Sustainability

The Washington Post reported that a Congressional study will be released today that announces--shock of all shocks--the development in Afghanistan is NOT SUSTAINABLE! (Here's the post link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/afghan-nation-building-programs-not-sustainable-report-says/2011/06/07/AG5cPSLH_story.html)

Wow. Shock of all shocks--did we spend our tax dollars to come to this conclusion? Because they missed the question--sustainability is not The Question. The question should be: are we spending our development dollars to legitmize the Afghan government? It's all about legitimacy, not sustainability for Jimminy Cricket's sake. If you stop and examine the Afghan budget you'll find out that international donations OFF THE BUDGET account for about 82% of the total spending in Afghanistan, according to the Afghans. (And they can't really get their arms around all the spending. So it's probably more.) What does that mean? That means that for every 100 gazillion U.S. dollars donated by international donors, only 18 percent go thru the Afghan system and help build a government that can function and provide services, and the other 82 gazillion dollars go directly to contractors in the field who then do who-knows-what with it.

Normally, the sustainability mantra is leveled at DoD by the State Department and USAID, as if DoD spending is all the whole cause of "unsustainability" in Afghanistan. This is ridiculous and circular. The Development/Diplomacy community say that DoD should a) build sustainable structures, and not structures that fall down because the Afghans will be psychologically influenced (Seriously. No Joke, that's what they say.); and b) they also point to CERP spending and say that it's all unsustainable. SERIOUSLY? Here's the side of the argument that never gets discussed: there are only so many contractors in Afghanistan, and really, we are all using the same unskilled labor. USAID, for example, is building equally shaky roads, bridges and canals, buildings and so forth because we are all using the same unskilled labor! And, I'd like to know what survey shows that the Afghans will be psychologically influenced by the soundness of the development projects? The second argument is equally as bizarre. CERP spending is only a fraction of the total aid money being poured in to Afghanistan. When USAID, for example, builds a road, they also don't dump money into the ministry that is responsible for maintaining that road. Hence, the next winter/spring flood, the road washes out, and voila, the road was unsustainable, just as if CERP money had built it.

Even if you level the unsustainable argument against both the State Department and USAID and DoD all together, it still doesn't make sense. Because the bigger point that nobody wants to discuss because it's too hard, and it's much easier to wrangle among ourselves, is this question: if we don't dump money into a country like Afghanistan where there is about a 75% illiteracy rate, where people expect to live to the age of about 45, and where infant and maternal mortality rates are some of the worst in the world...then what is the alternative? I'd like to hear an alternative proposal from the development experts and the cast of staffers who concluded that aid to Afghanistan is not sustainable. (I wonder if they looked at aid to any other of the countries we assist? I'd bet they'd find out it too was not sustainable, because that's why it's called-- you guessed it-- aid. If the country could afford the programs itself, and thereby have sustainble programming, we wouldn't be giving it aid.)

Sustainability is one of those wonderful rosy terms that everyone likes to use--and of course, we can all agree that everything should be sustainable. But it's not pragmatic, and to my mind the wrong question for Afghanistan. The right question is: is our spending creating legitimacy? They are two different questions.

I'll be interested to see the Congressional report.