Special: "Falling Down: The Race to Reconstruction in Afghanistan"

Washington Post staff writers Joe Stephens and David Ottaway were online Monday, Nov. 21, at Noon ET to discuss their investigation of nation-building in Afghanistan.

A transcript follows.

____________________

Joe Stephens: Welcome everyone. David Ottaway is here beside me. Let's get to the questions.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: I was so glad to see your piece on Afghanistan, although the facts were not very pretty. The neglect of Afghanistan by the U.S. (and international) media since the invasion has been appalling. I don't think that people would have supported the Iraq invasion if they had been aware of the situation in Afghanistan. To me, it is unthinkable from a humanitarian standpoint that the U.S. should have embarked on a second, larger, nation-building experiment when the first one was really not even begun. I know that some reporters tried to bring out the increased heroin production, rampant corruption, humanitarian problems, and warlordism, but were drowned out by the happy faces presented by the election. I hope that you all will continue to report on what is actually going on in Afghanistan. Is there any hope that Afghanistan will be any better 10 years from now than it was the day before the U.S. invasion?Peace.

Joe Stephens: There is always hope for progress. One key will be whether the international community continues its commitment to Afghanistan, whatever the hurdles.

_______________________

Kansas: Are the Afghani people winning any of their own reconstruction contracts? How much reconstruction of infrastructure is being done by locals and how much by Texas based corporations?

Also, is it true that American soldiers guard Karzai from his own people, 24 hours a day?

David Ottaway: Yes. the Afghans are subcontractors and are doing the actual on-site construction of schools and clinics on the US Agency for International Development contracts. We're not aware of Texas corporations participating in this particular project.

As for the Karzai guards, we believe Americans were providing protection up until a month or so ago, but that Afghans are handling that now.

_______________________

Worms, Germany: Thanks for the excellent report, which does not only point out the need for tight oversight of such projects, but also illustrates the problem of any kind of reconstruction in Afghanistan.

I am wondering how you would rate the overall progress of reconstruction in Afghanistan. How much progress does one see, when traveling Afghanistan (or at least the parts of the country that are relatively safe)?

Joe Stephens: The answer depends somewhat on expectations. Initial statements from the West led the Afghans to expect great things. Now, as you travel the country, you hear great frustration and more than a little anger that things haven't gone as quickly as expected. With a new parliament, it remains to be seen if politicians will be trying to turn that anger into political capital.

In Kabul, there clearly is a lot of money flowing in. Lots of private construction going on, people on the streets. There are funds flowing through, but whether the aid is going where intended is more difficult to tell. The economic impact is much less apparent in the countryside.

_______________________

Lexington, Ky.: Hi -I've been to Afghanistan five times since August 2004 and if anything, it seems like the economic situation is improving and security is about the same. In that time I'm not just staying in Kabul, but have traveled to Kandahar and also provinces surrounding Kabul. However, I've read news articles recently about the declining security situation, and now my mom is getting worried. (!) Do you think security is measurably worse than it was a year ago as these stories say, or are things the same or getting better?

Joe Stephens: All indications are that security is getting worse. People we talked to in Afghanistan who have been there for a long while seem to think things are getting worse on a daily basis. It remains to be seen if this was just pre-election activity or the start of a new, dangerous trend.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: After years of interactions with USAID I am still appalled at its 'money machine' aspect, the idea that money must be spent even on dubious projects. Usually the beneficiaries are well connected companies of course, with this process exemplified by the Post's recent Editorial regarding aid to earthquake effected South Asia. In your article I didn't detect as much of that aspect as the projects seemed to collapse due to imperialistic hubris (forgive me for saying so), incompetence, and political interference in the strategic planning process. However, are well connected companies still getting rich off this? Did you see aspects of the institutional corruption seemingly endemic in parts of the organization? (Disclaimer, most USAID folks are fantastic, desiring only great things, and the choose to stay in hopes of extracting some good from such riches).

David Ottaway: Thanks for the comments. There are only a few lrge US companies that are capable of handling large-scale nation building work, so we see the same players over and over again.

We agree with your disclaimer -- most USAID personnel are doing courageous work in perilous circumstances.

_______________________

Oak Brook, Ill.: Has the Iraq war affected the rebuilding progress of the Afghanistan?

Joe Stephens: Yes. Lots of money is flowing to Iraq, as well as talent -- including the former US ambassador to Kabul, Zalmay Khalilzad. Iraq also has seemed to steal away U.S. public attention and concern.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Your article was informative. However, problems continue with USAID's reconstruction program. One issue is the lack of continuity with the USAID Mission Director. Each is brought in for a one-year term. It is not possible to grasp the magnitude of the problem and understand how to address it, let alone build up the right staff team to carry out the work if you are planning for your post six months into your assignment. What is USAID doing to address this issue?

Joe Stephens: This has been a continuing issue in a number of areas in Afghanistan, not just with the USAID mission director. Some of the turnover there involved an unavoidable medical issue with a former director. We understand discussions are underway now about about extending the tenures for the mission directors.

_______________________

Kabul, Afghanistan: The Alternative Livelihood Programs for the reduction of poppy growth also beg scrutiny. The contractors are struggling with USAID oversight that is obstructive. Chemonics chief of party staff recently quit his position because of this. I would be interested in why it appears to be so different than the European and Asian missions here. I am a subcontractor to the contractors with USAID and recently chose not to continue to pursue my contracts because of the difficulties -- the Afghan's perception of USAID is getting dangerous. Thanks for following this important story. The issues regarding USAID here are very important for Americans.

David Ottaway:  We have not looked in-depth at the poppy situation as yet. Thanks for your insightful comments. If you -- or anybody else out there -- have any particular insights, feel free to e-mail us at afghanistan@washpost.com

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: I assume it's not time for tourists there yet?

Joe Stephens: Not yet, but the scenery is breathtaking. Once they get the landmines out of the way, we would highly recommend booking a trip across the Hindu Kush. And don't miss the sweet melons in Kunduz. If you are a lover of military machinery, we counted 48 abandoned Soviet-era tanks on the road from Kabul to Kunduz.

_______________________

Mt. Pleasant, D.C.: It was hard to tell from the story, but did you think that the main problem in Afghanistan is corruption or incompetence?

David Ottaway: Certainly the Afghans think there is plenty of both.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Other than USAID, are there there other U.S. agencies assisting with the reconstruction of Afghanistan? Given that all the money for Afghanistan reconstruction has been earmarked to USAID for reconstruction has Congress taken any steps to provide budgetary assistance to other agencies or groups in Afghanistan that will assist and make sure Afghanistan becomes a success story in nation building?

Joe Stephens: The US military is certainly becoming more and more involved in reconstruction. They operate across Afghanistan through Provincial Reconstruction Teams, or PRTs. They have substantial funding and are set up to move very quickly to meet the needs of rural villages. This is not only development, but also an effort to win hearts and minds of villagers to win a strategic advantage. For example, if you give locals a new clinic, maybe they will let you know the next time the Taliban come through town.

There also are a number of other US agencies working on the ground in Afghanistan. Such as the US Department of Agriculture and Health and Human Services. There is a trend to have a wider range of agencies play a part in nation building.

_______________________

Kabul, Afghanistan.: One of the most visible sectors in need of reconstruction is the power sector. However, USAID has not made much progress in rehabbing this sector. It continues to spend large sums of money to buy diesel fuel just to keep the lights on part of the time. The winter is setting in and energy continues to be a problem yet USAID relies on a small 8A firm for its prime support for this sector. It is also relying on other bilaterals and multilaterals for key elements in the reconstruction of the power sector. This seems like a dangerous strategy. Do you agree?

David Ottaway: We're not very familiar with the problems of the energy sector at this point. But we would be interested in learning. Once again, all thoughts and comments are welcomed at afghanistan@washpost.com

_______________________

Islamabad, Pakistan: Do you think that without the participation of Afghan majority, there will be ever peace in Afghanistan? After so many years, the coalition only controls Kabul and maybe few other towns. And you think Afgan people will ever accept people who are in coalition there with people in government whom they never liked.

Joe Stephens: Yes, the participation of the Afghan majority certainly is needed. It does seem that the coalition is strongest in a few major cities, as you might expect. However, even Kabul remains dicey. You don't see Westerners on the streets. They tend to travel around in armored Land Crusiers with chase cars full of armed guards. The fear is well-grounded. There have been many kidnappings and bombings. With luck and time, things will change.

_______________________

Knoxville, Tenn. The Americans should assist; however, it is up to the Afghans to build their country. They cannot be complaining against Americans if the re-construction is slow. Do you agree?

David Ottaway: Yes, Americans should assist. USAID indeed has been pushing capacity building. They insist that prime contractors hire Afghan subs and help them get going. They provide financing and training. The idea is to leave behind viable Afghan firms that can perform to international standards. USAID points out that this is a slower process than just rushing in and doing the work ourselves.

_______________________

Manassas, Va.: Thanks for the excellent story Sunday. In your reporting, have you found hints that other USAID projects in places other than Afghanistan are just as abysmal? Or is Afghanistan uniquely abysmal?

Also, do you think the expectations were too high? In other words, if there had been less incompetence, do you think they could have actually met their goals? Or were the goals unrealistic from the get go?

Joe Stephens: In internal documents we have seen, even USAID says that the goals and expectations were unrealistic. The plan was to show demonstrable improvements across the country before the presidential election in late 2004. So things were rushed, before there was a fully vetted plan for moving ahead.

There are many tales of problems with redevelopment programs elsewhere, including Iraq. But we'll have to wait to see what our reporting can establish as to what is real and can be proven.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: I was in Kabul a month ago after being away for a year and was amazed to see a couple of new five-star hotels, a gaudy shopping mall, several large elaborate homes and other signs of economic growth and wealth. However, poverty abounds outside the walls of these wealthy establishments. Are these seeds for future unrest or are they signs of hope?

Joe Stephens: They could be either, or both, I suppose. Either way, it will be fascinating to watch as Afghanistan moves forward.

And: Can the tourism business be far behind? (We ran into one fellow who was dreaming of eco-tourism mountain bike trips to Bamiyan).

_______________________

Virginia: How do you two eat there daily? Do you have bodyguards also?

Joe Stephens: Amazingly, there are a wide range of ethnic restaurants in Kabul itself. Including a very good Thai place. All have heavy security at their doors. There aren't many Americans, though, since US government employees and many workers at non-profit organizations are required to travel with their own large security details, and to stay at home at night. Actually, for ease, David and I usually ate dinner in Kabul at the guesthouse where we were staying.

Also, for future reference: In Kabul, "Chinese restaurant" is often a euphemism for a brothel.

We chose not to travel with guards ourselves. It complicates logistics. And we thought it might make people less comfortable and less inclined to speak openly. Finally, we decided it also might tend to attract more attention. So instead, when traveling outside Kabul, we hired a sturdy but 30-year old Land Cruiser with a shattered windshield. Only our interpreter and our driver came along. The idea was to sneak in and out of villages before most people knew we were there. It seems to have worked.

_______________________

Vienna, Va.: Your report was very enlightening. There is so much happening in the world today that it is hard to keep track. Is there any chance that you will appear on one of the Sunday morning talk shows (with either DoD or White House personnel) to discuss?

David Ottaway: We await the invitation....

_______________________

Germantown, Md.: Having watched a documentary about Afghanistan by Frontline, I'm pretty pessimistic of Afghanistan. We're dealing with, basically, a hopeless situation. Afghanistan is Colombia of Asia. An opium kingdom. Afghanistan government uses opium to blackmail the international community for money. There're something that money can't buy, which is, unfortunately, exactly what Afghanistan needs. Can you tell us, or anybody tell us, how much of each dollar poured into Afghanistan is spent on construction? I bet most of the money has ended in some corrupted officials' pocket. More money can only breed more corruption. Please comment.

Joe Stephens: I'm not sure we have a precise answer for you, but it is clear that overhead costs are substantial. A good percentage of those overhead costs flow to U.S. companies, and back to the US. Also, security costs eat a large portion of the funding.

_______________________

Peshawar, Pakistan: How many Pakistanis did you meet while in Afghanistan who were engaged in business or reconstruction?

David Ottaway: We met a few. One was a Pakistani woman who runs a construction company that builds schools and clinics. When we were there, her son was setting up a very Western -- and very hip -- nightclub just outside the grounds of the U.S. embassy. It will be interesting to see how that is received.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: In terms of geographic area as well as in terms of segments of the population, how much of Afghanistan is safe from the Taliban and drug lords and how much is not? Consequently how many more American troops will be needed to secure the whole country's and population's safety? And should we leave anytime soon how long would it be before the country fell under complete Taliban control?

Joe Stephens: Depends on what your definition of "safe" is. And, safe for whom? For Afghans? For Americans?

We know of no plans for more American troops. In fact, NATO is taking over more of a security role.

Of course, troops alone can never make a nation safe. That's why the US development programs -- particularly schools and clinics for rural areas -- are so critical.

_______________________

Central, Pa.: You touched on the "accelerate success" approach as the Afghan presidential elections approached. How did that affect the depth of of reconstruction planning before implementation of the projects?

Joe Stephens: Clearly, things were rushed.

_______________________

Mt. Pleasant, Washington, D.C.: Did anyone offer you ideas for how to reform the reconstruction, or were people just throwing their hands up?

Also, did you get the sense that the problems you uncovered were specific to Afghanistan, or merely the typical problems encountered by Westerners trying to rebuild a developing nation?

Joe Stephens: There are a million ideas for reform. You'll hear them over every meal in Kabul. Some say Non-Governmental Organizations should do more. Others say for-profit companies. Still others say the military should be in charge of reconstruction. And then there are the Afghans, who say they should just handle things themselves, and cut out the middlemen.

Which of the ideas are good, which are bad, and which will ever get a chance remains to be seen.

We tackled the Afghan reconstruction story, in part, as a case study on US efforts at reconstruction and nation building. We think a lot of the lessons that can be learned there are applicable to Iraq and around the world.

_______________________

Joe Stephens: Thanks for reading everybody. See you next time.

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.