{"id":1167776,"date":"2023-08-02T17:55:28","date_gmt":"2023-08-02T17:55:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/production.public.theintercept.cloud\/?p=440362"},"modified":"2023-08-02T17:55:28","modified_gmt":"2023-08-02T17:55:28","slug":"senate-democrats-blocked-watchdog-for-ukraine-aid-ignoring-lessons-from-afghanistan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/2023\/08\/02\/senate-democrats-blocked-watchdog-for-ukraine-aid-ignoring-lessons-from-afghanistan\/","title":{"rendered":"Senate Democrats Blocked Watchdog for Ukraine Aid \u2014 Ignoring Lessons From Afghanistan"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Hours after Senate<\/u> Democrats blocked an effort to install greater oversight over the billions of dollars the United States is sending to Ukraine, the watchdog who oversaw U.S. spending in Afghanistan issued a warning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Spending too much too fast, with little oversight, would lead to \u201cunanticipated consequences,\u201d John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, or SIGAR, said at an event<\/a> sponsored by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft last week. The U.S. has sent more money to Ukraine in one year than it spent in Afghanistan over 12 years, Sopko pointed out. \u201cI\u2019m not opposed to spending that. I just want to make sure it\u2019s done correctly and there\u2019s oversight,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sopko especially warned about the risk of fueling corruption, perhaps the most damaging legacy of the billions the U.S. spent in Afghanistan and a major factor in the collapse of its effort in the country. \u201cIf that much money is coming in, you know some of it is going to be stolen,\u201d he said. \u201cIn Afghanistan, corruption was the existential threat. It wasn\u2019t the Taliban. It was corruption that did us in.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n

\n
\n \n \n

\n Join Our Newsletter <\/h3>\n

\n Original reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you. <\/h3>\n \n I'm in\n <\/span>\n <\/span>\n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n

Debate over installing a special inspector for Ukraine modeled after SIGAR began swirling on Capitol Hill as it became clear that U.S. support for Ukraine in the face of Russia\u2019s full-scale invasion would reach unprecedented levels. The push for a special inspector for Ukraine aid has been heralded by some of the Biden administration\u2019s most vocal opponents, including Sens. Josh Hawley, R-Mo.; and J. D. Vance, R-Ohio; and Reps. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla.; and Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga. That factor, as well as a conflation of calls for greater oversight with opposition to sending the aid in the first place, has made the idea of a watchdog to oversee all aid to Ukraine somewhat toxic for many Democrats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following multiple failed efforts to pass standalone legislation on this issue, Republican lawmakers tried to include such a provision in the annual defense budget, the National Defense Authorization Act. 45 Democrats, joined by Sens. Angus King, I-Maine; Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.; and Rand Paul, R-Ky.; voted against it last Wednesday, blocking its passage. The provision was also opposed by the White House<\/a>, which wrote in a statement to lawmakers that the Pentagon Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office \u201care currently undertaking multiple investigations regarding every aspect of this assistance.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Opponents of a special inspector for Ukraine have argued that existing agency-specific oversight mechanisms are sufficient, with Elizabeth Hoffman, director of congressional and government affairs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, telling VOA last month<\/a> that the special inspector office could have “a chilling effect.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For proponents of the office, the unprecedented rate of aid to Ukraine naturally calls for greater oversight. Sopko has called for a holistic \u201cwhole-of-government\u201d approach, focused on a broader evaluation of U.S. overall spending, rather than one limited to each agency\u2019s scope and to tracking how much money was spent and on what. \u201cThe U.S. government,\u201d he said, \u201cwhether it\u2019s USAID, or DOD, or State, have horrible records on effective monitoring and evaluation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Ukraine, many of the same groups lobbying for greater international support against Russia\u2019s invasion are also speaking out about the need to make sure that money gets to its intended recipients. \u201cHuge money always comes with corruption,\u201d said Vita Dumanska, leader of the Chesno movement, a Ukrainian anti-corruption group. \u201cWe can\u2019t keep silent on this.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n

\"WASHINGTON,\n

President Joe Biden signs the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which includes $14 billion in humanitarian, military, and economic assistance to Ukraine, on March 15, 2022, in Washington, D.C.<\/p>\n

\nPhoto: Chip Somodevilla\/Getty Images<\/p><\/div>\n\n\n

Lessons From Afghanistan<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

U.S. involvement in Ukraine is fundamentally different from the role it played in Afghanistan. Reconstruction and state-building efforts came to Afghanistan after the U.S. and its allies invaded a country that was roiled by civil conflict and remains so after a two-decade U.S.-led war there. In Ukraine, U.S. assistance has so far been primarily of a military nature and has come largely in an effort to keep the U.S. from getting more directly involved \u2014 this time in support of the sovereignty of a nation that was invaded by another. If in Afghanistan the U.S. spent billions in an effort to establish, train, and equip a local military that ultimately faltered amid political failures, in Ukraine, it is responding to local calls for help bolstering a highly motivated military that is defending its country against what many Ukrainians see as an existential threat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Still, there are important parallels, said Sopko, whose office tracked at least $19 billion<\/a> that was lost to waste, fraud, and abuse over the last decade in Afghanistan. In response to requests from senators advocating for more oversight, he has suggested<\/a> how lessons learned in Afghanistan may serve U.S. efforts in Ukraine. SIGAR was established in 2008, nearly eight years after the U.S. first invaded the country and after it had already spent \u2013 and lost track of \u2014 billions in reconstruction money there. Given those experiences, Sopko, who was appointed to the role in 2012, has stressed the importance of starting the monitoring in Ukraine early in the process. \u201cNo matter who is doing the oversight, it\u2019s important to start now, not eight years from now,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

\n Most Read <\/h2>\n\n
\n
\n
\n \n
\n \"\"\n <\/div>\n
\n I Was Just Subpoenaed By Trump\u2019s Georgia Grand Jury. Here\u2019s What I\u2019ll Tell Them.
\n George Chidi <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \"\"\n <\/div>\n
\n Stormy Daniels May Have the Last Word on Donald Trump
\n James Risen <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \"\"\n <\/div>\n
\n The Online Christian Counterinsurgency Against Sex Workers
\n Jack Poulson, Sam Biddle <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n

Already, U.S. assistance to Ukraine as it fends off Russia\u2019s aggression<\/a> and relentless bombing campaigns has reached unprecedented levels<\/a>, though the money, equipment, and other assistance is not always easy to track. Congress approved some $113 billion<\/a> in aid to Ukraine last year, and some analysts put the full figure to date at closer to $137 billion<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By comparison, the U.S. spent some $146 billion in reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan between 2002 and 2022 (although it spent far more<\/a> going to war there in the first place). \u201cBy the end of this year, we will have spent more money in Ukraine than we did to do the entire Marshall Plan after World War II,\u201d Sopko said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBy the end of this year, we will have spent more money in Ukraine than we did to do the entire Marshall Plan after World War II.”<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

SIGAR issued dozens of audits and assessments over its ongoing mandate, often despite stonewalling by government agencies that are legally required to disclose information to its investigators. While the reports occasionally made headlines for the exorbitant waste they exposed, they did little to change the trajectory of U.S. spending in Afghanistan, in part because there were plenty who benefitted financially from it and because of a short-sighted system \u2014 including annual appropriations schedules and brief deployments \u2014 that incentivized fast spending over effective investment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Afghanistan, Sopko said, the U.S. never developed a workable, coherent strategy as priorities and approaches kept shifting. There was also no coordinated effort between agencies, he added, noting that, that is likely going to be an even greater problem in Ukraine, where more actors, states, and international organizations are involved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Currently, individual agencies are tasked with monitoring different elements of the U.S. government\u2019s assistance to Ukraine. Speaking alongside Sopko last week, Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, noted those offices are under-resourced and have a poor track record. \u201cIn order to ensure that the Ukrainian people receive the support that the U.S. are sending them, we need far stronger systems in place here in the U.S.,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s not just the money that needs monitoring: In Afghanistan, the U.S. lost track of expensive and dangerous equipment, including some $7.1 billion<\/a> worth of defense articles the Pentagon left behind when it pulled out of the country. In Ukraine, there has been some reporting of misplaced equipment, but because most U.S. monitoring programs were not designed for war zones, there are few people on the ground who are able to track it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n