Mediaboss Marketing

What has changed, what has achieved and whose benefits are at stake?

By Mohammad Adil Zahed for The Diplomat

July 08, 2017

As envisioned in his election manifesto and soon after being elevated as the new president of Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani issued a legislative decree to reform public procurement of Afghanistan. The reform was initiated by merging the existing procurement entities and establishing a central regulatory body, the National Procurement Authority. It came at a time when the prolonged and disputed presidential election caused massive delays to the procurement process of development projects.

For a newly formed entity it was challenging to both establish itself and operate at the same time. Clearing the massive backlog of procurement, responding to the demands of both the procurement entities and the donors in terms of proceeding with the procurement of new projects, and dealing with the urgent need of security sectors fuel and food contracts can be enumerated as major challenges.

What has changed?

This institutional reform was not warmly welcomed initially by many including politicians, legislatures, bureaucrats, and donors. It was considered to be centralization of authority by the Office of the President. While comparing the pre and post reform organizational structure, centralization of authority is less apparent. A special procurement commission to approve above threshold contracts, Afghanistan Reconstruction and Development Services (ARDS) to facilitate procurement processes, and Procurement Policy Unit to formulate and provide policy guidance were functioning previously in the public procurement sector of Afghanistan.

The functions of the National Procurement Authority (NPA) are adequately similar to the former structure in terms of authority distribution, hierarchical arrangement, and contracts award authority. The reform principally addressed the key flaws of the former dispersed organizational structure: lack of coordination, duplication of responsibilities, and spread out functions that have not only caused hindrance for the procurement entities but resulted in reduced efficiency and effectiveness of the procurement processes.

What has been achieved?

The political and programmatic success of public procurement reform has been acknowledged both domestically and internationally. Afghanistans commitments to the Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework (TMAF) and renewed commitments at the London Conference on Afghanistan 2014 were greatly concentrated on reforms and as wished-for, this reform has satisfied its aimed onlookers particularly the international community.

NPAs focus on increasing efficiency, effectiveness and value for money by meritocratic appointments and the introduction of transparent and accountable systems have played an important role in achieving its intended objectives. United States Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction SIGARs recent report to the U.S Congress recognized these steps encouraging in the fight against corruption. Transparency International calls it one bright spot in the governments fight against corruption by saving more than $200 million that might have been lost to corruption.

Afghanistan has also scored well in World Banks 2016 benchmarking public procurement in both thematic areas of procurement lifecycle and complaint and reporting mechanisms. Furthermore, Afghanistans score in Transparency Internationals CPI index has also witnessed a significant improvement in 2016 compare to the earlier four years. The recent agreement on implementing Open Contracting Data Standards (OCDS) will also increase transparency through increased community engagement and citizens participation.

Whose benefits are at stake?

Public procurement is politically sensitive because of substantial public money involvement. In Afghanistan, the main causes and practices of corruption varies from administrative corruption, clientelism and patronage, to low pay and bribery. Corrupt parasitic and monopolistic networks within and outside governments are mostly those affected by the anti-corruption reforms. Resistance to this reform can be divided into two broad categories. The first category is street level bureaucrats who demonstrate rigidity not due to personal interest but because of historical inertia and no willingness to change. The second category are those whose personal interests are at stake. These include elite and influential public and private actors both within and outside government.

In Afghanistan, where corruption is systematic and embedded in political and economic systems, sustainable anti-corruption reform is a pre-requisite to sustainable development. Close coordination and regular communication between the procurement entities and the government institutions can play an important role in increasing accessibility and reducing political and bureaucratic blame games.

Moreover, addressing a single element in isolation to other institutional pillars of a national integrity system cannot guarantee success but reforms shall be initiated under a unified reform strategy. The reform strategy needs to consider certain institutional pillars such as the judiciary, the civil service, watchdog agencies, civil society, and others in order to prevent corruption at first place rather than relying on penalties after the event. Countries where corruption is worse, alongside institutional reforms, social empowerment is equally important and can play a critical role in the fight against corruption. Engaging civil society and providing public access to documents can also add value to the reform initiatives and assist the state in gaining trust and increasing legitimacy in the eyes of its people.

Ghanis efforts of fight against corruption are paying off in terms of regaining the trust of international community by demonstrating strong political will to root out corruption from Afghanistan and to increase effectiveness of the foreign aids. However, continuous support of the international community is essential in order to sustain these reforms.

Mohammad Adil Zahed is a Chevening scholar and studies MPA in International Development at the University of York and tweets at @adilzahed

Read more:
How Afghanistan's Public Procurement Reform Is Changing - The Diplomat

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan has quietly instituted a policy under which the reporting of most American combat deaths in that country will be delayed until after the families of the fallen have been officially notified, a U.S. military spokesman confirmed Friday.

Until now, whenever a U.S. service member was killed in action, the death was sent out as a press release right away, with the name and other identifying information withheld, until 24 hours after the next-of-kin notification process was completed.

Under the new policy, ordered by Gen. John Nicholson, commander of Operation Resolute Support, most deaths in Afghanistan will be reported only after families have been informed, which could be several days after the fact.

"Gen. Nicholson wants the support systems we have in place for the families of our fallen and wounded warriors to be in place with the families before a public announcement," said Navy Capt. Bill Salvin, a U.S. military spokesman in Afghanistan. "We are going to release the same amount of information, it will just come a bit later than it has in the past."

There was no public announcement of the policy change. Instead, it came to light when the Pentagon announced Wednesday that a 19-year-old soldier, Pfc. Hansen Kirkpatrick, had been killed July 3, two days earlier, by indirect fire while on a counterterrorism mission against the Taliban in Helmand province.

The change, the first since the Afghanistan war began in 2001, was taken to task in a Buzzfeed report Thursday, which argued the two-day delay "would eliminate real-time coverage of US operations in Afghanistan, just as the Trump administration considers sending more troops there."

But Salvin said in the event of a major engagement or mass casualty event, U.S. combat deaths would be reported right away.

"We know that there are times when the situation will dictate that we put out information prior to notification being made or prior to the 24 hours post-notification being complete," Salvin said. "The most recent green-on-blue [insider attack] is an example. The numbers of US wounded being reported were all over the place and we clarified the accurate information very quickly."

But Salvin said in many cases even an initial bare-bones report can cause unwarranted emotional distress among anyone who has a loved one serving in a war zone.

"The non-identifying' information that has customarily been released in the past, ahead of next-of-kin notification, has actually become identifiable because of our small footprint in the country," Salvin said in an email from Afghanistan. "If I say a service member was killed in Helmand province, everyone will automatically think Marines because they are the team operating there now.

"We are balancing our obligation to our families and our obligation to release information to the media and the public in a timely manner," Salvin said. "This will allow us to meet both of those obligations."

The Pentagon said Wednesday the policy was the prerogative of the commander, and for now applies only to Afghanistan. Which means unless the commander there decides otherwise, casualties in Iraq and Syria will be reported right away, without the name, as has been the practice.

More here:
In a policy change, US commander in Afghanistan begins delaying casualty notifications - Washington Examiner

Back from her first overseas trip to visit U.S. military personnel, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) warned that the Trump administration is creating a diplomatic vacuum in Afghanistan by leaving key State Department posts unfilled at a time when a whole-of-government strategy is needed to end the 16-year-old conflict.

The Trump administration has been working for several months on a new plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan, but internal debates among the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department have delayed this even as militants continue to mount attacks in both countries. U.S. military leaders have asked to deploy 3,000 to 4,000 more troops to Afghanistan, a requestthat probably will be fulfilled by President Trump.

[Death of U.S. soldier in Afghanistan highlights the evolving role of conventional combat troops there]

Warren traveled this week to Afghanistan, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation, making her overseas debutas a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Back in her Cambridge, Mass., living room on Thursday just 16 hours after returning home, Warrenmade clear: Im not there on a troop increase.

No one on the ground believes there is a military-only solution in Afghanistan. No one, she said. From the heads of state to the young man who walked us from one building to another in the embassy compound. No one people at the forward operating base to anyone we stopped.

The Trump administration needs to define what winning in Afghanistan is and how we get to that, the senator added. They owe it to the deployed forces to provide the American people with a comprehensive, whole-of-government strategy that has not only a military angle, but also an economic and diplomatic plan.

[Whats your end game? Trump delegating Afghan war decisions to the Pentagon faces scrutiny]

Trump has yet to nominate a U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan or neighboring Pakistan, two countries destabilized for years by terrorist groups that freely move across a porous border. Senior State Department positions entrusted with overseeing U.S. policy for Afghanistan and Pakistan remain vacant, and the acting director of the Office of the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan and her deputy stepped down last month as the administration is poised to close the stand-alone office, launched by veteran diplomat Richard C. Holbrooke.

Warren said she is perplexed by the administrations decisions. Theyre not only talking about cutting up and down at the State Department, but also leaving major diplomatic posts unfilled. Thats dangerous, she said.

One of several Democratic senators talked about as a potential2020 presidential candidate, Warren haslong been a target of Trump, whohas been derided for nicknaming her Pocahontas a reference to her claim of being part Native American, which was questioned during her 2012 Senate campaign.

The overseas trip marked the most visible demonstration of Warrens work on defense matters an area she is less known for after years of focusingon the nations economic recovery and financial regulatory reform.

Warren said she committed to do my homework when she joined the Senate Armed Services Committee, hiring policy experts forher staff and seeking out extra reading and extra policy briefings from our government and outside experts.

But part of doing my homework is going and seeing it with my own eyes. Theres no amount of briefing that substitutes for standing on the ground and looking around. Nothing takes the place of talking to the people who are trying to execute on American foreign policy every single day, she said.

[On July 4 visit to Kabul, GOP senators say U.S. needs to win in Afghanistan]

Warrens views on the situation in Afghanistan echo those of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who led the delegation, and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), McCains longtime friend and a fellow defense hawk. Speaking with reporters on July 4 before departing the country, McCain predicted that the conflict in Afghanistan would continue on a low-burning simmer for a long time to come. But he reiterated that only an aggressive U.S. effort to bolster Afghan military actions would force the Taliban to negotiate. That wont happen unless they feel they are losing, he said.

Graham said he would tell Trump that he needs to pull all our troops out or build on the request for 3,000 to 4,000 more personnel.

Warren said she agreed with McCain and Graham that Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson are creating a diplomatic vacuum in Afghanistan by not traveling to meet with top leaders and by leaving acting officials in charge of the U.S. Embassy and other diplomatic and economic projects.

Look, the people who are there are doing their best, but they dont have the perceived authority they need to get the job done, she said.

The delegation also included Sens. David Perdue (R-Ga.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

[What is the price of not fighting this war?: Mattis makes his pitch to get more NATO troops in Afghanistan]

In her conversations with U.S. military and diplomatic officials in Afghanistan, Warren said, she got no sense of how much longer it will take Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and top generalsto deliver their plans to Trump or whetherthey are developing a more regional approach to account for the situation in Pakistan as Tillerson has promised. In Pakistan, the senators were flown by helicopter to Wanna, in South Waziristan, to observe how the Pakistani army is clearing the border region of insurgents.

Warren called the Pakistani militarys work in that region a real success story.But she added that the Pakistanis realize theyve got a big border problem.

Theyve put a lot of effort into changing an area that was largely controlled by terrorists into an area that the government now controls, she said, noting that the project is working because they could fly in foreign visitors and theyre beginning to try to set up a local market, and civilians are beginning to come into the region.

Read the original:
Elizabeth Warren, back from first trip to Afghanistan, says, 'I'm not there on a troop increase' - Washington Post

General John Nicholson, the Commander of U.S. Forces Afghanistan and NATO's Resolute Support Mission, speaks during an opening ceremony of the "Invictus Games" at the Resolute Support Headquarters in Kabul, Afghanistan on May 13. Massoud Hossaini / AP file

But while there are fewer U.S. service members in Iraq and Syria than in Afghanistan, the ground commander in Baghdad continues to send out a notification when an incident results in a U.S. death.

And one senior defense official warned that Nicholson's new policy will mean less transparency and more ambiguity about the war in Afghanistan at a time when many Americans don't know what is happening there. "It's a step in the wrong direction," the official said.

The official explained that putting out information about the operational event has nothing to do with identifying the individual casualties. In fact, reporting the incident as it occurs goes back to Vietnam, the official said, citing news reports about helicopter crashes and intense firefights before next of kin were notified. Military historian William Hammond, author of the book

The Pentagon also used to identify a casualty immediately after the individual's next of kin was notified, the official said, until the 24-hour-notification requirement was introduced in 2009.

Related:

Another senior defense official expressed concern about the new policy because it may mean that Afghans become the initial source of information about American casualties. "It's just not appropriate and it's not the way we have been doing things for more than a decade," the official said.

Ultimately, Gen. Nicholson has final say over what information is released and when, both Pentagon and U.S. military officials said. As long as he is commander, the first acknowledgment of the death of an American in Afghanistan will include a note than next of kin have been notified.

Read more from the original source:
US Is Now Waiting Days to Announce Deaths In Afghanistan - NBCNews.com

And thesurge Donald Trump is poised to authorize is not it.

US soldiers walk near a police checkpoint in Afghanistan. (Reuters / Lucas Jackson)

None of us would say that we are on a course to success here in Afghanistan, said Senator John McCain, speaking for a five-member bipartisan Senate delegation at a Kabul press briefing on July 4. The senators didnt have to skip the July 4 parades to discover that. The United States continues its longest warnow in its 16th yearwithout a clue about how to win or how to get out. President Trump shows no sign of changing course: At the end of this month, he is slated to sign off on sending a few thousand more troops to Afghanistan.

Since invading in 2001, the United States has poured more than $117 billion into Afghanistan, one of the worlds poorest countries. The United States has also suffered the loss of 2,400 American soldiers lives and over 20,000 wounded. Weve spent $11 billion in equipping the Afghanistan National Army, which is still unable to defend itself. The United States has had as many as 63,500 boots on the ground in Afghanistan; about 8,800 remain today. Afghani casualties are estimated at over 225,000, with a staggering 2.6 million Afghani refugees abroad, and another 1 million displaced internally.

The war has enjoyed bipartisan support from the beginning. Bush launched it. Obama began his administration approving a surge of 30,000 troops for what he called the good war. His hopes of bolstering the government, training a competent military, and getting out were dashed. Now, with the Taliban back in control of about a third of the country, Trump is reportedly about to repeat the surgeadding 3,000 to 5,000 troopsenough, at best, to avoid losing.

The United States went into Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks to get bin Laden, quash Al Qaeda and punish the Taliban for harboring them. Bin Laden is dead; Al Qaeda has metastasized across the region; the Taliban have been hunted for 16 years. No administration, Democratic or Republican, has the stomach for dispatching the number of troops or wreaking the level of violence necessary to have even a shot at suppressing the armed resistance. Afghanistan is not called the graveyard of empires for nothing.

With no exit plan, we get babble instead of strategy. The McCain delegation criticized Trump for not filling diplomatic posts in Afghanistan, as if another permanent ambassador or a special representative might make a difference. Asked to define winning, McCain offered up only gaining an advantage on the battlefield. He elaborated: Winning is getting major areas of the country under control and working towards some kind of ceasefire with the Taliban. But weve had major areas under control before, and the Taliban continued to resist, while corruption and division continued to cripple the Afghan government.

Even the normally sensible Senator Elizabeth Warren, accompanying McCain, served up platitudes. Criticizing Trump for not articulating a clear strategy, she said, This trip only reaffirmed my belief that we need comprehensive, whole-of-government strategy. Nobody on the ground here believes there is a military-only solution. The administration owes it to the American people and to our men and women putting their lives at risk, to provide that clear vision of where were headed. But it is quite clear where were headedto more years of endless war without victory, wasting more lives and resources.

Ready to Fight Back? Sign Up For Take Action Now

California Representative Barbara Lee offers a clearer vision. In late June, Lee gained the bipartisan support needed to adopt her amendment to repeal the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which passed days after the 9/11 attacks by a vote of 420-1 in the House and 98-0 in the Senate. (Lee was the sole dissenting vote.) The AUMF empowered the president to target anyone connected with the 9/11 attacks, whether states or non-states. It turned into exactly what Lee warned against: a blank check to wage war anywhere, any time, for any length, by any president. By 2016, according to a congressional Research Service report, the 2001 AUMF had been invoked publicly as authority for at least 37 military actions in 14 countries across the world, including the Philippines, Georgia, Libya, Somalia, and Horn of Africa. Most recently, Obama and Trump stretched it to cover our intervention in Syria.

In the Senate, Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican Jeff Flake have introduced a new Authorization for Military Force that would repeal the 2001 AUMF while providing new authority for the war on terror. While repealing the authorization wouldnt bring the war to a sudden end, it would force a clear debate on the limits of presidential authority going forward. A debate about what we are doing in Afghanistan might even break out.

After the Iraq debacle, the military perfected technology and tacticsfrom drones to special operations forces to covert raidsneeded to sustain endless war without numerous boots on the ground. But Americans have little appetite for wars without victory. In the past two presidential elections, they have voted for the candidate who expressed the greater skepticism about wars and regime change, as both Obama and Trump did. A recent academic study suggests that the hidden costs of war may have played a role in Trumps victory. The authors, Douglas Kriner, a political scientist at Boston University, and Francis Shen, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, found that after controlling for a range of variables, Trump significantly outperformed Romney in counties that shouldered a disproportionate share of the war burdendefined as military casualtiesin Iraq and Afghanistan. A hidden anti-war vote may be growing in the very communities that supply the nations soldiers.

Trump, despite his professed America First posture, seems intent on doubling down on a failed course. Amid North Korean missile tests and Russiagate, the coming escalation in Afghanistan hasnt garnered much attention. But the Pentagons push to get Trump to dispatch of more troops will insure that he is ensnared in a war with no exit.

We dont need to waste more lives and resources in Afghanistan. We dont need a comprehensive strategy for more war in Afghanistan. We need a simple decision to get out.

Read the original post:
There's Only One Way to End the War in Afghanistan - The Nation.