White House

The White House Demands Accountability In Afghanistan, But Is Not Tracking The Effectiveness Of Mexican Drug War Spending

By Michael Scherer | @michaelscherer | July 22, 2010 | +

For the war in Afghanistan, President Obama has laid out a clear mantra. “Investments will be based on performance. The era of the blank check is over,” he said late last year, upon announcing the latest Afghan strategy. He was speaking specifically about funding that went to the Afghan government. Without results, he said, no check. (Since then, the results have been, at least initially, disappointing, and the checks keep getting signed.)

The Mexican war against narcotraffickers is another matter, altogether. Through a program called the Merida Initiative, U.S. taxpayers will spend $1.3 billion between 2008 and 2010 on equipment–helicopters, dogs, biometric scanners, etc.–and training for Mexican forces. But there are, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office, no clear metrics for performance in the program. “In general, [The State Department's] performance measures do not align with existing strategic goals, do not provide measurable targets, and do not measure outcomes,” the report found.

Clearly Mexico’s war on its own drug mafias, which is at best a mixed success, is not as high a priority for the White House as the war in Afghanistan. But there is otherwise no clear reason why one effort to fund a foreign government in a wartime should demand high standards of accountability, while another does not require any clear standards.

Back in May, after a visit to the White House by Mexican President Felipe Calderone, I asked Press Secretary Robert Gibbs if there was any evaluation going on about the metrics of progress in the Mexican drug war. Gibbs said that he did not believe there was any discussion of pressuring the Mexican government to change strategy. “I do not believe — and I will again, I’ll check with our Mexico guys — whether or not a discussion of changing that strategy was part of these discussions,” Gibbs answered. Two months later, thanks to the GAO, we now know that the Obama Administration is not even collecting data that would allow for an evaluation of the effectiveness of U.S. funding to fight the Mexican drug war.

Related Topics: Afghanistan, gao, merida, mexico, White House

  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images
    Closeup May 25, 2012

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    From our Partners

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA
    2012 Election May 25, 2012

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • nflfoghorn

    Too busy firing innocent people…

  • deconstructiva

    Waiting for RW nut jobs conservative commenters to call for invading Mexico… but how will they scale The Fence™? Or do they wade thru the Rio Grande?
    .
    Michael, will you post cat pix / videos, “1000 words”, or anything non sequitur to take our minds off racism stuff, Sherrod / Breitbart, Jay Rosen’s vendetta against Tumulty, Rusty, etc. (however briefly)? Thanks.

  • m0mentom0ri

    “Through a program called the Merida Initiative, U.S. taxpayers will spend $1.3 billion between 2008 and 2010″
    .
    How much did we spend in Afghanistan during that same time period?
    .
    Not to say there shouldn’t be diligent tracking of funds and performance for any program, but your comparison between Mexico and Afghanistan seems disproportionate – like comparing halfpennies to gold doubloons.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Decon, you’ve mentioned the Jay Rosen stuff a few times so I checked his Twitters (which I hate doing) and I’m confused by your calling it a vendetta.
    .
    As fine a person as KT may be she wrote up a conventional wisdom story on Sherrod and Rosen pointed it out.
    .
    Seems like what most of us desire, specific media criticism.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    The war on drugs, is nothing more than a PR stunt that has been on-going since the Nixon administration. Other “wars” of this sort are the “war on poverty” “war on terror”. They are simply things that are supposed to help us feel about the government and make us think they are doing something about a problem. But the tactic often do not fit the problem.

  • destor23

    I don’t see the parallel between Mexico’s internal crime issues (which we support financially basically because we have to if we’re going to continue to support our own drug laws) and the operations of Afghanistan’s government, which is in power only because we remain as an occupying military force.

    Of course, Michael, if you want to argue in favor of better metrics to measure the effectiveness of the money we’re spending in Mexico, I’m all for it. But bringing Afghanistan into the picture just muddies your argument. The two situations couldn’t be more different.

  • m0mentom0ri

    Partially answering my own question:
    .
    Congress has approved $345 billion so far for the war in Afghanistan, which the United States invaded to fight al Qaeda and topple the Taliban after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which produced the figure, said about $22 billion has gone for Afghan-war-related activities in other countries.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    I think the primary difeerence is that we aren’t literally proping up an illegitamate government in Mexico.
    .
    Afghanistan not so much.

  • deconstructiva

    Strictly imho, his twitter tone towards her is different compared to other topics he’s discussing now. He openly expresses disappointment. Anything else emotional on his part here? If I’m wrong let it be proved and so be it, to each their own. Furthermore, KT tried to cover many bases in her stories and yes, her paragraph exonerating Sherrod was further down the story, not the blaring first paragraph in bold text. Is that the main thing pointed out as a mistake, or are others just describing her work as tepid? We might (I would) write a headline like “J”ACCUSE! SHERROD FRAMED BY BREITBART!” but she just doesn’t do that.

  • deconstructiva

    …and he replied directly at morning reads. Paul, notice your tone and his. Thinking again, you make a stronger case so I concede your point (last sentence).

  • shepherdwong

    Oh great. Now they’re going to have to pay a bunch of people to come up with some bogus metrics for the drug war too.

  • http://newassignment.net/ Jay Rosen

    I’m going to have to break this reply to the anonymous deconstructiva’s insinuations (as in the word “vendetta”) into separate posts because of Time’s inability to moderate and approve comments in a timely manner.

    First off, deconstructiva, you ask in other threads who I am. http://bit.ly/2Tli2Q <—- That's my "where I'm coming from" post. Look at the upper left corner and click on my bio; it tells you more.

    Now: Where's yours? You have a fake name here, and your Twitter feed (@j2lovesfriday) tells us nothing about who you are, or what your perspective is. Is that an imbalance you wish to correct?

  • http://newassignment.net/ Jay Rosen

    I’d love to know, deconstuctiva, what you consider an “attack,” as against a “criticism.” Kindly help me out and tell me which of these is written in “attack” mode… and which you would classify as respectful but pointed “criticism.”

    Others can weigh in too, of course. Thanks much. (see the following posts, Time is making me doing it this way.)

    All tweets found at http://twitter.com/jayrosen_nyu

  • michaelfury
  • http://newassignment.net/ Jay Rosen

    These are my five Twitter posts about @ktumulty’s coverage of the Sherrod episode, which deconstuctiva considers an irresponsible attack and “vendetta” against her.

    1. Shirley Sherrod forced out. Politico: [link] NY Times: [link] Washington Post: http://jr.ly/4fja What do you find?

    Attack or criticism? Check one.

  • http://newassignment.net/ Jay Rosen

    These are my five Twitter posts about @ktumulty’s coverage of the Sherrod episode, which deconstuctiva considers an irresponsible attack and “vendetta” against her.

    2. Dear @ktumulty: Reading your coverage of Shirley Sherrod http://jr.ly/4fja the overwhelming impression I have is… fear —A disappointed fan.

    Attack? Criticism? What do you think?

  • michaelfury
  • http://newassignment.net/ Jay Rosen

    These are my five Twitter posts about @ktumulty’s coverage of the Sherrod episode, which deconstuctiva considers an irresponsible attack and “vendetta” against her.

    3. Dear @ktumulty: No regret, comment or explanation, even over Twitter, for http://jr.ly/4fja ? My disappointment swells.

    Okay, is that one an attack? Or is that criticism? Or does criticism=attack? Please advise.

  • http://newassignment.net/ Jay Rosen

    4. And what about you, @ktumulty? Are you one of those “vowing to learn” from the Sherrod episode? http://jr.ly/ztci So far I haven’t seen it.

    “Vowing to learn” is a quote from her piece. So… would that be an attack? Or criticism. Or vendetta. You decide!

  • http://newassignment.net/ Jay Rosen

    5. Please, @ktumulty. Read this: http://jr.ly/ztba It’s talking to you. Disappointed that you’re a one-way medium now, but you can still click.

    That completes the set of five: Attack or criticism?

  • Paul-no not that one

    Thanks for weighing in Jay Rosen.
    .
    There is a great fondness for KT here and that might color peoples reaction to criticism.

  • http://newassignment.net/ Jay Rosen

    My disappointment with @kmulty can, I think, he seen by focusing on the differences between Politico: http://jr.ly/zt4a and the New York Times, as compared to her original coverage in no. 1 of my 5. And by her failure to include herself or the Washington Post in any of her follow-up coverage about the mistakes made, or to reply on Twitter to any of this.

    Time magazine is making me do it this way, with all the little posts because I might be a spammer.

  • earljr1

    Accountability by the Obama administration? Fat chance that is ever going to happen. THIRTEEN TRILLION dollar deficit and growing at over one billion dollars per day, with no end in sight. What ever happened to his promise of no new spending unless a corresponding cut was made? More empty rhetoric, I suppose.

  • http://newassignment.net/ Jay Rosen

    Gee, this is convenient, Time magazine…

    1. Shirley Sherrod forced out. Politico: [link] NY Times: http://jr.ly/zt4b Washington Post: [link] What do you find?

    Dear Paul-no: My criticisms of KT spring from the same source. I expect far better of her, and I did not expect her to become a one way medium.

  • Paul-no not that one

    “I did not expect her to become a one way medium.”
    .

    Ironically it was KT’s very engagement with commenters here that led to the affection/respect.
    .
    I would be surprised if she doesn’t respond. Not being of the Twitter universe I don’t know the expected response time.

  • nflfoghorn

    I suppose Miss Prissy or Mr. Perm would do better? Is that your implication??

  • deconstructiva

    No, Jay, I will not reveal my identity here. I don’t wish to be stalked: that is happening now to a regular commenter at this blog (he can reply if he wishes). I’m not implying at all that you or your blog / twitter followers would ever do that or break anyone’s anonymity. Clearly you display professional behavior but some others out there do not.

  • earljr1

    My implication, nflfoghorn, is why all of the broken promises? accountability, transparency, fiscal responsibility…he gets a failing grade in each category. This is change we can believe in? It is certainly NOT what I signed up for.

  • shepherdwong

    I also not of 140-character-at-a-time brilliance am curious about your critique of KT’s WaPo article. Perhaps this isn’t the forum either but could you elaborate?

    Reading your coverage of Shirley Sherrod http://jr.ly/4fja the overwhelming impression I have is… fear

  • CP in FL

    So I guess you were just as concerned about our national debt when your boy GW Bush was in office and he started two wars that were unfunded and multiple tax cuts for the wealthy that were unfunded? I don’t think so.

  • http://newassignment.net/ Jay Rosen

    I don’t know, either. It’s been 36 hours since I first addressed her, but obviously she doesn’t have to reply to me, specifically. It would have been far better to reply by including her own coverage in the follow-up stories and reflections she offered at the Washington Post, such as http://bit.ly/c4Pra6

  • Paul-no not that one

    I agree including her own coverage in the follow-ups would be best.
    .
    I’m sure Howie Kurtz will handle it so, you know, no worries.

  • http://newassignment.net/ Jay Rosen

    Did you know that Time thinks it’s a good idea to make it impossible for me to reply to a reply to one of my comments?

    shepherdwong: In my assessment KT’s coverage here http://jr.ly/4fja takes a “teach the controversy” approach to an event in which the controversy was known to be based on a false reading about the Sherrod video. It indulges in he said, she said (or left says vs. right says) analysis when the far bigger story was the fraudulent claims and the fact that within the conservative movement itself there was regret and doubt about the story.

    The fact that the story further down mentions what the full video shows, and mentions that the white farmer’s wife came out in support of Sherrod makes it worse, in my view, for this shows how completely absurd the “teach the controversy” and “he said, she said” approach really are. By fear I mean fear of right wing criticism. The only advantage that I can see for the “teach the controversy” and “he said, she said” framing is to advertise how even handed the Post is being and to place it in the middle between warring extremes.

  • http://newassignment.net/ Jay Rosen

    Really? Howard Kurtz will handle it? http://bit.ly/9FnWgt

  • shepherdwong

    “Read this: http://jr.ly/ztba It’s talking to you.”
    .
    OK, I saw Josh’s overwrought piece this morning and slammed the coaster brakes on at this:

    It’s like the NYPD as the bad guy in the Son of Sam saga because they didn’t catch David Berkowitz fast enough.

    If you’re going to deploy that hysterical analogy it would better said that:

    It’s like the NYPD as the bad guy in the Son of Sam saga because they threw some innocent schlub in jail because David Berkowitz said she was guilty.

    Obama and Vilsack fired this woman for no good reason, not Breitbart or FOX. The fact that the reason was as bad as a Breitbart video being flogged by FOX – after ACORN and Johnson (and Wright, and Gates, and Holder, etc. etc., ad nauseum) calls for some journalism attempting to explain exactly what the f@ck is wrong with the White House political operation.
    .
    It doesn’t have to say they are responsible for what happened in totality, just why the hell do they think and react to this deliberate race-baiting propaganda the way they do? It’s obvious to anyone with any political sense that their “strategy” just 1) makes them look guilty, 2) makes them look work and 3) encourages more of the same. Karen’s article looks to attempt to explain some of that (PS KT doesn’t do media criticism). Obviously, other people are doing great work, belatedly IMHO, about the actions and effects right-wing propaganda machine, with FOX News at it’s center, but I think you can do both or either story.

  • earljr1

    I am an Independent voter, CP, and I bought into the premise Obama was going to make it better. I and many others like me, no longer feel that way.

  • shepherdwong

    Thanks for your reply, Jay. Please see 21.2.
    .
    I wholeheartedly agree with critique of the typical he-said-she-said framing and the complete failure to describe the intentional race-baiting but, as a I said, I think Karen’s purpose was exactly to try to tell the “fear of right wing criticism” inside the White House. It’s an important story that helps explain their otherwise inexplicable behavior.
    .
    And that should read: “…2) makes them look weak…”

  • shepherdwong

    Now there’s some world-class, he-said-she-said hackery. I’m shocked that there’s worse-than-worthless “journalism” going on at The Post.

  • Paul-no not that one

    I was going for a cheap laugh.
    .
    Kurtz’s on-line chats are a lesson in media hackery.

  • grape_crush

    …is to advertise how even handed the Post is being and to place it in the middle between warring extremes.

    Oh, I’m sure it’s 1 through 5 but definitely not 6, as there’s been no ‘Breitbart, have you no shame’ moment presented.

  • Paul-no not that one

    It’s worth noting that the author of this (ignored) thread Mr. Scherer has linked to Breitbart as source material before.
    .
    When I asked “Are you linking to Breitbart?” he came into comments to say “Yes, why do you ask?”
    .
    Then Exiled or Appolo also asked why I was curious.
    .
    I didn’t see the point in explaining as either you know the source or you don’t and until now Breitbart was a less incendiary link than Drudge while spewing the same stuff.

  • apr2563

    I read Kurtz this morning and got what I expected. Maybe with the ratings trouble CNN is experiencing he is hoping for a job with Fox. Paul, I have participated in his Q and As and unlike others at the Wa Po, he has never responded to one of my questions. The last question I sent him was about what he thought of Mary Matlins crocodile tears on CNN over the Gulf. I suggested that the angry Carville might have turned over in bed and asked Mary about Cheney’s contribution to the tragedy (paraphrasing here). No response. Usually Kurtz is busy exclaiming on the latest sex scandal.
    I sent this same questions to Anderson Cooper’s blog. I was put in moderation and then deleted.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Professor Rosen, forgive me, but you seem to have incredibily thin skin for someone who both teaches at a major university and is committed to critiquing and criticizing others. Whatever your dispute with Decon, I think it rather pedantic to come to an anynomous his/her identity. That Decon refuses this dangerously absurd challenge is in no way an indictment of his/her credibility or indicative of baseless insights.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Not I.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Professor Rosen, let it go. Thanks.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Such a trouble maker!
    .
    I’ve found that starting your question with a big smootch “Thanks so much for taking the time to chat with we lowly readers” helps.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Sorry Neo then it was the other non-crazy conservative.
    .
    No offence intended I get you two mixed up.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Wow. That should read:
    .
    Whatever your dispute with Decon, I think it rather pedantic to come to an anynomous online forum and dare a commenter to go public with his/her identity.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Kosher.

  • maverick2k9

    Dr Earl in a Jar, I think you skipped your Eco 101 class along with the anotomy class.
    .
    It is $13 billion in debt, NOT defict.
    .
    Prof Paul Krugman (the real economist, though you insist he isn’t) probably has a break up of how much of that debt came from Republicans. And it is not a pretty picture.

blog comments powered by Disqus