• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Multiple Karzai government officials on CIA payroll, including corrupt senior adviser

Status
Not open for further replies.
The CIA is making secret payments to multiple members of President Hamid Karzai's administration, in part to maintain sources of information in a government in which the Afghan leader is often seen as having a limited grasp of developments, according to current and former U.S. officials.


The payments are long-standing in many cases and designed to help the agency maintain a deep roster of allies within the presidential palace. Some aides function as CIA informants, but others collect stipends under more informal arrangements meant to ensure their accessibility, a U.S. official said.

The CIA has continued the payments despite concerns that it is backing corrupt officials and undermining efforts to wean Afghans' dependence on secret sources of income and graft.

The U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said a significant number of officials in Karzai's administration are on the payroll. Paul Gimigliano, a CIA spokesman, disputed that characterization, saying, "This anonymous source appears driven by ignorance, malice or both."

A former agency official said the payments were necessary because "the head of state is not going to tell you everything" and because Karzai often seems unaware of moves that members of his own government make.

The disclosure comes as a corruption investigation into one of Karzai's senior national security advisers - and an alleged agency informant - puts new strain on the already fraying relationship between Washington and Kabul.

Top American officials including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) have expressed concern about Karzai's efforts to rein in anti-corruption teams, as well as intervention in the case against the security adviser. The aide, Mohammad Zia Salehi, is accused of accepting a $10,000 car as a bribe in exchange for his assistance in quashing a wide-ranging corruption probe.

The issue carries enormous stakes for the Obama administration. Concerns that the Afghan government is hopelessly corrupt have prompted a congressional panel to withhold billions of dollars in aid, and threaten to erode American support for the war.

But Karzai supporters accuse their U.S. counterparts of exploiting the issue, and the Salehi arrest in particular, to humiliate the Afghan leader while ignoring more pressing priorities.



In the latest sign of his vexation, Karzai said Thursday that President Obama's timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops "has given courage to the enemies of Afghanistan," and complained that the United States wasn't doing enough to force Pakistan to stop supporting the Taliban.

"We haven't progressed in the war against terrorism," Karzai said in a statement.

The CIA has maintained relationships with Afghan government officials for years. But the disclosure that multiple members of Karzai's government are on the CIA's payroll underscores the complex nature of the American role in Afghanistan. Even as agency dollars flow in, U.S.-backed investigative units are targeting prominent Afghans in the government and trying to stem an exodus of more than $1 billion in cash annually from the country.

Gimigliano, the CIA spokesman, declined to comment on the agency's financial ties to Afghan officials. "This agency plays an essential role in promoting American goals in Afghanistan, including security and stability," he said. "Speculation about who may help us achieve that is both dangerous and counterproductive."


The agency's approach has drawn criticism from others in the U.S. government, who accuse the CIA of contributing to an atmosphere in which Afghans are conditioned to extend their hands for secret payments in almost every transaction.

"They'll pay whoever they think can help them," the U.S. official said. "That has been the CIA attitude since 2001."

A second U.S. official defended the agency's activities and alluded to a simmering conflict within the U.S. government over the scope of American objectives in Afghanistan, and the means required to achieve those goals.

"No one is going to create Plato's Republic over there in one year, two years, or 10," the official said. "If the United States decides to deal only with the saints in Afghanistan, it's in for both loneliness and failure. That's the risk, and not everyone in our government sees it."

U.S. and Afghan officials said the CIA is not the only foreign entity using secret payments to Afghan officials to influence events in the country.

A prominent Afghan with knowledge of the inner workings of the palace said it operates a fund that rewards political allies with money that flows in from the Iranian government and foreign intelligence services as well as prominent Afghan companies eager to curry favor with Karzai. The source said the fund distributes $10 million to $50 million a year.

A U.S. official said Turkey and Saudi Arabia are among the other countries funneling money into Afghanistan.

Salehi, the target of the corruption probe, is accused of taking a bribe in return for his help in blocking an investigation of New Ansari, a money transfer business that has helped elite Afghans ship large sums of cash to overseas accounts. U.S. officials worry that the stream includes diverted foreign aid.

But authorities said the Salehi investigation is also focused on his involvement in administering the palace fund - doling out cash and vehicles to Karzai supporters - as well as his role in negotiations with the Taliban.




Salehi's job put him at the center of some of the most sensitive assignments for the Afghan government. Another national security official, Ibrahim Spinzada, has orchestrated the government's talks with the Taliban and traveled with Salehi to Dubai, Saudi Arabia and Russia.

The payments from the palace are "part of the politics here," said a second senior Afghan official. Some people receive "a special salary. It is part of intelligence activities."

Rangin Dadfar Spanta, Afghanistan's national security adviser and Salehi's boss, said in an interview that he had spoken with Salehi on Thursday and that Salehi denied working with the CIA. "I don't think that Salehi is a spy," Spanta said, adding that Salehi was "shocked and he absolutely rejected it."

U.S. officials did not dispute that Salehi was on the CIA payroll, which was first reported by The New York Times. But officials sought to draw a distinction between agency payments and corruption probes.

"The United States government had nothing to do with the activities for which this individual is being investigated," the second U.S. official said. "It's not news that we sometimes pay people overseas who help the United States do what it needs to get done. . . . Nor should it be surprising, in a place like Afghanistan, that some influential figures can be both helpful and - on their own, separate and apart - corrupt to some degree."


The flow of CIA money into the region dates to the agency's support for mujaheddin fighters who ousted Soviet forces three decades ago.

The spigot was tightened during the 1990s but reopened after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Much of the money went to support warlords whose militias helped to overthrow the Taliban regime, which had provided sanctuary for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda training camps. Salehi had served as an interpreter for one of the most prominent of those warlords, Abdurrashid Dostum, an ethnic Uzbek whose forces played a critical role in the campaign against the Taliban.

The CIA bankrolled Afghanistan's intelligence service, and its financial ties to government officials has proliferated in recent years.

"There are probably not too many officials we haven't met and contacted and paid," a former CIA official said.

The CIA has a long-standing relationship - though not a financial one - with Karzai himself. The agency's station chief in Kabul traveled with Karzai during the war against the Taliban, at one point shielding him from the blast of a misdirected bomb. The station chief has since served two tours in the Afghan capital at Karzai's behest.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...8/26/AR2010082606776.html?sid=ST2010082700061

Has this been posted yet? Very interesting article. How can the US government complain about corruption in the Afgani administration when their own agency is corrupting them?
 
Sounds like the CIA is trying to make karzai the afghanistani equivalent of the shah in iran. Good thing that worked out so well in the end.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
Where do you think the billions go? Secret payments.
 

Draft

Member
Don't these officials realize that by leaking this information they are endangering the lives of the brave Afghani officials working to provide the US with vital intelligence?
 

Agnostic

but believes in Chael
elrechazao said:
So this is a good idea?
It's a good idea not to get caught. It would be better off if people give us information for free, but it hardly ever works that way.
 
Jerk 2.0 said:
Remind me again why we do not just stop messing with the world and mind our own business?


We tried that once, actually...
Then this guy with a mustache invaded Poland and everything went to pot.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
AceBandage said:
We tried that once, actually...
Then this guy with a mustache invaded Poland and everything went to pot.

And then thanks to all that the US entered its most prosperous era ever!
 

Jex

Member
Jerk 2.0 said:
Remind me again why we do not just stop messing with the world and mind our own business?
A change in foreign policy direction. Clinton was happy to chill around.

Then again, so was Eisenhower.
 
Jexhius said:
A change in foreign policy direction. Clinton was happy to chill around.

Then again, so was Eisenhower.
Clinton was happy to chill around and launch cruise missiles.

But yeah, totally not surprised by the CIA making these payments.
 
How else could they get the information they need? If every sector of Afghan government wasn't corrupt and incapable perhaps there would be no need for bribery. I'm not trying to justify bribery but that seems to be the reality of modern politics in third world and developing country.
 
polyh3dron said:
THIS is the shit the teabaggers should be mad about. This right here is the real pork barrel bullshit.

Have you heard about teabaggers foreign policies? While there is no unified stance on foreign issues, most of them (at least the loudest of them) seem to be hawks, its not like rationality and logic always plays a crucial role to them so they merely seem to be advocating small and fiscally conservative government at home while not touching the military budget and advocating an interventionist foreign policy.
 

industrian

will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
AceBandage said:
We tried that once, actually...
Then this guy with a mustache invaded Poland and everything went to pot.

Or if you're American, you waited until you were attacked directly.
 
It's back in the news.

“The biggest source of corruption in Afghanistan,” one American official said, “was the United States.”
Mr. Karzai acknowledged a few years ago that Iran regularly gave bags of cash to one of his top aides. At the time, in 2010, American officials jumped on the payments as evidence of an aggressive Iranian campaign to buy influence and poison Afghanistan’s relations with the United States. What they did not say was that the C.I.A. was also plying the presidential palace with cash — and unlike the Iranians, it still is.
^ How sad.
It is not clear that the United States is getting what it pays for. Mr. Karzai’s willingness to defy the United States — and the Iranians, for that matter — on an array of issues seems to have only grown as the cash has piled up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/w...s-cash-to-afghan-leaders-office.html?hp&_r=1&
 

DY_nasty

NeoGAF's official "was this shooting justified" consultant
Good point, but I'm not sure if their unknown successes would make up for their colossal screw-ups.
Its impossible for you to know.

When the CIA wins it wins hard - and its completely without rewards. 30 years after the fact someone might right a tell all book referring to you as a different name but thats about it.

Its easy to call them out when the vast majority you're allowed to hear about is the failures.
 

jorma

is now taking requests
Its impossible for you to know.

When the CIA wins it wins hard - and its completely without rewards. 30 years after the fact someone might right a tell all book referring to you as a different name but thats about it.

Its easy to call them out when the vast majority you're allowed to hear about is the failures.

The problem is that when CIA wins it's still a fucking atrocity. Like when they helped United Fruit from an impending land reform in Guatemala with a coup that in turn led to a 30 year long civil war that cost the lives of 200.000 people...
 
Its easy to call them out when the vast majority you're allowed to hear about is the failures.
That seems silly. I doubt there is some rule which determines how much of the successes and failures get leaked. There's a lot of information out there about all kinds of things the agency has done.
 

DY_nasty

NeoGAF's official "was this shooting justified" consultant
The problem is that when CIA wins it's still a fucking atrocity. Like when they helped United Fruit from an impending land reform in Guatemala with a coup that in turn led to a 30 year long civil war that cost the lives of 200.000 people...
I hope you didn't think I was implying that the only do good things like hand out candy and volunteer at orphanages.
That seems silly. I doubt there is some rule which determines how much of the successes and failures get leaked. There's a lot of information out there about all kinds of things the agency has done.
Uh.... things are classified generally.

Most of what people hear regarding the CIA is the fuckups because those are reported from outside entities. The other information you hear comes from classifications degrading over time - which almost always comes with a handful of retrospect.

You're not going to see a livestream broadcast of CIA handoffs anytime soon.
 

slider

Member
The problem is that when CIA wins it's still a fucking atrocity. Like when they helped United Fruit from an impending land reform in Guatemala with a coup that in turn led to a 30 year long civil war that cost the lives of 200.000 people...

No doubt there's an awful lot of tragedy in the Agency's past. But I wonder in the age of CT how perceptions could change. I just Googled for the underpants bomber and, whilst I suspect there'll be an awful lot of inaccuracies, it's a "win". Enough of those and in a decade who knows what folk'll be saying about the CIA.

That seems silly. I doubt there is some rule which determines how much of the successes and failures get leaked. There's a lot of information out there about all kinds of things the agency has done.

Given it's size I suspect the US system can be incredibly leaky; which doesn't actually address your point on good/bad of course.
 

Escape Goat

Member
Corruption is the rule rather than the exception there. Its been the way of things for a long time, even before the US intervention. Even though they receive millions in foreign aid the Afghan police are underpaid and overworked. Top military officials in charge of training Afghan forces have repeatedly said there wont be an ideal time to withdraw because the culture has not changed. So the US will have to play the game everyone else is if they want to stay ahead of Alqaeda resurgence.
 
So let me get this straight...

Americans bribe Afghan politicians and then complain that they're just so darn bribable.

Meanwhile, back in America our senators and representatives are meeting with lobbyists on a daily basis to write our laws.

But...but...those Afghans are so corrupt!
 

Riggs

Banned
Heroin is serious business.

When it all goes wrong JSOC goes in to clean up the mess, all off the congressional books. America baby.
 

Zapages

Member
how are the afghani people the victim here? You think their life atm is not at least just even a little better than under the taliban>

how because if they weren't as corrupt then more good things for the general populace could occur. This would be true in the rural areas. As they corrupt and like all corrupt people in 3rd world countries - they only help their inner circle of folks and not care for the rest of the nation.

As for the Pakistani people, then CIA and drone operations in Pakistan. :|
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
I knew his anti-US rethoric was bull. It's like NK, the more aid they got from the US, the more they had to condemn them, just to protect themselves publicly.
 
Uh.... things are classified generally.

Most of what people hear regarding the CIA is the fuckups because those are reported from outside entities. The other information you hear comes from classifications degrading over time - which almost always comes with a handful of retrospect.

You're not going to see a livestream broadcast of CIA handoffs anytime soon.
Sure, but that's not because there's a rule saying leaks about the CIA's activities are only allowed when it's negative. All kinds of things leak and get reported on, it's just that a lot of the times they fuck up or they ''successes'' turn into failures decades later.
Given it's size I suspect the US system can be incredibly leaky; which doesn't actually address your point on good/bad of course.
Yeah my comment was only in regard to the good/bad.
 

charsace

Member
Do people seriously think the CIA fucks up more than it wins? They win way more than lose. They only recruit the best people to be CIA agents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom