The major players in the effort to revitalize Iraq's agriculture—the Defense Department, the State Department and USAID—like all bureaucracies, are beset by inefficiency. Add in some supporting actors like NGOs, Iraqi ministries and universities, and you can just visualize the bonds forged by red tape. If this alphabet soup of civil servants doesn't seem inefficient enough, what would a consortium of bureaucrats be if someone hadn't invited the U.S. Department of Agriculture to the party?

It is understandable that Defense, State and USAID all must work together in Iraq. But the USDA, even for an agency that specializes in agriculture, seems a bit too eager to lend a helping hand. For an agency that can't even keep track of its own payroll, joining the multinational reconstruction effort seems, at best, ambitious for the USDA. Yet there they are, halfway across the world.

At the onset of the war, the USDA only had a modest team of advisors working in Iraq. Yet in 2006, the USDA decided to beef up its mission in Iraq (with growth hormones perhaps?). They added two foreign service officers in the U.S. embassy, a staff member at the Provincial Reconstruction Team office in Baghdad, and six advisors to the Iraqi government. 

What was it that prompted USDA to step up its efforts in 2006? Well, it was a Congressional election year, and the Bush Administration had encouraged cabinet members to stress publicly what they were doing to help fight the Global War on Terror.

The USDA thought so much of President Bush's plan that they decided to email all of their employees. Recipients of the email, including technocrats who dealt strictly with domestic affairs, were fed “talking points” that were meant to instruct USDA employees how to discuss the department’s role in the fight against Al Qaeda. (Securing explosive fertilizer?) The points also served as verbal Kevlar, allowing USDA representatives to deflect public criticism, as Washington Post columnist Al Kamen noted.

The USDA decided their work was necessary to advance the cause of democracy, even though their own record on human rights is less than exemplary.

If the USDA was making a difference in Iraq's recovery, harsh criticism would not be forthcoming.

But there is little reason to believe that USDA’s presence in Iraq is necessary. If press releases are any indication, there are only minor success stories to report from the USDA's involvement – a poultry co-op here, training for a few Iraqi farmers there. Progress is progress, don't get us wrong. However, the dearth of good news emanating from the USDA's team in Iraq since President Obama’s election only seems to reinforce the idea that their presence in Iraq is not warranted and that the White House is considering scaling back their role.

Perhaps USDA operations in Iraq should not be downsized. How much can they do, anyway? A report issued by the Department of Agriculture has revealed that a drought is expected to hinder this year's Iraqi farm production. We can't expect them to make it rain; however, in that same report, it was revealed that grain production has declined since 2006, a year that Iraq begun to see major improvements in securities. This was also the year that the USDA bolstered its development team in Iraq. Though it would be absurd to say that the expansion of the USDA's team in Iraq is responsible for the downward turn in output, it is not a surprise that output didn't increase as a result of their enlargement. This is, after all, a government agency known more for participating in lavish conferences than for its problem solving abilities.

It does takes time and patience to see measured improvements in agriculture, but USAID's own agricultural assistance team has many more accomplishments to show for its efforts than the USDA does. So what exactly are USDA’s Provincial Reconstruction Team advisors doing? One of the agency’s news stories about Iraqi Agricultural Reconstruction speaks volumes: “U.S. Ag Exports to Iraq Have Grown Rapidly.”

USAID is already spending close to $200 million on agriculture in Iraq already. The USDA contributions to the Iraqi reconstruction teams are only costing American taxpayers $12.2 million, according to an agency spokesperson. It is not even clear whether this figure accounts for USDA programs in Iraq, or if it is just the PRT staff's payroll. Regardless, the extra impact USDA’s $12 million is having is a big question.

Experts who only appear to be doing another agency's work should be relieved of their duties by the Federal government, especially considering how indebted American taxpayers are.

So it seems time for USDA to shape up or literally ship out of Iraq. The U.S. government already has too many agencies doing the same work here at home. The last thing it needs is to spread American-style bureaucratic inefficiency to the Iraqis.

Also Interesting:

• 2010 Budget notes: Department of Agriculture ($32.9B)
• Congressman hints at USDA vs. FDA food inspection battle
• A dire shortage of vets in government — animal doctors, that is
• Dan the Sausageman announces nationwide recall because of possible health risks