President Barack Obama's choice to serve as U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan insisted on Wednesday that the United States must continue its multibillion-dollar investment to achieve a "good enough" government in Kabul that would prevent the country from backsliding into a sanctuary for terrorists.
Ryan Crocker was challenged repeatedly by skeptical senators who questioned a costly war now in its 10th year and nation building that a fresh congressional report found has had limited success despite nearly $19 billion in foreign aid over a decade. That's more than the United States has spent in any other country, including Iraq.
"Our current commitment, in troops and dollars, is neither proportional to our interests nor sustainable," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The panel's Democrats issued the report, which says stabilization programs in Afghanistan have had limited success.
Misspent foreign aid can result in corruption, alter markets and undercut the ability of the Kabul government to control its resources, said the report, which was posted Tuesday night on the Senate committee's website. The World Bank found that a whopping 97 percent of the gross domestic product in Afghanistan is linked to spending by the international military and donor community.
"Afghanistan could suffer a severe economic depression when foreign troops leave in 2014 unless the proper planning begins now," the report said.
Troop decision loomsObama, after conferring with military leaders and senior advisers, will decide this month on how many of the 100,000 troops to withdraw from Afghanistan , a step toward decisively ending the long, costly war.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., has called for a cut of 15,000 U.S. troops by year's end, including combat troops. But the panel's top Republican, John McCain of Arizona, said he stands with Defense Secretary Robert Gates for a more modest and no combat troops.
McCain said the administration would make a cut of 15,000 "if you want to lose."
"We still have the eastern part of Afghanistan to go — that will require some more time and you don't want to draw down, in my view, combat forces," he told NBC News.
The study urged the administration to make more effective use of the roughly $320 million a month in foreign aid it spends in Afghanistan, with a focus on sustainability.
The congressional report said roughly 80 percent of U.S. Agency for International Development funds allocated in Afghanistan's south and east — the traditional heartland of the Taliban and other insurgents — were being used for short-term stabilization programs instead of long-term development projects.
"The evidence that stabilization programs promote stability in Afghanistan is limited. Some research suggests the opposite," the report said.
Crocker said the United States cannot afford to abandon Afghanistan, where the realistic goal is a relatively stable government rather than creation of "shining city on a hill."
"Governance that is good enough to ensure that the country doesn't degenerate back into a safe haven for al-Qaida," Crocker told the Foreign Relations panel.
He recalled Defense Secretary Robert Gates' warning that the United States walked away from Afghanistan in 1989 with disastrous consequences.
"We cannot afford to do so again," said Crocker, who argued progress is hard, "but hard does not mean hopeless."
Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., summed up the frustration of lawmakers.
"If we're not going to walk away, how long are we going to stay and at what level?" Coons asked.
"I just don't know the answer now," said the career diplomat, who served in Beirut, Baghdad and Islamabad.
Indeed, the key to stability in Afghanistan is working towards a political settlement with militants, Professor Malcolm Charmers, Director of Research for think tank Royal United Services Institute for Defense & Security Studies.
The U.S. military "puts more emphasis on increasing numbers of special forces operations to kill Taliban leaders in the field," he said. "It is difficult to reconcile that with a political track that is trying to reach out to those people and bring them into the process."
The report said the United States must do a better job of oversight, especially as it funnels more aid through the Afghan government. One recommendation was to standardize Afghan salaries and work with the government on staff limitations.
The panel's Democrats also suggested that Congress implement multiyear aid programs and closer scrutiny of stabilization programs
"Transition planning should find the right balance between avoiding a sudden drop-off in aid, which could trigger a major economic recession, and a long-term phase-out from current levels of donor spending," the report said.
"Our aid projects need to focus more on sustainability so that Afghans can absorb our programs when donor funds recede."
Presumption 'incorrect'State Department spokesman Mark Toner said that the presumption that no progress has been made in Afghanistan is "frankly incorrect," NBC News reported.
Progress is being made on the civilian side despite "many operational challenges," Toner said, maintaining that civilian assistance is an essential component of the national security strategy in Afghanistan.
"We have broken the Taliban's momentum, we've trained and continue to train Afghan forces and we are preparing to when we leave turn the corner in our efforts," Toner said.
Republicans and Democrats are pressing for a robust drawdown of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, especially in a time of serious U.S. financial woes. The administration is seeking about $3.2 billion in foreign aid for Afghanistan in next year's budget, an amount likely to be closely reviewed.
Future aid to Afghanistan likely will be an ongoing question for the United States and its allies in Afghanistan, Charmers said.
"Once ... troops go and given that the Afghan government post-2014 probably isn't going to look that pretty, will the U.S. government and U.S. taxpayers want to continue to cough up large amounts of aid?" he said.
