a company can make on a "cost-plus" contract is limited by laws/regulations. What you have to do is create a second company to which you sub-contract at the maximum allowable profit. Then you create a third company to which the second company sub-contracts at the maximum allowable profit. Then you create a fourth company to which the third company sub-contracts at the maximum allowable profit. Then you create a fifth company to which the fourth company sub-contracts at the maximum allowable profit. Then you create a sixth company to which the fifth company subcontracts at the maximum allowable profit. Then you create ...

By the time you have created your tenth company, you have raised your (let's say 10% maximum allowable profit) to around 160% - but it's all legal.

Click to expand...

You forgot about the pension funds. They'll be gobbled up and gone early and just before the bankruptcy. Of course it will be Corporate so someone will have to run the business and get paid during the legalities. Huge losses, per diem, expenses and no end what the gov't might be fleeced out of with clever management and political manipulation. I don't think the Russians have mastered this "bilk the gov't" arrangement in their military operations.
/

MSgt said:

but there were absolute reasons for the U.S. military to be in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Click to expand...

Did the outcome (even slightly) justify the cost?

Kushinator said:

Did the outcome (even slightly) justify the cost?

Click to expand...

Certainly not the way we did it. Not by a long shot.

But, this is only because we planted the seeds of failure within our own effort. The outcome is ongoing. This was never going to be about an end that we could create. Afghainstan was obviously about 9/11, but Saddam was about ridding ourselves of the UN mission and pushing the region away from what has created the Islamists in the first place. Despite the feel-good notion of our idealism, we have never created a democracy other than our own. They simply are not and have never been ready-made. Nation building is where we overstepped or capabilities and lingered about, losing more and more troops in a crusade that we could not do on our own. Don't confuse doing it with how badly we did it, or how badly we made our argument, or how badly we created unrealistic expectations. Rumsfeld was the worst Secretary of Defense in our history and the NeoCon argument was shallow. Combine that with the fact that we don;t fully understand what is going on even today and we, once again, have injected ourselves into a local matter that demands local remedy.

Kushinator said:

Did the outcome (even slightly) justify the cost?

Click to expand...

It got Mr. Bush re-elected.

MSgt said:

Certainly not the way we did it. Not by a long shot.

But, this is only because we planted the seeds of failure within our own effort. The outcome is ongoing. This was never going to be about an end that we could create. Afghainstan was obviously about 9/11, but Saddam was about ridding ourselves of the UN mission and pushing the region away from what has created the Islamists in the first place. Despite the feel-good notion of our idealism, we have never created a democracy other than our own. They simply are not and have never been ready-made. Nation building is where we overstepped or capabilities and lingered about, losing more and more troops in a crusade that we could not do on our own. Don't confuse doing it with how badly we did it, or how badly we made our argument, or how badly we created unrealistic expectations. Rumsfeld was the worst Secretary of Defense in our history and the NeoCon argument was shallow. Combine that with the fact that we don;t fully understand what is going on even today and we, once again, have injected ourselves into a local matter that demands local remedy.

Click to expand...

One of the reasons why the Communists were (apparently) successful in "selling" their system for so long is that they could provide specific, concrete, steps that appeared to produce the desired results - steps which could be implemented WITHIN an existing national framework.

To over generalize, the US, on the other hand, was forced to rely on "Well, all you have to do to get the same results that we got is to abandon your existing national framework and become identical to us. Of course it does help if you have - effectively - unlimited natural resources, an abundance of land, and a plethora of food. But that isn't really necessary for you to have the same social and economic benefits as does a country that does have them.".

You can build almost any society you want to build upon a foundation of a rich, varied, and vibrant economy with lots of resources, but you can't build a rich, varied, and vibrant economy upon a foundation that doesn't take into account that there aren't sufficient resources to go around.

TU Curmudgeon said:

One of the reasons why the Communists were (apparently) successful in "selling" their system for so long is that they could provide specific, concrete, steps that appeared to produce the desired results - steps which could be implemented WITHIN an existing national framework.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Communism took root in places where it was compatible with local religion (Confucianism/Buddhism) and because it stood as a direct opposition to Western colonial masters. Many countries in the Middle East, for example, turned to the Soviet Union initially because they had been colonized by the West. Islam, however, was (is) expressly opposed to communism. It took the Soviet Union to vomit all over itself when it came to the Suez War for those Arab governments to steadily turn towards the U.S. The Soviet Union actually failed miserably everywhere except for a brief period in Ethiopia when Carter was trying to figure out his ass from a hole in the ground. We constantly made errors in defining local nationalist movements for independence as hot beds for communism because we didn't understand the local national frameworks.

The crazy thing is that we refused to acknowledge that Stalin abandoned the notion of Lenin's global revolution after WWII. He was more concerned with local security against "encirclement" and defining his own personal power.

TU Curmudgeon said:

To over generalize, the US, on the other hand, was forced to rely on "Well, all you have to do to get the same results that we got is to abandon your existing national framework and become identical to us. Of course it does help if you have - effectively - unlimited natural resources, an abundance of land, and a plethora of food. But that isn't really necessary for you to have the same social and economic benefits as does a country that does have them.".

You can build almost any society you want to build upon a foundation of a rich, varied, and vibrant economy with lots of resources, but you can't build a rich, varied, and vibrant economy upon a foundation that doesn't take into account that there aren't sufficient resources to go around.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

MSgt said:

The crazy thing is that we refused to acknowledge that Stalin abandoned the notion of Lenin's global revolution after WWII. He was more concerned with local security against "encirclement" and defining his own personal power.

Click to expand...

A fact for which you can thank (in large part) Gen. Reinhart Gehlen and his good (NAZI) buddies who peddled a bunch of crap about what the Russians were doing to the US government in return for "Get Out Of War Crimes Trials" cards (and a good life in the United States of America for many of them).

MSgt said:

Absolutely.

Click to expand...

What many Americans fail to realize is that if the United States of America had had roughly the same access to natural resources (and been subjected to roughly the same amount of destruction because of warfare) as European countries had, the US wouldn't be anywhere near as rich and powerful as it is today. All that the American people had to do was to oust a relatively minor handful of people from their possession of economic riches that VASTLY exceeded those of ANY European country and then develop them with industries which were not touched by war.

In that regard, it is quite true that America is "exceptional".

In fact, it wouldn't have mattered if the US was either

• Capitalist or Communist,
• Republican or Monarchic,
• Egalitarian or Stratified,
• Progressive or Reactionary,
• Patriarchal or Matriarchal,
• Christian or non-Christian, or
• White or non-White,

for it to have the economic advantages which enabled it to survive long enough to get to the top of the heap.

TU Curmudgeon said:

From NBC News

Afghan highway barely built after 12 years, millions of U.S. tax dollars: SIGAR
​

Call it the road to nowhere.

A highway in Afghanistan, partly funded by U.S. taxpayer dollars, is largely unbuilt after 12 years of construction work according to inspectors who say it might never be completed.

The 145-mile section of road, from Qeysar in northern Faryab province to Laman in western Badghis province, was supposed to form part of the country’s orbital freeway — a major economic thoroughfare connecting major cities.

But only 15 percent of the expressway is finished, even though one-third of the budget has been spent.
Auditors blame the country’s increasingly dire security situation, as well as more conventional problems such as local contractor incompetence.

COMMENT:-

Your tax dollars at work, eh wot?

PS - After adjusting for inflation, the US has already spent more money on "reconstruction" in Afghanistan than it spend on "reconstruction" in Europe after WWII. 15 years after WWII the European GDP was around US$358.94 Billion. 15 years after the invasion of Afghanistan, the Afghan GDP is around US$19.47 billion.
​

Click to expand...

When I was deployed in that country, taliban al quaeda etc loved using ieds to damage the highways, even if they got it finished they would be rebuilding it a month later, that is how that region rolls.

TU Curmudgeon said:

A fact for which you can thank (in large part) Gen. Reinhart Gehlen and his good (NAZI) buddies who peddled a bunch of crap about what the Russians were doing to the US government in return for "Get Out Of War Crimes Trials" cards (and a good life in the United States of America for many of them).

Click to expand...

I don't think their help was needed. Our disgust with Russia went back to the late nineteenth century over opposition in government and then when Russia's colonial aspirations for Manchuria closed off markets. This brought them into conflict with our "Open Door" Policy for Asia. Bolshevism and Lenin's world revolution in communism brought that disgust to a much bigger concern. Hitler's fascism was actually regarded as the better of the two evils because he checked communism at the door. World War II merely placed that hate for Russia/Soviet Union on hold. And with the Bretton Woods convention in 1944, we moved to create the very economic systems that would bring capitalism and communism to clash. So much of making a stand in Korea in 1950 had to do with Truman and Acheson's concern that the Soviet Union might target Greece and Iran. The whole thing just spiraled out of control as we declared anything and everything that wasn't capitalism as communism.

TU Curmudgeon said:

What many Americans fail to realize is that if the United States of America had had roughly the same access to natural resources (and been subjected to roughly the same amount of destruction because of warfare) as European countries had, the US wouldn't be anywhere near as rich and powerful as it is today. All that the American people had to do was to oust a relatively minor handful of people from their possession of economic riches that VASTLY exceeded those of ANY European country and then develop them with industries which were not touched by war.

In that regard, it is quite true that America is "exceptional".

In fact, it wouldn't have mattered if the US was either

• Capitalist or Communist,
• Republican or Monarchic,
• Egalitarian or Stratified,
• Progressive or Reactionary,
• Patriarchal or Matriarchal,
• Christian or non-Christian, or
• White or non-White,

for it to have the economic advantages which enabled it to survive long enough to get to the top of the heap.

Click to expand...

Isolation certainly had much to do with it.

beerftw said:

When I was deployed in that country, taliban al quaeda etc loved using ieds to damage the highways, even if they got it finished they would be rebuilding it a month later, that is how that region rolls.

Click to expand...

Well, once the US government negotiates a settlement that gives the Taliban a significant political position in Afghanistan that will all change, won't it?

TU Curmudgeon said:

From NBC News

Afghan highway barely built after 12 years, millions of U.S. tax dollars: SIGAR
​

Call it the road to nowhere.

A highway in Afghanistan, partly funded by U.S. taxpayer dollars, is largely unbuilt after 12 years of construction work according to inspectors who say it might never be completed.

The 145-mile section of road, from Qeysar in northern Faryab province to Laman in western Badghis province, was supposed to form part of the country’s orbital freeway — a major economic thoroughfare connecting major cities.

But only 15 percent of the expressway is finished, even though one-third of the budget has been spent.
Auditors blame the country’s increasingly dire security situation, as well as more conventional problems such as local contractor incompetence.

COMMENT:-

Your tax dollars at work, eh wot?

PS - After adjusting for inflation, the US has already spent more money on "reconstruction" in Afghanistan than it spend on "reconstruction" in Europe after WWII. 15 years after WWII the European GDP was around US$358.94 Billion. 15 years after the invasion of Afghanistan, the Afghan GDP is around US$19.47 billion.
​

Click to expand...

Complete fraud. The amount of money that was spent, sometime without people even knowing what it was for, is ridiculous. Billions unaccounted for. All to enrich defense contractors. Our war mongering for the past decades is all about enriching their buddies