As Sarah Chayes said about the "failed state" of Afghanistan:

> Afghanistan is often described as a “failed state,” but, in light of the outright thievery on display, Chayes began to reassess the problem. This wasn’t a situation in which the Afghan government was earnestly trying, but failing, to serve its people. The government was actually succeeding, albeit at “another objective altogether”—the enrichment of its own members.

From https://archive.is/CBQFY .

Was it here or in the reviewed book about corruption where it's mentioned, how corruption endangers security, because guess what the civilians who are mad about the blatant corruption will do when they see an insurgent plant a roadside bomb targeting the corrupt government?

As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said (and Timothy McVeigh quoted):

> In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means -- to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal -- would bring terrible retribution.

> The government was actually succeeding, albeit at “another objective altogether”—the enrichment of its own members.

Indeed. And as soon as the flow of foreign money propping the whole thing up was cut off, they vanished like melting snow across the border.

Corruption endangers security in all sorts of ways. This came up at the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, when it became apparent that maintenance money (and in some cases entire pieces of equipment) had been diverted, resulting in operational failure. The US Navy had a corruption scandal a while ago too ("Fat Leonard").

> to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal

Not even conviction, just straight up execution. The lesson of the BLM backlash was that, no, really the US public demanded that the police had the right to execute citizens in the street without accountability.