EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- After Boston, Eyes-Wide Open Hope?
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free
Popular content
Today's Top News
Military Aid Puts Afghans' Lives at Risk - Report
NEW DELHI - Millions of dollars of aid routed through foreign troops in Afghanistan to "win hearts and minds" have not only failed to tackle poverty but put the lives of ordinary Afghans at risk, aid agencies said in a report on Wednesday.
An Afghan boy looks on as a Dutch soldier stands guard while patrolling through the streets of Tarin Kowt in early January. (AFP/File/Deshakalyan Chowdhury) Nations contributing troops in Afghanistan are estimated to have channelled up to $1.7 billion since 2001 through their military for projects such as building schools in one of the world's poorest countries. And this amount is expected to rise rapidly.
"Development projects implemented with military money ... aim to achieve fast results, but are often poorly executed, inappropriate and do not have sufficient community involvement to make them sustainable," said the study titled "The Dangers of Militarised Aid in Afghanistan".
"There is little evidence this approach is generating stability and, in some cases, military involvement in development activities is, paradoxically, putting Afghan lives further at risk as these projects quickly become targeted by anti-government elements."
As insurgents increasingly target education, schools built by the military in insecure areas are putting teachers and students at greater risk, said the report published ahead of a conference on Thursday in London where 70 nations will debate the future of Afghanistan.
Such schools do not conform to the hardline Islamic teachings taught by some Taliban-supported madrasas or religious schools. Moreover, militants who often take advantage of the uneducated and poor for recruitment see education of rural populations as a ploy by western governments to dilute their support. Girls' schools are targeted most often.
Aid workers say they are concerned insurgents' wrath will spread to hospitals, clinics and other public buildings constructed by foreign troops.
The report by Oxfam International and seven other international aid agencies also criticised a military practice of providing aid in the form of cash or food for information.
"Offering food and other aid in exchange for information in a country where a third of the population is at risk of hunger is not only unethical, it puts Afghans in potential danger of being targeted by anti-government groups," it said.
"BAND-AID APPROACHES"
The study said the militarised aid delivery focused on winning the loyalty of Afghans through the provision of aid rather than alleviating poverty and much assistance had focused on "quick fixes and band-aid approaches" rather than on producing positive and lasting results.
Examples of shoddy projects run by foreign troops included a school with latrines that emptied just above a stream used by the community as a water source. Another school had no retaining wall to prevent potential rock- and mudslides.
Such schemes were "feel-good projects" with success measured by money spent or by the satisfaction of the local governor, the report said. There was little or no consideration for hiring trained teachers, producing relevant textbooks and curricula and a safe environment for children, especially girls, it added.
Since U.S.-backed forces toppled the Taliban in 2001, international donors have poured more than $20 billion in development and humanitarian aid into the war-ravaged nation.
But Afghanistan remains one of the poorest, least developed countries in the world. Nearly half of the population lives below the poverty line, more than half the children are chronically malnourished and unemployment is estimated at 40 percent.
The aid agencies, which include ActionAid, Care, Afghanaid, Christian Aid, Trocaire, Concern and the Norwegian Refugee Council, urged leaders at the London conference to revaluate their approach to Afghanistan's development and reconstruction.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

4 Comments so far
Show AllDo you think Obama ever gets this kind of information?
I understand the Taliban destroys almost any project built by the invaders just because the invaders are attempting to influence their fellow country people.
The picture needs to be placed in proportion.
The fact that this gun and carrot approach is being used yet again is consequent on the fact of arrogance. In this case it is as if westerners wish to make dependants, 'boys' on pain of death, of all Afghans. It happened with terrible and detrimental consequences to the indigenous people in India, Africa, South America, North America, Australia, etc and was tried but failed, narrowly if abjectly, and is still being tried by all possible means, although still failing, against China.
The evidence is that western culture is a bit of a joke; a distasteful one; a joke about rape.
As with any household, given the obvious truth that the Anglo-Saxon has long forcefully held himself to be the leader, the state of 'his' house, the world, is an expression of his state of mind. The sure sign of his depravity for anyone who can see is his vociferously assertive blame and distrust of everyone else while he stands up to the neck amidst the terrible consequences of his own actions. This purportedly messianic presence has given rise to the present concrete absurdity of the always lesser 'other'.
We have to look elsewhere to solve the problems for the truth is Obama and his bunch are but the latest of many crops of western politicians who have become what they stand on. They have been but self-made 'boys' in the form of bullies for centuries now.
Like all boys they destroy language outside their milieu to ensure they cannot be exposed. The sting in this is that this is why English is in its present sorry state for they reject what is not theirs even in their own language. Read the lips of the politician, the business leaders, the cultural and religious leaders; squeaks of Mickey Mice. Pay attention to their debates about their dreadful wars and equally their climate change; see how they run.
I am out of the west; will both actively keep it out of where I am and energetically spread the word that it must be selectively used. Otherwise it must be kept out until such time as it stops knocking on the door and begs to be let in.
Look around and see there are many like me. We use what we want; pay and say thank you very much and genuinely wish you well: but we send the rest home and demand due payment, not only for what we do for you, but for what you have done to us.
And no! We do not thank you for the scientific method. That is common dreams.
the only way to win the hearts and minds of the afghan people is to negotiate a truce and then rebuild afghanistan. with american, european, and russian money buying the material and hiring afghan labor, the afghans could begin to secure for themselves a better standard of living and rebuild their war torn country. we would have to bypass the usual suspects, such as haliburton, who must have 12 times the money that afghanis would need to reconstruct their own country. in return, the afghanis could have any kind of government they wanted, so long as they agreed not to harbor anyone who plans extraterritorial attacks. since all this would constitute a relatively selfless act by our empire, i doubt a plan like this would even be considered. the u.s.a. doesn't get enough out of it. peace wouldn't be enough. that's right; how can haliburton and kellogg, brown, and root make much profit, if all stays quiet on the afghan front? it pays to stir thing up a little.