Share

Botched Choice For Afghan Army Uniforms Wasted Tens Of Millions Of U.S. Dollars

Afghan National Army soldiers mount ensure in Mar 2016 in Baghlan province, Afghanistan.

Massoud Hossaini/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Massoud Hossaini/AP

Afghan National Army soldiers mount ensure in Mar 2016 in Baghlan province, Afghanistan.

Massoud Hossaini/AP

The Department of Defense procured uniforms for a Afghan Army in a deception settlement that is both distant some-more dear than other options and expected inapt for a landscape there, a U.S. supervision watchdog says.

The settlement choice cost U.S. taxpayers as most as $28.2 million additional given 2008, according to a news out Wednesday, and if altered could save adult to $72.21 million over a subsequent 10 years.

Nearly 1.4 million full uniforms and scarcely 90,000 pairs of pants had a deception imitation designed to assistance troops crew mix in with a timberland environment. But according to a report, usually 2.1 percent of Afghanistan is comprised of forest.

The commentary were minute in a news from a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, or SIGAR — a troops group set adult by Congress that audits U.S. spending in Afghanistan.

U.S.-Funded Afghan Hospital Is Expensive, Late And Poorly Built, Report Finds

No grave contrast was carried out to consider either a settlement was a good fit for a environment, according to a report. And while it stresses that last a deception pattern’s bearing can be complicated, some aspects are not — as one consultant put it, “desert designs don’t work good in woodland areas and woodland patterns perform feeble in a desert.”

The timberland settlement wasn’t only potentially inapt for Afghanistan, it was selected over other options that were distant reduction costly.

As a news explains, there are dual simple kinds of deception settlement categories: those that are exclusive (meaning they are owned by a association and need accede and probable chartering fees to use them) and those that are not (meaning no additional accede or fees).

When it came time to select a uniform pattern, crew from a U.S. Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan (CSTC-A) carried out “internet searches” and came opposite exclusive patterns belonging to a Canada-based organisation called HyperStealth.

They afterwards showed those patterns to Afghanistan’s invulnerability apportion during a time and he “liked what he saw.” Several months later, a Ministry had staid on a pricey timberland settlement and a U.S. troops crew “began to pierce brazen with a merger process.”

In Afghanistan, Security Incidents And Civilian Casualties At Record Highs

Uniforms done with that exclusive timberland settlement are about 40 percent some-more dear than a uniforms of a country’s police, that have a non-proprietary deception pattern.

And even as a Defense Department was grouping a uniforms, a news notes, a U.S. supervision “already had rights to mixed uniform patterns that were not in use by U.S. forces.” Other bloc partners might have also had options to offer.

A Defense Department constrictive bureau apparently voiced concerns about a settlement choice during a time. However, a comparison central with a CSTC-A responded that a Afghan army “has already selected a settlement they want. We can't and will not collect for them.”

The watchdog is recommending that a Defense Department lift out a cost-benefit comment of a pattern, that a dialect says it will do. Among other cost-saving proposals, SIGAR proposes simply appropriation a rights to a settlement from a Canadian firm.

As of Mar 31, Congress has appropriated some $66 billion to support a Afghan National Defense and Security Forces, SIGAR adds.

Previous SIGAR reports have highlighted important examples of greedy spending, as we have reported.

For example, it found that “nearly a half-billion dollars’ value of ride aircraft procured for a Afghans were found non-professional for use and were scrapped for pennies on a pound.” Also, “some buildings were built with petrify that dissolved in rain, or with walls and roofs that could collapse, or with vulnerable wiring and unsound plumbing.”