After Spending $51B, U.S. Can't Verify Size Of Afghan Security Force

[Purveyor]

Source: Washington Examiner

The United States has spent over $51 billion to help Afghanistan field, clothe, arm and house a national security force, but the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction Monday said that Washington doesn't even know the size of the Afghan force it's paying for.

And in a shocking statement, the IG, John Sopko, said that the numbers the U.S. is relying on from Afghan officials could be a sham, resulting in billions in waste.

Sopko, whose office is in charge of auditing the near $100 billion taxpayers are funnelling to rebuilding Afghanistan, said, "It looks like our data on the forces, the Afghan National Security Forces, that we are going to be relying on, may be bogus. We don't know what supports it."

His comments at a seminar hosted Monday by Center for Strategic and International Studies heightened concerns in his latest quarterly report on U.S. spending that taxpayers might be getting ripped off.

Read more: http://washingtonexaminer.com/after-spending-51b-u.s.-cant-verify-size-of-afghan-security-force/article/2520491

[think]

1. Wasting billions of tax payer $$$. The PUGs should be all over this

[indepat]

2. ..."the near $100 billion taxpayers are funneling to rebuild Afghanistan" is inexplicable amid

Congressional demands to renege on paying the full benefits earned by social security and Medicare recipients. Just how f*cked up is this.

[Historic NY]

3. All you have to do is go to the Bush bazzar to find where the stuff went..

[another_liberal]

4. Every eighteen year old . . .

Last edited Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Every eighteen year old knows that if you do much business with drug dealers you are very likely going to get burned. How is it that no one of importance in our much acclaimed Military Intelligence was able to figure the same thing out?

Unless, of course, they were in on the take?

[hay rick]

5. Defense budgets "unauditable" according to GAO.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shank/gao-says-no-pentagon-audi_b_2542147.html

Take a look. This month, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) -- the independent, non-partisan "congressional watchdog" that investigates how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars -- was unable to audit the department of defense or the department of homeland security. The majority of the 24 other agencies were auditable, but neither defense nor homeland security were among them. Curious.
...

Not only did the GAO note that "DOD [department of defense] and the department of homeland security (DHS) have consistently been unable to receive such audit opinions", but also that "serious financial management problems at the department of defense made its financial statements unauditable."

Despite this proverbial slap on the transparency wrist, can we expect the Pentagon to have its financial ducks in a row anytime soon? Not even close, says GAO: the Pentagon's plan is to prepare auditable, department-wide financial statements by 30 September 2017.

Nearly five years from now -- that's how soon the Pentagon will be able to show Congress its financial statements for auditing. Until then, therefore, any claims by the department of defense regarding the impact of cuts must be pure conjecture.

[OKNancy]

6. washinton examiner is a right wing source

from wiki: as "a megaphone for [Anschutz's] right-wing views on taxes, national security and President Barack Obama."[4] The Examiner's parent company, Clarity Media Group, also owns the conservative opinion magazine The Weekly Standard.[5] The Examiner co-sponsored the Republican presidential debate in Ames, Iowa on August 11, 2011.

[Comrade Grumpy]

9. That may be true, and should be taken into consideration, but...

...they are quoting him directly at a public event. I guess we shall see if he or anyone else challenges the veracity of the story.

From the article:

His comments at a seminar hosted Monday by Center for Strategic and International Studies heightened concerns in his latest quarterly report on U.S. spending that taxpayers might be getting ripped off.

[Purveyor]

10. Yeah, then dispute the statements within the article Nancy. BTW, is it prohibited to post from

this source and/or do you have your own list of 'approved sources'?

[Comrade Grumpy]

8. "...taxpayers might be getting ripped off"?????

What a laugh. That whole war is one gigantic racket. At our expense. It's sickening.

[DeSwiss]

11. Oohhhh.....

...you wanted us to count them too!?!?!

- Sorry, my bad. Aw' right erybody lineup for a head count!!!

K&R

[triplepoint]

12. Just Count the Poppies...

.
.
Oh wait, wrong movie....

Here it is....



All present and accounted for Mr. Karzai Sir!
.
?w=416&h=266

[daleo]

13. It probably varies from day to day

Depending on which side paid the best, that sort of thing.