An analysis of America's Afghanistan failure: The role of kleptocracy

A NYT opinion by John Sopko, special inspector general for Afghanistan dissects the disaster. The bottom line is that we were lied to and our own system was rigged to hide catastrophic failure from the American people and most of the US government. Vast corruption shot through the whole doomed enterprise. Sopko writes:

The collapse of the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan on Aug. 15, 2021, revealed what little American lives and money had purchased over 20 years there. It also laid bare a gaping disconnect between reality and what senior U.S. officials had been telling Americans for decades: that success was just around the corner.

As the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction since 2012, my staff and I have audited and investigated U.S. programs and spending to rebuild Afghanistan ....

In hundreds of reports over the last 12 years, we have detailed a long list of systemic problems: The U.S. government struggled to carry out a coherent strategy, fostered overly ambitious expectations, started unsustainable projects and did not understand the country or its people. American agencies measured success not by what they accomplished, but by dollars spent or checklists of completed tasks.

Why did so many senior officials tell Congress and the public, year after year, that success was on the horizon when they knew otherwise?

A perverse incentive drove our system. To win promotions and bigger salaries, military and civilian leaders felt they had to sell their tours of duty, deployments, programs and projects as successes — even when they were not. Leaders tended to report and highlight favorable information while obscuring that which pointed to failure. After all, failures do not lead to an ambassadorship or an elevation to general.

The sudden collapse of the Afghan government and rise of the Taliban showed that the United States could not buy favorable Afghan perceptions of the country’s corrupt leaders and government, or of America’s intentions.

Yet over two decades — and even as Afghan provinces fell like dominoes in the summer of 2021 — I do not recall any senior official telling Congress or the American people that failure was a real possibility.

Official statements across successive U.S. presidential administrations were, in my view, often simply untrue. Just six days before the Afghan government collapsed, the Pentagon press secretary declared that Afghanistan had more than 300,000 soldiers and police officers, even though the special inspector general’s office had been warning for years that no one really knew how many soldiers and policemen were available, nor what their operational capabilities were. As early as 2015, I informed Congress that corrupt Afghan officials were listing “ghost” soldiers and police officers on rosters, and pocketing the salaries. (emphases added)

One of the problems the US could not fix was the fact that Afghanistan was and still is a true kleptocracy. Feeding into that intractable problem was all US money flowing through the various NGO and US agencies. Everybody wanted to keep the cash flowing. What happened in Vietnam also happened in Afghanistan.

 In 2015, anti-corruption expert Sarah Chayes published her book, Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens Global Security [1]. Chayes made it obvious obvious that the US was doomed to fail. It took years before she understood what Afghanistan was really like, i.e., Vietnam before the US got kicked out:

Chayes co-founded a charity “of unclear mission,” that was run by President Hamid Karzai's brother, Qayum. “At first I believed Qayum’s description of himself as constituting a ‘loyal opposition’ to his younger brother the president. . . . . Not for years would I begin systematically comparing his seductively incisive words with his deeds. .... I had, in other words, been an accessory to fraud.”

One big point here is that kleptocracy is real and it really does threaten global security. Chayes warned us again about corruption in 2024 a few weeks before the election[1]. People other than Chayes have been warning about growing corruption in the US. All the warnings have been ignored. 

The US is on the verge of becoming a true kleptocracy run by various morally rotted, radical right authoritarian kleptocrats, e.g., Christian nationalists, the brazenly autocratic DJT, his autocratic Republican Party, the authoritarian US supreme court, and various oligarch billionaires and multi-, multi-millionaires.

Too bad we do not learn from our mistakes. This time it will very likely cost us dearly. Trillions in theft per year is a scenario that is now truly on the horizon. We are powerless to stop it because both parties want the cash.

One last point: Was the US government really ignorant about how bad the situation in Afghanistan was? I rather doubt it. But if it really was mostly ignorant, that points to gross incompetence, deep corruption and/or complicity in the charade, knowing or not.

Footnote:

1. In Oct. 2024, Chayes urgently warned about corruption among Democrats and the Democratic Party. By then, she knew that the Republicans already were truly kleptocratic. The GOP had become completely impervious to warnings about deepening corruption: 

For a party that wraps itself in the mantle of truth and integrity, pointing across the aisle and saying “they’re worse” is not good enough. For the sake of their electoral fortunes, not to mention the country they purport to serve, Democrats must show voters a serious plan to curb corruption and corporate crime — including within their own ranks.

Since 1987, U.S. Supreme Court justices appointed by Democrats have largely concurred in a series of decisions narrowing what legally qualifies as corruption.

Although liberal justices dissented in the most recent such ruling — which legalized what amounts to bribes, so long as the money is paid after the official renders the service — almost all the previous votes in these cases were unanimous.  

With this kind of track record, Democrats’ effort to contrast themselves with the lawlessness of Mr. Trump’s Republicans can be taken only so seriously.

An important rhetoric lesson: Criticism vs other forms of negative rhetoric

A comment here and a post at Law Dork by Chris Geidner raises the issue of criticism vs other forms of negative rhetoric such as mockery, insults, irrationality, assertions of logic fallacies (crackpottery), lying, slandering and disrespect, including violation of the Principle of Charity in rhetoric.

 

Geidner raises this issue in the context of chief justice Roberts criticizing legitimate vs illegitimate criticism of judges:

John Roberts attacks court criticism that 

he decides lacks a “credible basis” as “illegitimate”

Conflating violence against judges with broad criticism the court faces for its extremism, the chief justice ultimately sends a chilling end-of-year report

 

Chief Justice John Roberts decided to take on critics of the U.S. Supreme Court in his annual end-of-year report on Tuesday with a disingenuous half-response that is nonetheless instructive — and disturbing — for what he does say.

On the last day of the year, the chief justice of the United States traditionally releases his end-of-year report. It generally addresses a topic of the year in a vague and uninspiring way, leading to little coverage and even less change. This year, however, the nine pages from Roberts come across as more of a lashing out than a reasoned report.

While acknowledging that “the courts are no more infallible than any other branch,” Roberts spent the second half of the report conflating violence and lies with legitimate criticism. He does so, moreover, while completely ignoring the ethical questions that have swirled around the court and Roberts’s leadership of it over the past two years, as well as substantive opposition to the court’s rulings.

The end result is a chilling, if vague, condemnation by Roberts of the widespread opposition to the extremism exhibited by the high court in its decisions and the ethical failings of justices responsible for those decisions.

Roberts writes:

I feel compelled to address four areas of illegitimate activity that, in my view, do threaten the independence of judges on which the rule of law depends: (1) violence, (2) intimidation, (3) disinformation, and (4) threats to defy lawfully entered judgments.

This is Roberts’s point in this once-a-year moment he is given — to highlight what he views as “illegitimate” criticism of the court.

Then, in the low-water mark of Roberts’s report, he made what I think is an extremely concerning comment, coming from the head of the federal judiciary:

Public officials, too, regrettably have engaged in recent attempts to intimidate judges—for example, suggesting political bias in the judge’s adverse rulings without a credible basis for such allegations.

Putting aside the questionable, subjective nature of assessing whether there is a “credible basis” for such claims, by providing no examples, Roberts was damning all manner of utterly legitimate, appropriate, and even necessary speech from public officials as illegitimate intimidation.

So, what I take from Chief Justice John Roberts’s report to the nation is that judges are supposed to be able to handle criticism, but not too much and not in a way that Roberts doesn’t like, and he will only vaguely tell us what that means, but if criticism crosses that invisible line it is illegitimate.

Got it.  

The words “ethics” or “ethical” do not appear even once in Roberts’s report.

After reading the year-end report (here), I basically agree with Geidner’s analysis. Roberts’ report is an immoral, partisan, authoritarian demagoguery. The intentional vagueness that permeates his report amounts to a logic fallacy called the Fallacy of Vagueness. This fallacy occurs when an argument depends upon the vagueness of its terms, leading to confusion or misinterpretation. Confusion arises when an argument’s validity or persuasiveness relies on terms that are not clearly defined or have borderline cases where it’s unclear whether they apply or not.

Alternatively, Roberts may be primarily using the Ambiguity Fallacy, e.g., in referring to disinformation and intimidation[1] as examples of “illegitimate” activity that threatens the independence of judges. Assertions of truth by one source can turn out to be disinformation. 

Criticism vs other forms of negative rhetoric is an issue I’ve thought about for years. When does legitimate criticism cross the line into irrational or "unprincipled" negative rhetoric? 

In my own writing, I criticize a lot but try not to cross the line into irrational or unprincipled negative rhetoric such as slanders, mockery, insults or disrespect toward the targets of my criticisms. Applying the Principle of Charity in mind helps with limiting disrespect. 

But no matter how principled me or anyone can try to be, at least some targets will see unprincipled negative rhetoric or rhetorical or logic fallacy. They call foul where none was intended. Sometimes they will be right because a person failed to stay on the side of principled criticism. In the case of honest mistake, all a person can do is accept and correct them. But sometimes, probably usually, it is not possible to come to agreement. Minds and perceptions of reality rarely change.

Both the “fallacy of vagueness” and the “fallacy of ambiguity” involve unclear language in an argument. The key distinction is that vagueness refers to a term with unclear boundaries or borderline cases, where the meaning is not precisely defined, while ambiguity means a term has multiple, distinct meanings that could be interpreted differently in the same context; essentially, vagueness is about “how much” of something, while ambiguity is about “which thing” is being referred to.

Q: Does my rhetoric too often stray from rational or principled criticisms into some form of irrational or unprincipled negative rhetoric?

Footnote:

1. The concept of disinformation is contested. Although there are common elements in the definitions of disinformation—such as the intent to deceive or cause harm—the term's application and interpretation are subject to significant debate and variation. This reflects not only the complexity of the issue but also the diverse contexts in which disinformation arises, from political campaigns to public health crises. 

The concept of intimidation is similarly contested.

Vox has the answer............

 OR................ pie in the sky sermonizing?

You decide:

https://www.vox.com/even-better/383873/coping-strategies-trump-presidency-processing

Some snippets:

Americans disheartened by this year’s election results may find themselves in a 2016 redux. Facing yet another Donald Trump presidency, you might be asking yourself: How do I cope? How will I steel myself to do it all over again for the next four years? This time around, Trump and his allies have vowed to deport millions of people, fire civil servants and appoint loyalists in their stead, and further restrict abortion access. These policies are genuinely distressing and can feel overwhelming for the many millions of people who will be affected by them.

But it is not 2016. Having a clear-eyed plan for how you’ll handle what lies ahead is more protective than succumbing to despair. You can take the lessons learned to buttress your coping skills and avoid psychological exhaustion to make it through the coming days — and the next four years.

Processing emotions requires quiet time with your thoughts. It’s important in this moment to tune out distractions, like social media, and resist avoidant coping strategies, such as sleeping or doomscrolling, and sit with your feelings instead — whether out in nature or while meditating in your living room. 

(sure sure, yup, we all gonna avoid doomscrolling, yup yup)

So, what is the solution you ask, well, read on............

instead of devoting your attention to things you have no power to change, like the enactment of specific policies or Cabinet appointments, focus on what you do have control over. Choose one issue that resonates with you and find ways to get involved locally. “It might be organizing something at the grassroots level to support new families who need child care, It could be going to a city council meeting to talk about housing.”

Knowing your neighbors and finding local groups of people who champion the same causes as you can help you form community. Mobilize to find events and volunteer opportunities near you. Think about what makes you feel like you’ve made a difference in the world. Is it protesting? Working with a mutual aid organization? Making dinner for your elderly neighbor? Ask yourself what issue in your town or city matters the most to you and how you could make an impact there.

“How we live is not really a question that’s intrinsically tied to a political outcome, Obviously, it has real-life impact, globally and personally, but that philosophical question of how you live your life is not something that can be dictated by other people.”

OR..........just escape to Canada. 

New Year's fiddly bits

 Aw geez, the news is just soooo good right now. A few fiddly bits are in order.

Fiddly bits

"You f**king deserve it": Lemon mocks "dumb" MAGA fans blindsided by Trump backing Musk visa push -- "Oh my gosh, I love this," Lemon said in a 40-minute video posted to his YouTube channel. "Now you’re finding out, you dumb f**ing idiots. Now you’re just figuring this s**t out. You’re so f**king stupid, and you deserve it. And you f**king deserve it because you’re so dumb. It’s hypocrisy. So go with me here. Yes. I am gloating over your stupidity and how you were taken. I’m cracking. I’m cackling – I am. You have been co-opted because you’re in a f**ing cult and you don’t even realize it because you have stupid MAGA brain, and you don’t get it. How stupid and dumb are you?" -- "We haven’t fought these battles over years and years and years to allow American citizens of every race, ethnicity, religion, be gutted by the sociopathic overlords in Silicon Valley,” Steve Bannon said on his podcast War Room on Monday.

Goodness gracious & great balls 'o fire! Don seems to be a bit vexed with MAGA voters over the outcome of the election. And Steve is in a snit too! Things seem to be degenerating into enraged irrationality.

Q: Have the wheels come off the cart of civilized democracy?

Nope, we're good -- wheels still on!

Whooping cough cases surge across the US as vaccinations decline -- The CDC reports more than 32,000 cases — a number nearly six times higher than this time last year -- Whooping cough, also known as pertussis, is a contagious respiratory illness, but it is preventable with a common vaccine. For many, it can start with symptoms similar to the common cold, such as a runny nose, low-grade fever, and cough. However, a very painful cough can develop a week or two later. Coughing fits can become so severe that infected people vomit or break their ribs.

They break their ribs?? Quick, get JFK Jr on the klaxon! Get rid of the polio vaccine. That will get rid of whooping cough!

Chief Justice Roberts condemns elected officials for intimidating judges -- “Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed,” Roberts wrote. “Public officials certainly have a right to criticize the work of the judiciary, but they should be mindful that intemperance in their statements when it comes to judges may prompt dangerous reactions by others.”

Seriously?? Yabbut whaddabout supreme court judge's intemperate rulings that cause elected Republicans and other forms of extremist crackpot to (i) trash innocent people's lives, democracy and the environment, and (ii) get away with massive theft and corruption, e.g., via forced birth laws, voter suppression laws, obliteration of gun safety laws and legalization of (a) bribery in the federal government, and (b) crimes and treason by a US president? Those can and have caused dangerous reactions by others, sometimes lethal, to your insanely intemperate rulings!  

Elon Musk changes his name to Kekius Maximus on X --- Elon Musk changed his username to "Kekius Maximus" and updated his profile picture to an image of Pepe the Frog dressed in Roman attire. This action significantly impacted the cryptocurrency's value, causing it to surge by over 700%! "Kekius" appears to be a Latinization of "kek", a word roughly equivalent to "laugh out loud" popularized by gamers but now often associated with the alt right. "Kek" is also the name of the ancient Egyptian god of darkness, who is sometimes depicted with the head of a frog.

700%?? MAGA!! But Kekius Maximus? That inspires memories of Biggus Dickus.

OMG, Elon (Pepe the Frog) has done it again!

A 700% gain while playing a video game!

The Biggus Dickus scene

Elon Musk channels Hillary Clinton in calling Trump supporters ‘contemptible fools’ amid H-1B visa debate -- Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, is digging in his heels in his defense of H-1B visas, saying some Trump supporters are “contemptible fools” who “must be removed from the Republican Party, root and stem.” -- Good grief, now those poor MAGA voters are getting flack from sociopathic Silicone Valley Overlords! 

A blast from the past: Memo from 1970: ‘A Plan for Putting the GOP on TV News’ --  John Cook found “a remarkable document buried deep within the Richard Nixon Presidential Library” that addresses how to circumvent the “prejudices of network news” and deliver “pro-administration” stories to heartland television viewers. -- The memo explains why television was the way to go: Today television news is watched more often than people read newspapers, than people listen to the radio, than people read or gather any other form of communication. The reason: People are lazy. With television you just sit—watch—listen. The thinking is done for you.

American kleptocracy update

I wanted to start the new year with a bang! 

Two posts today for the price of one!!

Corruption in congress is bipartisan and increasingly aggressive. Daniel Schuman, executive director of the American Governance Institute reports a new change being enacted by the House "Ethics" Committee that he says amounts to a "New Year's Eve ethics massacre." Schuman writes:

The New Years' Eve Ethics Massacre

The House Ethics Committee's decisions let congressmen put campaign cash in their pockets and make other allegations of misusing their offices disappear

For context, congress's independent ethics watchdog, the Office of Congress Ethics (OCE), raised the alarm on four members of Congress. They issued six reports on suspected improper activities of Rep. Alex Mooney, in reports dated July 23, 2021 and December 22, 2021, Rep. Sanford Bishop, in a report dated February 10, 2020, Rep. Ronny Jackson, in reports dated December 22, 2021 and March 25, 2024, and Rep. Wesley Hunt, in a report dated March 25, 2024.

The OCE is not empowered to make final determinations or punish members of Congress, but they do conduct investigations and make recommendations to the House Ethics Committee regarding their findings. OCE sent the Ethics Committee six reports on member misconduct that sat unaddressed for as long as 1,785 days.

The Ethics Committee is composed equally of Democrats and Republicans. Members are appointed by the Speaker or the Minority Leader. The purpose of the Ethics Committee is to police member misconduct, its apparent purpose is to insulate members of Congress from accountability for ethical misconduct, except when leadership withdraws their protection from a particular member.

The Committee is not a court of law. It cannot put anyone in jail. It was created by the House of Representatives to establish and enforce official standards of conduct. Those official standards of conduct are significantly broader than criminal law and are intended to protect the integrity and reputation of the House of Representatives. As a result, the Committee should be quicker to act than a court of law and should act on a wider range of issues.

As a historical matter, the Ethics Committee failed so publicly at its mission after the turn of the millennium that the pretense it is focused on ethics could no longer be credibly maintained. In response to the public outcry, the House established the independent Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) in March 2008 to clean up the culture of corruption in Congress.

That corruption festered when Ethics Committee Democrats and Republicans essentially agreed to avoid investigating anyone for misconduct. 

On December 30th, 2024, the House Ethics Committee "resolved" the OCE's allegations of misconduct against the four members by issuing new guidance on the personal use of campaign funds and wiping away those allegations and others. The Ethics Committee made three important decisions.

First, the Ethics Committee decided that the Congressional prohibition on using campaign donations for personal use is limited to instances that violate federal law. The House of Representatives' rules are broader than the language codified in statute, so they narrowed its application.

Second, the Ethics Committee made it virtually impossible to prove that a member of Congress violated the rules. The Ethics Committee declared guidance from the Federal Election Committee with respect to conversion of funds are "ambiguous" and provide for "significant gray areas." Accordingly, the Ethics Committee decided it would not punish Members who converted those funds unless there was evidence "that any Member intentionally misused campaign funds for their personal benefit." They required specific proof that a Member intended to misuse campaign funds in knowing violation of the rules. And then they looked the other way.

Third, the Ethics Committee made OCE allegations regarding other violations of the House rules disappear without a trace.

Well there it is. Legalized and normalized corruption is right out in the open. Worse, it is bipartisan. I thought that DJT and MAGA were the key forces behind the rising tide of kleptocracy in American politics. Kleptocratic impulses in the Democratic Party apparently are about as bad as those of MAGA. I became aware of serious Democratic Party pro-corruption sympathy when Nancy Pelosi condoned insider trading by members of congress in 2021. It's not clear if there is a significant difference between the Dems and Repubs when it comes to kleptocracy and corruption in government.

It's not corruption, it's just participating 

in a free economy 🤪

(based on insider knowledge)

Last Oct., I posted about a NYT opinion by Sarah Chayes. That was about corruption in the Dem Party. Chayes is a long-time critic of corruption in government. She questioned Dem commitment to ethics and honest government:

The way corruption is prosecuted and reported on — as one-off scandals committed by these individuals at a specific point in time — camouflages what may be modern corruption’s greatest evil: It is at its heart a system of exclusion, designed to reserve ongoing access to political and monetary gain to a close-knit group of insiders.

Around the world, and increasingly in the United States, networks of public officials, financiers, business executives, philanthropists and even out-and-out criminals have used corrupt practices to monopolize public power. These networks repurpose the levers of government to serve their private interests at the expense of the public and to ensure their own impunity.

We are in terrible trouble. Dem Party elites have fallen to the corrupting power of money, as have the Repub elites. The US supreme court recently legalized bribes as "gratuities" or "rewards" for people in government. As of now, it is mostly accurate to call the US a kleptocracy. We are so screwed.

Regarding mandatory voting

Salon writes:

If democracy dies in this country, it can be blamed on people who did not bother to vote last November.

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump fought tooth and nail over almost everything. But, in the run-up to the November election, both urged Americans to vote like never before, saying over and over again that “This will be the most important election in the history of our country.”

Yet, despite the stakes of the 2024 election, millions of Americans sat out the election and did not vote. There were about 90 million of them, a number that dwarfs the 77 million people who voted for Donald Trump.

The United States can respond to looming threats to democracy by tackling the non-voting problem directly. That means making voting mandatory. Only by doing so do we have any chance to make the political system more democratic and more representative, and thus more resilient. 

Those who did not vote in 2024 were younger than those who voted. The Pew Research Center observes that they also were “more racially and ethnically diverse,…less affluent and less educated ” than those who voted.

Pew notes many reasons eligible voters did not vote in 2024. 35% believed that “their vote would not make a difference.” 31% said they did not vote because they generally do not like politics. Another 17% said they did not vote because they “did not care about the outcome.”

The rest of the non-voters didn’t turn out because they were not registered or voting was inconvenient. 8% said “they forgot to vote.”

Australia has had compulsory voting for almost one hundred years. As former Connecticut Secretary of State Miles Rapaport and historian Alex Keyssar explain, “In Australia, all registered citizens must vote, and almost everyone is registered; the enforcement mechanism is a fine of about $15, and people can cast blank or “none of the above” ballots to express their indifference to the offered slate of candidates. The result has been turnout of about 90 percent in every Australian election since 1924.”

Mandatory voting does not mean you have to vote for anyone or anything on the ballot. It just means you have to get a ballot and return it, even if you leave the whole thing blank. I'm a huge fan of mandatory voting because it tends to be pro-democracy, anti-extremism and anti-authoritarian.

Q: In general, what have been the effects of mandatory voting in Australia?

A: Compulsory voting ensures a more socially even turnout, reducing disparities in voter participation based on socioeconomic status, age, and ethnicity. This contrasts with countries like the UK, where turnout can vary significantly by demographic.

The system encourages political parties to appeal to the center rather than the extremes, as they must win over the entire electorate, not just their base. This has been credited with keeping Australia's political center more stable compared to other democracies.

Compulsory voting is believed to improve the caliber of individuals who run for office and the quality of decisions they make, as candidates must appeal to a broader electorate. Parties must consider the full spectrum of voter values, leading to policies that address a wider range of issues.

Etc.

But as we all know, the Republican Party opposes mandatory voting for the obvious reasons, i.e., wealth and power. Heck, the modern GOP leadership opposes real elections, period. Sham are probably OK for window dressing.