Why can't more aid flow more quickly in AFG?

[The Bread Guy]

I've been scratching my head on this, and I'm hoping some with real experience can help....

My view of the "three block war" is that at different times, the fighting-rebuilding-diplomacy pieces of the "effort pie" will be different sizes - sometimes a ton of fighting has to be done to get the other two things done, and when the threat is neutralized or run outta town, you free up fighting time for the other two jobs. 

My read of AFG is that we're still in the former - more fightin' needs to be done to create the conditions to rebuild and break bread.  Some are saying that more rebuilding should be done right now.  I agree that the rebuild portion shouldn't be zero, but why do you think that piece of the pie isn't bigger than it is right now?

Theory 1:  There's still too much shooting to be done to ensure the projects stay in place.

Theory 2:  Different lead countries run their PRT's differently.  Is it true that, generally, CAN's PRT work is more channelling $ to local authorities who get the job done, as opposed to my understanding of the USA model where the PRT commander becomes more of a military governor, with lots more direct spending power to make things happen?

Theory 3:  In the case of CAN aid $, are Treasury Board and other rules for spending money set up for a world that has stable governance and no shooting getting in the way?  On my Remembrance Day rounds this weekend, for example, someone who's headed over in a bit says some PRT-sanctioned projects require three competitive bids.  This same source says the only timely way to get money for projects is from the commander's contingency fund.  I classify this at the level of "third-hand rumour", but is this the case?  If so, it sort of overlaps Theory 2.

Theory 4:  Something I can't even imagine because I'm not on the ground and have no idea what the media isn't covering re:  the reality and what could free up faster rebuild/development.

In addition to being interested from a military interest perspective, as a taxpayer, I'd like to know if there are ways to get better bang for my development buck while helping Afghans who really need help.

Thanks, in advance, for the insights.

 

[Griffin]

The problem todate has not been that we haven't been spending money in Afghanistan, but how and where.

CIDA has screwed up severely by not putting the majority of its $$$ where our troops are.  Recent questions by the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence that tried to explore this topic got the bureaucratic run-around.  To be fair the government is still relatively new, however problems previously indentified with CIDA in the past, seem to continue.  This includes not knowing where the millions they have poured into Afghanistan were used.  They literally turned over a pot of money to the Afghan government, which has corruption problems and stated flatly they don't have direct oversight of how our tax $$$ were spent, and this has run into millions of dollars!!!  The money has been given to the Afghan central government, instead of being spent in coordination with our military efforts.  This has caused problems with inadequate numbers of civic projects being completed in the province we have troops fighting.  With the collateral damage to the villages and towns where pitched battles have occurred, this has not helped the fantastic efforts of our troops in winning hearts and minds.  For a brief review of this one can find more information in the Senate Committee's most recent report - the 3rd of 3 - on the military.

 

[Yrys]

Hijack thread

Griffin,

Can you fill up a bit yor  profil, please ?

As a civy that don't know that much about the military, I prefer to know a bit
more about someone credence to see if an opinion may contain more facts
then thought...

Thanks : )

Hijack end

 

[brihard]

I'll have to ask my stepmom when she's back in a week, but air transport capacity may be one factor that limits the influx of aid...

 

[GAP]

I'll have to ask my stepmom when she's back in a week, but air transport capacity may be one factor that limits the influx of aid...

This isn't about air transport capacity, it about plain old fashion greed and bureaucracy gone wild. CIDA is like the 800 lb gorilla squatting on it's haunches, looking around, but really only nit picking.
3 bids from....?

Should they be on CIDA forms, with references of past work?

Should projects go through a gazillion committee's to the point the village tells them to not bother?

Are the time spans between the request to the approval to the implementation stretched to the point that the people for whom it is for, have forgotten about it?

They need to go back to KISS.

 

[Mortar guy]

I worked closely with CIDA for a year in Kabul and I have to second Griffin's assessment. CIDA has some serious managerial, oversight and aid/development philosophy issues that may be the single greatest cause of the apparent lack of aid in K-har. Don't get me wrong, they have some good people working there but they have an interesting way of doing things that is more suited to women's literacy programs in Bangladesh than it is to COIN in K-har.

MG

 

[ArmyRick]

I dealt with CIDA in bosnia and I didn't have a positive expirience with them. They struck me as bureaucratic baboons who waste too much time on "Results based management" wich is anything but  :