A key component of the U.S. strategy to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan dispatching military and diplomatic workers to direct aid at the local level remains beset by troubles over funding, staffing and administrative support, according to a new congressional study.

The bipartisan assessment, conducted by an oversight and investigations panel on the House Armed Services Committee, raises questions about the administration's reliance on provincial reconstruction teams to boost local economies and restart basic services still missing in much of Iraq.

Administration officials have heavily touted the teams as an innovative and promising approach to the daunting task of rebuilding troubled nations. In January 2007, President Bush announced he would double the number of teams in Iraq along with a buildup of U.S. troops to hasten reconstruction.

"These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen the moderates and speed the transition to Iraqi self-reliance," he said.

But more than a year later, the program remains an adhoc endeavor that is "personality driven" by individual leaders instead of relying on strategic guidance and oversight at the senior levels of government They often operate under "unclear chains of command" that can "result in uncoordinated, and even counterproductive, outcomes," the House panel states.

Overall, the report found that anecdotal evidence suggests the teams have made significant headway in rebuilding efforts. But because there is no objective mission or senior-level reviews, judging the success of the teams is difficult.

"We know they are working very hard, but we can't tell if they are having the desired impact," said Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., chairman of the oversight subcommittee.

Finding qualified individuals also remains a challenge, with civilian agencies unable to fill the increased number of teams in Iraq and keep them staffed.

Another issue is the lack of money dedicated to the effort. According to the report, the teams rely heavily on a military fund intended mostly for emergency payments, such as money given to locals to repair property damaged by U.S. forces or address urgent humanitarian needs.

Each group in Afghanistan spends about $20 million a year; a similar figure was not available for the Iraqi teams.

Several lawmakers say they want the Iraqis to pick up more of the cost of reconstruction. The administration counters that major reconstruction projects have already been handed off.

"We don't want to suggest they haven't tried, in some areas, already, to shift some of the costs," said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb. "It's just that I don't think that they've gone far enough, fast enough. And that's why I think we need to put the pressure on."

Nelson said he does not take any particular issue with the provincial reconstruction teams. "I just don't know how successful they'll be," he said.

Nelson is working with Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, on legislation that would restrict future reconstruction dollars to loans instead of grants; require that Baghdad pay for fuel used by American troops and take over U.S. payments to predominantly Sunni fighters in the Awakening movement.

Rep. Ron Klein, D-Fla., has proposed a similar nonbinding bill in the House.

On the Net:

Report on reconstruction teams:

Leave a comment

(Please verify your email address to enable and use the form below.)