“I think there’s a fundamental assumption this administration has made that the Middle East doesn’t matter,”said Vali Nasr during a panel discussion promoting his new book “The Dispensable Nation: American Foreign Policy in Retreat” at the Brookings Institution.

Nasr’s book draws on his experience working as a senior adviser for the late Richard Holbrooke.

The current dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Nasr said the administration has sought “to downgrade the Middle East as important to global politics and American foreign policy,” and has not used its full influence to support democracy movements during the Arab spring and to support the Syrian rebellion.

“This is couched in the pivot-to-Asia language, but it’s become the bedrock of our approach to the region,” he said.

While Nasr said he does not believe “that the Chinese are gunning to replace us” in the Middle East, he does see a “rising strategic concern [for China]” in the region.

“They need the energy,” he said. “The energy comes from central Asia, comes from the Persian Gulf.”

China has been making significant investments in building infrastructure, including pipelines and ports, aimed at bringing minerals and oil out of the Middle East, Nasr said.

Brookings senior fellow Robert Kagan, who has critiqued the idea of inevitable American decline, pushed back on parts of Nasr’s argument during the discussion.

“Far be it from me to defend the Obama administration,” said Kagan. “[But] the missing part of your story so far is, what is the situation that Obama inherited?”

Kagan said the economic crisis could have discouraged the Obama administration from making a larger investment in Arab spring democratization and added that there was “a real [domestic] unhappiness with the policies that had been conducted by the previous administration, rightly or wrongly, in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Nasr responded that the administration still has a responsibility to “push back against domestic sentiments.”

“You don’t have the luxury of saying you can hit a pause button on foreign policy because you have domestic issues or you have a fatigue,” he said.

Nasr also criticized the U.S. surge in Afghanistan, which he said was unsustainable and signaled to the Taliban that America did not have the stamina for a long-term fight.

“The way that we conducted this war essentially was that there is no victory and there is no political settlement,” he said.

While acknowledging the constraints the financial crisis placed on the administration, Nasr argued for a scaled-back approach to Afghanistan that he said would have been more sustainable.

“Three months, two months of the war in Afghanistan would have been transformative in Egypt,” he said.

The families of Aaron Vaughn, Michael Strange, and Patrick Hamburger claim they were misled during the investigation and believe that flawed U.S. military “rules of engagement” policy contributed to the downing of a Chinook helicopter by the Taliban in Wardak province. All 38 people on board the Chinook, which included 15 SEAL Team Six members and seven Afghan National Army commandos, were killed.

The families also alleged the U.S. military allowed an imam to pray their sons’ “souls into eternal fire” at a ceremony at Bagram Air Base.

Billy Vaughn, father of Aaron Vaughn, said he contacted numerous members of Congress to ask for help with his inquiries about the attack. He said he received no response from House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.).

“Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.), chairman of the [Armed Services Committee] in the Senate, I called him. I called him numerous times. Told him who I was, who my son was, what had happened. They told me to ‘stop harassing the senator,’” said Vaughn. “Thank you, Sen. Levin.”

Levin’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

The attack occurred three months after the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound. The families said Vice President Joe Biden’s public disclosure in May 2011 that SEAL Team Six carried out the raid put the entire elite unit at risk of retribution attacks.

“We’re very concerned that the administration disclosed that the Navy SEALs were involved,” said Patrick Hamburger’s father, Doug Hamburger.

Charles Strange, the father of Michael Strange, was infuriated by what he characterized as an unprecedented disclosure.

“This is our vice president?” said Strange. “Come on, man!”

Vaughn said his son called him after Biden’s comments and warned that there was chatter that the unit might be targeted.

Vaughn added he was dismayed that 15 members of SEAL Team Six were all placed on the same chopper, a Boeing CH-47 Chinook that was last refurbished in the 1980s, and sent on a route that was rife with enemy fire. He said the helicopter is primarily used to transport troops and is not ideal for an attack environment.

He also said the U.S. military’s “rules of engagement” prevented the men from firing back when they were attacked.

“If my son had gone in on an MH-47 that night with guns blazing and they’d been shot out of the sky, it’d by much easier to live with,” said Vaughn. “Why were they not riding on the right chopper? Why did they not [shoot back] when the RPGs were fired?”

Karen Vaughn, Aaron Vaughn’s mother, said that when she asked military officials why the group did not engage in pre-assault fire, she was told it would have damaged efforts to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people.

“In other words, the hearts and minds of our enemies are more valuable than my son’s blood,” she said.

The families also blasted the military for allowing an imam to pray at a ceremony for the fallen troops, which included the Afghan security forces killed in the attack, at Bagram Air Base.

According to a translation played at the press conference, the imam said, “The companions of the fire are not equal with the companions of heaven. The companions of heaven are the winners. Had we sent this Koran to a mountain, you would have seen the mountain prostrated in fear of Allah.”

Karen Vaughn said the imam had condemned her son to eternal fire.

“As if dying, due to, in no small part this nation’s submission to its enemy, was not enough, our sons’ bodies were then subjected to the final act of betrayal by our government, as military leaders stood by and not only allowed and imam to pray their souls into eternal fire, proclaiming the Muslims ‘the winners,’ but went on foolishly to praise the beautiful relationship between our two nations, fighting together as one,” she said.

Dina James, who represented the families at yesterday’s press conference, also criticized the ceremony.

“The fact that the imam prayed over these boys’ bodies and essentially desecrated them and cast them into hell, in my mind, is a big deal,” she said.

Others said the imam’s prayer may not have been intentionally inflammatory.

“We don’t know what he was thinking. He could have known [it was inflammatory] … and it was a dig to get in,” Stephen Coughlin, a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy who has briefed law enforcement officials on jihadist threats, told the Blaze. “But it’s also possible that he was going through the [typical] motions that an imam would go through at this point.”

The families also expressed concern that Afghan security forces, which have occasionally been infiltrated by Taliban sympathizers, were privy to the details of the mission, including flight times and routes.

Concerned Veterans for America’s Pete Hegseth, who was in Afghanistan during the August 2011 shoot down, told the Washington Free Beacon that infiltration of the Afghan security forces would be suspect in an ambush attack like this. He said he was concerned about the families’ claim that the military did not interview the Afghan security forces during its investigation.

“The first people you would have to suspect is anybody on the Afghan side that had access to the flight plan,” said Hegseth.

Hegseth also said the amount of infiltration has been exaggerated by the Taliban.

“I don’t think their infiltration is as wide or deep as they say it is, but it is clearly a psychological tactic to make us pull back,” he said.

Karen Vaughn said military officials withheld information about the imam’s prayer ceremony and lied to her repeatedly about the investigation. She also said Admiral William McRaven, commander at U.S. Special Operations Command, blew up at her when she questioned him about withholding information.

“[McRaven] made the statement to [my husband and I] … that the military will never withhold any truth from the parents of a fallen soldiers,” said Karen Vaughn. “And I quickly said, not meaning any disrespect, ‘What about [fallen soldier, Corporal] Pat Tillman?’ And he nearly came across the table at me, flashed with anger, vessels popped out of his neck, and he said ‘What about Pat Tillman? That was simply a case of friendly fire.’”

“We knew at that point, our discussion was over,” she added. “And it was embarrassing that this was one of the highest ranking admirals in our Navy.”

When contacted for comment, a spokesperson for U.S. Special Operations Command said it “extends its deepest sympathies to the Vaughn family and all of the families that lost loved ones in the Extortion 17 crash.”

The spokesperson added that the investigation was conducted by U.S. Central Command, could be viewed online, and that McRaven was not involved.

A spokesperson for the Pentagon did not comment directly on the allegations from the family members but defended its policies.

“We cannot provide details, but the operational planning and execution of this mission was consistent with previous missions, and the forces and capabilities were appropriate given the agility required to maintain pressure on insurgent networks. This was thoroughly investigated and the investigation results are publicly available,” said spokesperson James Gregory.

A U.S. counterterrorism official dismissed the concerns of the families as political posturing, arguing that SEALs would be targeted in war zones regardless of whether they were publicly linked to the bin Laden raid by Vice President Biden.

“If you follow this train of logic from these people then other SEALs would never, ever be targeted,” said the official. “Come on, please. It’s BS. It just doesn’t comport with reality.”

As for the SEALs having an inadequate chopper, the official said there were only minor differences between MH-47s and CH-47s and that the military is often limited by its resources.

“There are not enough night stalkers to fly Navy SEALS everywhere,” the official said.

There are “multiple problems” for the United States to surmount before the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) are ready to assume control of the country after American forces depart in 2015, John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), said during a speech at the New America Foundation.

“The impending end of the U.S combat mission has led some to erroneously believe our involvement in Afghanistan is waning,” Sopko said. “I believe the United States and its allies are entering the most critical phase of the reconstruction effort in Afghanistan,” which is one of the most corrupt nations in the world.

Sopko said he remains “very concerned” over the ANSF’s failure to recruit and retain troops, many of whom join the force and then desert it.

“We are very concerned because the ANSF were supposed to achieve an end strength of 352 thousand troops by last October,” Sopko said, according to his prepared remarks.

“The ANSF has fallen short of its staffing goals by 20 thousand troops,” he said. “The number of troops ready for duty is even lower when you consider AWOL employees, desertions, and ghost employees.”

If the United States fails to prepare the ANSF by the time they leave in 2015 Afghanistan will likely revert back to terrorism, Sopko warned.

“Without adequate security, meaningful progress in Afghanistan is not possible,” Sopko said. “We need to ensure security or else everything we are trying to do will fall apart.”

“Afghanistan could also once again become a safe haven for al Qaeda and others that are determined to harm our nation” without a well-armed and well-trained security force, Sopko said.

Sopko went on to accuse the Pentagon of exposing itself to “waste, fraud, and abuse” by failing to tell SIGAR about the ANSF’s exact personnel numbers.

SIGAR remains concerned “about the accuracy of the numbers coming out of the Pentagon,” Sopko said. “The [Department of Defense] told SIGAR there is no way to validate the ANSF’s personnel numbers, often derived from reports prepared by hand by Afghan troops.”

If the United States fails to determine what exactly it is paying for, “we expose ourselves to potential waste, fraud, and abuse.”

Sopko said there has already been much fraud in post-war Afghanistan, outlining multiple examples of theft and taxpayer-funded reconstruction projects gone wrong.

Unidentified Afghans recently stole around $50 million for the U.S. government and stashed it in an Afghan bank account. After serving the Afghan government with a court order to freeze the account, “we were told the bank account was frozen and the money protected,” Sopko said.

“A few weeks ago we learned that the money was mysteriously unfrozen by some powerful bureaucrat in Kabul,” he said. “Now, most of it is gone.”

Many taxpayer-funded reconstruction projects have also failed, Sopko said.

“SIGAR has found police buildings turned over to the Afghans that sit empty; a lack of trained personnel capable of conducting basic operation and maintenance on the nearly 900 facilities the United States is building for the security forces,” he said.

Additionally, the Afghan Ministry of Defense “may not even be able to handle purchasing fuel for the Afghan National Army once U.S. troops leave,” Sopko said, explaining that the U.S. government has failed to “account for the fuel it provided to the Afghan National Army.”

The problems are only compounded by Afghanistan’s dire economic situation and rampant corruption.

As an “exceptionally poor” nation the Afghan government could find it difficult to continue funding security and reconstruction efforts once the United States pulls back funding, Sopko said.

“The International Monetary Fund recently released a report about the looming budget crisis in Afghanistan explaining that it is partly caused by widespread tax evasion and the increasing theft of customs revenues,” Sopko said. “They noted that the Afghan government can’t even cover half of the country’s current budget and is years away from being able to pay its own expenses.”

Afghanistan raises about $2 billion in annual revenue. Yet it will require upwards of $10 billion per year in order to sustain the country, Sopko said.

Some of Afghanistan’s customs bureaus are so deeply corrupt that more than 70 percent of potential government revenue is lost or stolen, Sopko said.

“Unless the Afghan government raises more revenue, the U.S. mission will be at risk,” he said. “Until I see otherwise, I will remain deeply concerned that we need to see more progress from the Afghan government on corruption connected to taxes and customs.”

Even more worrisome to Sopko is the upcoming Afghan election scheduled for 2014 and another parliamentary election scheduled for 2015.

“If either of these elections goes badly, the impacts could damage the Afghan government’s legitimacy, incite ethnic and tribal tensions, and inflict a devastating blow on the chances for a political settlement to the afghan conflict,” Sopko warned.

Ballot stuffing and corrupt election laws remain a chief concern ahead of the election, according to Sopko, who said that Afghan officials do not even have the ability to identify counterfeit identity cards.

“Unless we fix problems like these before the 2014 presidential election, the Afghan people may have powerful reasons to question the results,” he said.

Sopko said he would threaten to push for an end to U.S. aid to Afghanistan if the government fails to adequately combat corruption.

WOLF BLITZER: I just want to point out, based on everything I’ve heard, senator, and I’m sure you’ve heard the same thing this is not just the Obama Administration, this goes back for years and years and years during the Bush Administration, the CIA was handing out huge bags of cash, millions and millions of dollars going to Hamid Karzai for him to do with what he wants with no accountability whatsoever. But that’s just millions. Maybe tens of millions, maybe a few hundred million dollars in cash. But here’s the real issue. The U.S. is still shelling out even in the midst of all these forced budget cuts at home right now $2 billion a week to maintain 60,000 or 70,000 troops in Afghanistan, to build roads, bridges, schools, hospitals there. Can you justify $2 billion a week that U.S. taxpayers are spending in Afghanistan?

BOB CORKER: Wolf, as you know, we’re winding down. I raised questions two years ago when we really began this nation building effort. It was a very different policy. It was actually three years ago than what we had been carrying out. I think the nation building that we’ve conducted there has actually led to much of the corruption that has occurred there. But in addition Wolf, even after we leave, I think you know we will be obviously greatly downsized in 2014, even after that, there will be a huge number of troops on the ground that will be Afghani, we will have police on the ground that will be Afghani. Our contribution to Afghanistan will go on for years as it will from allies who helped us in this effort. But again, we understand that. As part of transitioning, that’s the kind of thing that is going to occur. But there’s a accountability that goes with that. At least we try have some. Bags full of cash, as you rightly mention for the last decade, there is no accountability. And, again, it breeds the kind of thing that we’re really trying to keep from happening. One of our big efforts, Wolf, as you know, has been to try to get the government from being corrupt but yet it appears that we are participating in that process ourselves.

]]> http://freebeacon.com/corker-corker-no-accountability-with-bags-of-cash-to-karzai/feed/ 0 http://freebeacon.com/afghanistan-to-lose-u-s-air-power/ http://freebeacon.com/afghanistan-to-lose-u-s-air-power/#comments Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:27:58 +0000 Washington Free Beacon Staff http://freebeacon.com/?p=97903 The United States is not planning to leave air power capabilities with Afghan forces following the drawdown that will end in 2014, a move that may jeopardize efforts on the ground, according to USA Today.

Aircraft have been a key component to the war in Afghanistan, providing close air support during firefights and targeting suspected militants across the country:

Taliban militants are unable to mass forces without risking a devastating attack, forcing militants to fight in small groups and resort to roadside bombs and terrorist strikes on civilian targets.

“U.S firepower is very intimidating to the Taliban,” said David Barno, a retired three-star general who commanded coalition forces in Afghanistan and is now a senior adviser at the Center for a New American Security.

The loss of Afghan access to U.S. airpower could be devastating as the Afghan army takes over the majority of the fighting, especially if the Taliban becomes emboldened to commit more daring and long-lasting attacks.

Some speculate the reason for removing air forces from the Afghan army’s arsenal is political, pointing to Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s negative statements regarding American aircraft and the White House’s desire to take as many troops out as possible.

“There is enormous political pressure to get the numbers down,” said Fred Kagan, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute who has advised top commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq. Kagan said Karzai’s criticism might also have played a role in the American decision.

Afghanistan has its own small air force that is planned to be fully operational by 2016. The Pentagon in the mean time is beefing up Afghan helicopters with rockets and gatling guns that could provide close air support.

The United States is providing artillery and mortar assets to counterbalance the loss of air support, saying these smaller arms follow more closely with the Afghan way of fighting.

The Pentagon will continue to provide air power for American counterterrorism forces and military advisers who will remain in Afghanistan after 2014.

Women and girls have access now to far more opportunities than they did before the United States invaded, according to testimony, but the country’s uncertain future threatens those gains.

“If the Afghan security forces fail, the progress of Afghan women will fail as well. Without security, none of the things you’re talking about will be possible,” David Sedney, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia, told the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

United States forces have been in Afghanistan since 2001. The current security mandate for American forces ends in December 2014, and military and civilian leaders are negotiating a new bilateral security agreement that will allow some American forces to remain.

However, President Barack Obama announced in his State of the Union address that the United States would cut the number of troops it has on the ground in Afghanistan by half over the next year, bring troop levels down to just over 30,000. The number of forces will continue to shrink over the next year, and the top commanders expect there to be 8,000 to 12,000 forces on the ground in an advisory capacity after 2014.

“The condition of Afghan women is an important barometer of the success of our efforts,” Rep. Martha Roby (R., Ala.) said.

“If Afghanistan reverts to Taliban control…these women will suffer, and I believe it will happen virtually overnight,” she said.

The number of reported instances of violence against women in Afghanistan rose in 2012, although Sedney said that figure was only the reported instances of violence.

“We are there when this is happening,” Rep. Jackie Speier (D., Calif.) said. “What’s going to happen when we’re not?”

Afghan women are very anxious about their safety after the Afghan national elections and the U.S. military drawdown next year, multiple witnesses and committee members said. The number of asylum applications by Afghan women has risen, said Clare Lockhart, director of the Institute for State Effectiveness.

However, Lockhart painted a somewhat brighter picture of the condition of women, arguing that the presence of outside organizations and their programs is helping women in the country.

Lockhart and Stephanie Sanok, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the importance of American rhetoric about its posture toward Afghanistan.

“I think if Afghans hear the language of leaving, it heightens concerns even more than might be warranted,” Lockhart said.

Sanok said the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development would have to fill in the void that the military leaves as it withdraws.

Multiple witnesses and committee members said the efforts to improve women’s conditions run into cultural obstacles. For example, the greatest barrier women face in joining the Afghan security forces is the objection of family members, Sedney said.

The witnesses disagreed over the amount of leverage that the United States has over the treatment of women in the country. Sedney argued that the United States has “huge amounts” of leverage through military training and other means, while Sanok contended that the United States is losing leverage and needs to put in place institutions that will protect the interests of women.

Sanok noted the importance of reforming the bureaucratic process for women submitting a complaint of violence or harassment. She said the non-standardized and cumbersome process leads many women to drop their complaints.

“I remain deeply concerned about this,” Roby said at the end of the hearing.

Gen. Joseph Dunford, commander of United States and international forces in Afghanistan, repeatedly returned to the importance of the bilateral security agreement throughout the two hour hearing before the House Armed Services Committee.

“The future of Afghanistan is linked to the bilateral security agreement,” Dunford said.

The U.S. security mandate in Afghanistan expires in December 2014; many in Afghanistan are viewing this date as decisive for the future of the country.

Dunford said after the hearing the negotiations for the security agreement are “very mature at this point”—a point he set in contrast to the failed negotiations for a bilateral security agreement in Iraq, where negotiators started too late.

The failed attempt to secure a bilateral security agreement in Iraq led to the full withdrawal of American troops. Some experts have attributed the withdrawal to that nation’s subsequent decline in stability and security.

Afghanistan’s stability has implications for both the region’s stability and vital U.S. interests, Dunford said.

“From my perspective, what would really be dangerous is for us to not finish the job in Afghanistan and to leave a sanctuary in Afghanistan from which Pakistan could be destabilized,” Dunford said.

The possibility that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of militant extremists in the region poses a great threat to America’s core national security concerns, Dunford said.

President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel have all had contact with Afghan President Hamid Karzai recently about the security agreement currently under negotiation, Dunford said.

As the negotiations are underway and the military is in the process of drawing down half its troops by this time next year, U.S. forces are transitioning from a more active combat role to a support role for Afghan forces.

Afghan troops are leading 80 percent of missions right now, and by the summer, they will be leading all missions, Dunford said.

He also said that the military is shifting its focus for training Afghan forces from increasing the sheer number of troops to improving the quality of the troops.

U.S. and Afghan troops have also seen successes on the battlefield, Dunford said. Eighty percent of violence occurs in areas where 20 percent of the country’s population lives, a sign the Taliban and al Qaeda have been pushed from the country’s population centers. Additionally, al Qaeda’s forces in Afghanistan are not able to operate successfully outside of the country.

NATO has given guidance for 8,000 to 12,000 troops to remain in Afghanistan after 2014, Dunford said. The troops would both help maintain security in the country and assist in the political transition and economic development, and this number would allow international forces to be in all four corners of the country and in Kabul, Dunford said.

The hearing was subdued and few congressmen used their full five minutes for questions. One congressman noted that a few years ago, such a hearing would have been filled to capacity.

The legislators asked about various parts of the military’s operations in Afghanistan, from the logistics of withdrawal to enemy infiltration of the Afghan military. Many of them indicated they had visited Afghanistan and were pleased with the progress they are seeing.

Committee chairman Buck McKeon (R., Calif.) noted eight million children, many of them girls, are going to school now in Afghanistan, in contrast to only one million at the beginning of the way.

McKeon expressed optimism about the future of Afghanistan.

“That could become a very prosperous country, a very good story in the future,” McKeon said.

The audit found several weaknesses in DoD’s process to ensure U.S. contracting dollars are not being provided to persons and entities supporting the insurgency, according to SIGAR.

The audit, titled “Contracting with the Enemy,” found that the Defense Department has failed to implement fail-safes aimed at ensuring U.S. funds do not flow to terrorists and other enemies.

Nearly $2 billion in contracts were awarded in 2012 alone, though it is unclear how much of that may have benefited the insurgency.

“The possibility that taxpayer money could be supporting the insurgency is alarming and demands immediate action,” lead inspector John Sopko said in a statement Thursday. “Every effort should be made to implement stronger controls that protect our troops and ensure the success of our reconstruction efforts.”

“DoD has limited assurance that contractors with links to enemy groups are identified and their contracts terminated” despite a law in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) mandating this take place.

That law only applies to contracts exceeding $100,000. However, roughly 80 percent of contracts awarded in Afghanistan fall below this threshold, according to SIGAR.

The State Department and the American aid group USAID are not required to adhere to this law, known as Section 841.

Some lead contracting officials either did not receive or did not follow a notification issued by U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) identifying supporters of enemy groups, according to SIGAR.

CENTCOM had released four “notification letters identifying five companies and their associates as” suspect individuals who should not be awarded contracts.

SIGAR found “several weaknesses in DoD’s process for implementing Section 841 that prevent the department from having reasonable assurance that U.S. government contracting funds are not being provided to persons and entities supporting the insurgency and opposing U.S. and coalition forces,” according to its report.

“As a result, millions of contracting dollars could be diverted to forces seeking to harm U.S. military and civilian personnel in Afghanistan and derail the multi-billion dollar reconstruction effort.”

Congress allocated more than $16 billion to Afghan security forces and reconstruction projects just last year. This is nearly twice as much as was given to “the next four largest foreign assistance beneficiaries—Israel, Iraq, Pakistan, and Egypt—combined,” SIGAR has noted.

SIGAR additionally found during its investigation that certain contractors were not even told they must adhere to the law barring them from working with the enemy.

Additionally, some lead U.S. contractors did not inform their principals Section 841 even existed.

SIGAR is recommending that Congress tighten regulatory measures aimed at ensuring this does not continue.

The United States is expected to have to commit some $70 billion to Afghanistan in the coming decade.

Senators Kelly Ayotte (R., N.H.) and Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) responded to SIGAR’s audit on Thursday by introducing legislation aimed at ensuring no U.S. funds reach terrorists.

The “Never Contract With The Enemy” act would give the Pentagon increased flexibility “to more expeditiously sever ties with contractors who funnel taxpayer resources to those who oppose the United States,” according to a joint statement released by Ayotte and Blumenthal.

Much of that tab will be footed by the U.S. taxpayers, leading lawmakers on Capitol Hill to express concern that much of this money will be misspent or stolen by an Afghan government that has done little to combat corruption over the years. Afghanistan is already the most costly reconstruction effort carried out in U.S. history.

Congress allocated more than $16 billion to Afghan security forces and reconstruction projects last year, nearly twice as much as was made available for “the next four largest foreign assistance beneficiaries—Israel, Iraq, Pakistan, and Egypt—combined,” according to John Sopko, the Special Inspector for Afghanistan Reconstruction.

Billions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer aid has been stolen, wasted, or lost on projects that the Afghan government has no ability to sustain, Sopko told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Wednesday during a hearing about waste in U.S. foreign aid spending.

“U.S taxpayers are essentially funding corruption,” as well as terrorism and possibly al Qaeda in Afghanistan, according to Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R., Calif.)

It “doesn’t appear there’s much hope, in a general sense, it’s pretty much a money pit, isn’t it?” Rep. John Mica (R., Fla.) asked Sopko and other government officials who oversee how U.S. aid is spent abroad.

Afghanistan will remain the “largest recipient of the United States for assistance for years to come,” even though the government has failed to hold President Hamid Karzai accountable for the systemic theft and waste that occurs.

The United States has begun to provide Afghanistan with direct assistance, meaning that there is little oversight or control over how that money is spent. This has only facilitated theft and corruption, Sopko said.

Nearly $13 million in U.S. Defense Department-purchased equipment “sits unused,” according to Sopko’s testimony before the committee.

“I have significant concerns about the use of direct assistance” because the Afghans have failed to prove they can effectively manage the money. “Pervasive corruption may pervert its intended use,” he said.

The United States is “wasting our hard won battles on the battle field,” as well as progress made on reconstruction efforts, Sopko said.

Confusion and disarray have become hallmarks of U.S. reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan.

“With the military drawdown and transition to the Afghan security forces, it has already become harder for implementing agencies to effectively manage projects and for oversight agencies such as SIGAR to visit and inspect projects,” Sopko said in submitted testimony.

“This is because U.S. forces in Afghanistan have a policy of only providing security in areas within an hour by road or air travel of a medical facility,” he stated. “For example, recently SIGAR was unable to visit $72 million in infrastructure projects in northern Afghanistan because they are located outside the security ‘bubble.’ This will only get worse as more bases close or are handed over to Afghan units.”

As the United States and other nations begin to hand the Afghan government nearly $7 billion a year over the next decade there is a concern those dollars will fund projects that ultimately go to waste.

“The United States is building infrastructure and launching programs that the Afghan government has neither the financial nor technical ability to operate and maintain,” Sopko said. “The United States has provided tens of billions of dollars for infrastructure, everything from roads and electricity networks to schools, clinics, and security force facilities.”

Lawmakers said it is unacceptable to allow U.S. aid to be spent in such a reckless manner.

“Here we have the single most corrupt nation on the face of the planet known as Afghanistan, tied with North Korea, and we are giving them billions and billions of dollars,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah) said.

“What mechanisms are in place to ensure that this increasing amount of money directly to the Afghan government is not going to the Iranian government to purchase Iranian fuel?” Chaffetz asked, referring to reports that U.S. aid may have been spent on sanctions-violating oil purchases.

“The mechanisms are weak,” Sopko said. “We are going to relook at the issue. We are told they [the Afghan government] don’t have the funding an capability to follow up.”

There is also evidence that the U.S. government may have contracted with Afghan nationals with ties to terrorists.

Chaffetz demanded to know if U.S. funds were going “to the very terrorists we’re there trying to fight.”

Sopko admitted that the U.S. Army denied SIGAR’s requests to sever contracts with suspect individuals.

“We have similar concerns,” Sopko said. “Every one of those proposals [to sever ties] was denied by the U.S. Army.”

“It’s probably easier to use a drone strike then to stop somebody [suspect] from contracting with the U.S. government,” Sopko said. “It’s very concerning.”

The United States also has spent more than $366 million on weapons for the ANP and intends to spend another $14.2 million arming the force, according to SIGAR’s report, which highlights a massive amount of waste and abuse in Afghanistan.

A total of $3.4 billion has been spent on equipment and transportation, including weapons, for the ANP, according to the report, which found that “most of these funds were used to purchase weapons and related equipment, vehicles, and communications equipment.”

Taxpayer dollars continue to be wasted on the ANP, SIGAR found.

“SIGAR’s audit of ANP vehicle maintenance,” for instance, “found that the United States spent $6.8 million over 17 months to maintain vehicles that had already been destroyed.”

The United States is set to spend an additional $19.4 million on vehicles for the ANP, according to the report.

SIGAR also found that “a U.S.-funded Afghan Border Police Company headquarters was sitting largely unused,” raising concerns “about the long-term usability and sustainability of an ANP provincial headquarters,” according to the report.

The United States has also provided major funding to pay for ANP salaries.

The force is set to become 157,000 strong, according to projections, and “will require an estimated $628.1 million per year to fund salaries ($265.7 million), incentives ($224.2 million), and food ($138.2 million),” according to SIGAR.

The theft of fuel continues to be an ongoing problem for the United States in Afghanistan, according to the report. The United States has spent about $4.2 billion on fuel for the Afghan National Army.

“Fuel is ‘liquid gold’ in Afghanistan—easy to steal, easy to sell on the black market,” SIGAR noted in its report. “Buyers of stolen fuel can be local gasoline stations, roadside vendors, U.S. contractors without access to military fuel depots, or Afghan insurgents.”

“Whether gasoline, jet fuel, or diesel, fuel is readily transportable by truck, rail, or pipeline. Each mode has vulnerabilities to theft that SIGAR is trying to alleviate,” SIGAR reported.

There are currently “24 open investigations concerning fuel” theft and misappropriation.

“Most of SIGAR’s criminal fuel investigations concern drivers, either Afghan or third country nationals, for contractors who have U.S. government or military contracts to deliver fuel to military bases,” according to the repot. “Such prime-contractor drivers often ‘short; the fuel they deliver.”

SIGAR has caught Afghans siphoning fuel from delivery trucks during covert surveillance operations and has sought to “obtain evidence against fuel-theft rings.”

Lawmakers have been particularly concerned about approximately $1 billion in U.S. oil purchases for Afghanistan. It is believed that some of this oil could have been purchased from Iran, which would constitute a violation of U.S. sanctions.

The ANP, which oversees security across Afghanistan, has suffered from structural and training issues since it was formed after the Taliban’s fall in 2001.

Afghan security forces have been involved in multiple attacks on U.S. forces.

There were 12 such attacks in 2011 and 34 in the first half of 2012, according to the New America Foundation.

So-called “insider attacks,” in which Afghan security forces kill Americans, have jumped over the years. Four U.S. soldiers were killed in such ambushes in September 2012. An ANP member opened fire on U.S. troops in early March, killing two Americans and two Afghan police officers.

SIGAR, which has continuously detailed massive amounts of fraud and waste in post-war Afghanistan, found taxpayer dollars continue to be wasted on projects meant to bolster the Afghan government and its security forces.

Congress has allocated $89 billion to rebuild Afghanistan in the years since the U.S. first entered the country, according to the report. This is “more than the United States has ever spent on the reconstruction of any other nation.”

President Obama has requested nearly $10 billion more for reconstruction efforts in his fiscal year 2013 budget proposal.