Gov't corruption: Katrina and why we're losing in Afghanistan

A critical moment happened on one of the Sunday talking heads TV shows last week. Those shows illustrate policy debates among US ruling elites. One news anchor was heard to moan:

Arrogance is galling enough, but it was the next story by [news correspondent] Allen Pizzey that really set me off. He reported that Hezbollah agents are on the streets of Southern Lebanon handing out U.S. dollars to people whose homes were bombed out.

One year after Katrina and we can't figure out how to get money to people who lost their homes in New Orleans, we're still not sure if it can survive another hurricane but a "terrorist group"[sic] has figured out how to get American money to the homeless in Lebanon?

Talk about threats to national security -- how about government so big, so complicated and so unmanageable, it can't get out of its own way? That's what scares me.

There are many reasons for the failed response to Hurricane Katrina and the failing rebuilding efforts. The Bush administration "privatized" FEMA and also cut funding for levee maintenance. Local politics hamper rebuilding because the local elites want to redevelop large areas for tourism and not rebuild homes for poor, working-class black families.

But a huge, huge factor is gov't cronyism and corruption. After all, the private, Republican-connected company who Bush paid to design the New Orleans evacuation plan was also hired again by Bush to critique the failed plan. No conflict of interest there, right?! :-( If the Bush administration had hired the hurricane experts at LSU or any other experts, they might get an honest, critical report. But with the corruption of cronyism, political connections are what count and incompetence is not punished.

What does Katrina have to do with the US losing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? It boils down to the same thing -- US gov't cronyism, big business corruption and incompetence.

We know that if the people in Afghanistan (or Iraq) had schools, hospitals, clean running water, and electricity that this would do much to cut out the resistance to the US occupation. And we know the US gov't has poured significant amounts of money into the countries for so-called "rebuilding".

Where did that money go? What do we have to show for it? Why aren't the people in those countries happy? Again, think US gov't cronyism, corruption and incompetence.

This insightful article contains a lot of details on the US "rebuilding" effort in Afghanistan and just how that effort is hindered by massive, institutionalized corruption. One quote from the article:

Fully 47% of American development aid is lavished on overpriced technical assistance. By comparison, only 4% of Sweden's aid budget and only 2% of Luxembourg's and Ireland's goes to such assistance.

The article calls this "phantom aid", noting that much of the US reconstruction aid money never actually leaves the US.

The US is one of the few countries which require that aid be spent with US companies instead of much cheaper local companies where the aid would create local jobs in the poor target country. This is institutional corruption which begs the question: Is the goal of such aid to "aid" the people of the target country, or is it just more welfare for US businesses?

Ignoring this form of "corporate welfare" for US companies, the article also dares to note how cheap the US is in giving aid, stating, "the U.S. spends a paltry 0.02% of national income on real aid, which works out to an annual contribution of $8.00 from every citizen of 'the wealthiest nation in the world.'[sic] (By comparison, Swedes kick in $193 per person, Norwegians $304, and the citizens of Luxembourg $357.)"

If you want some details on one huge reason the US is losing the war in Afghanistan, this article is definitely worth reading.