Taliban Rule Well, Karzai Doesn’t

Taliban Rule Well, Karzai Doesn’t

The U.S. led counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan is straining under fundamental contradictions that threaten to undermine the effort there, according to a number of experts who recently returned from contributing to a strategic review undertaken by new Afghan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

To begin with, coalition interests and those of the government of Hamid Karzai do not always align, and sometimes are at cross-purposes. Much more problematic, they say, the Afghan public views the Karzai government as abusive and corrupt and a threat to their security. In a series of briefings and public discussions, leading counterinsurgency and military experts referred repeatedly to the “predatory” actions of the Afghan government upon the Afghan people; particularly egregious are abuses by the universally derided Afghan National Police (ANP).

The situation poses a distinct challenge to U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine, which aims to enable the host nation government to rule and gain the people’s consent to be governed.

To that end, the U.S. is pursuing a “population centric” counterinsurgency strategy designed to provide security to the Afghan people. The U.S. is now in the difficult position of protecting the population from the regime it not only helped install but continues to prop up with enormous financial and political support.

The U.S. is trying to extend the reach of the central government throughout the country when many people view the government as the number one cause of insecurity, said Tuft University’s Andrew Wilder, speaking last week at the United States Institute of Peace. “That’s a real fundamental flaw in our current counterinsurgency strategy.”

Viewing their own government as predatory and abusive, many Afghans turn towards the Taliban, which has proven very skillful at exploiting public greivances, said the Australian counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen, who has advised U.S. commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan. “The Taliban are kicking our ass at the local level,” he said, speaking at USIP. Insurgents have set up effective shadow governments in villages and districts that are often quite responsive to the people’s desire for justice and accountability.

“You’ve got to get in there and make the people feel safe and protect them from all comers, including their own government, their own police, the warlords and the drug traffickers, otherwise you’ve got no chance to get them to turn,” Kilcullen said. The people’s perceptions are the only thing that truly matters in counterinsurgency. The Afghans he spoke with said that in common rule of law matters, they regularly turn to the Taliban, not their own police.

Stephen Biddle, an analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations and another member of the McChrystal strategy review team, said that poor to nonexistent local level governance and a ruling regime that is seen as largely illegitimate, makes the war in Afghanistan much more similar to the Vietnam war than Iraq ever was. If local governance is not radically improved, openings will be continue to be created for the Taliban, who are looking for just such opportunities. He said the U.S. must begin to use all leverage at its disposal to spur the Karzai government to clean up its act.

This unhealthy state of affairs was largely our own making. After the fall of the Taliban in 2001, the U.S. focused its efforts on installing the “shell” of a modern state, with power concentrated at the top, in the president’s office and in government ministries, Wilder said. But the Karzai government still functions on a traditional “personalized patronage basis,” where favors are handed out according to tribal ties, he said. U.S. policy has enabled the status quo to continue.

Even U.S. aid efforts are often seen as benefitting the country’s warlords and other powerful players and not the Afghan people, Wilder said. Development and construction contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars are routed to those with political or personal ties to Karzai. Corruption at the top is now so pervasive and entrenched, he is skeptical of the U.S. ability to reform the Afghan government.

Recognizing the contradiction of trying to protect the people from its own government, Kilcullen said the U.S. must address the rot at the very top, and establish some kind of legitimate government in Kabul, otherwise the entire effort is likely to founder.

He worries that if, as is widely expected, Karzai wins the national elections scheduled for later this month, there will be widespread perceptions among the people that the election was a fraud, further delegitimizing the government. The U.S. and the international community may ultimately have little choice but to either compel reform or threaten to pull support.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

One of the McChrystal objectives is fighting corruption, but I don’t see how you can fight corruption in a sovereign government you’re trying to prop up, without undermining it.

“He said the U.S. must begin to use all leverage at its disposal to spur the Karzai government to clean up its act.”

Isn’t this what we have been trying to do for years with no results? The way I see it is that Karzai is not going to change, so we either undermine him or live with him. Problem is we gave him so much backing that no rival has the power to unseat him (even in elections with projected low turnout).

There are currently plans afoot in the Administration to see if Ashraf Ghani, (a former finance minister and technocrat) would serve as chief executive “beneath President Hamid Karzai, if he wins a second term next week”, in hopes he could act as a counter to Karzai.

It’s time for the policy makers in Washington to be honest with themselves about the chances of reforming a corrupt government. Perhaps what we need to do is empower local governments to the point where the national government becomes irrelevant. It would be a drastic change in, but I’m thinking we may be better served by it in the long run.

There’s another thing we can do in Afghanistan: Define the mission for the American public. Most people still don’t really know what we are trying to achieve in the “graveyard of empires”.

In 100 years, will the Afghanis have changed? Will they be a democracy? Do they really want one? What will this accomplish. I understood the mission in 2001.

This one is difficult.

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup​.com

The President is putting too much (if you ask me) on his domestic agenda, and it’s hurting the war effort. Letting the Secretary of Defense do the heavy lifting is fine for budgetary defense spending, but only the President can reinforce to the American people, why we are there, and what the strategy is-which he has stated, but I guess no one listened.

” Define the mission for the American public. Most people still don’t really know what we are trying to achieve “
+++
imho, that’s because there are no celebrity links. Generally speaking, Americans know more about which idol is heading to the top and who’s dancing with the stars, and whoever jon and kate are, than they do about A’stan.
An apathetic lot we are in terms of the really important stuff.
Given the choices we have, most tune out the events of the day because they interfere with the gossip of the night.

What is the point of the Afghan war now? The only strategic reason that makes sense to me is to be close to Pakistan to prevent rogue nukes and nuke proliferation.

Otherwise, A-stan is a useless country. No resources, and a primitive, backward population. Iraq at least has oil, and reasonably literate, educated population. Iraq is a middle income country and can be a valuable ally. A-stan is one of the poorest places on earth.

If the goal is to prevent it from becoming a terrorist haven … well, it’s costing a whole lot of money. And the more we succeed, the more the terrorists just move to another country like Yemen. And as soon as we stop, which will have to happen at some point, it will probably just revert to the old, bad ways.

I’m in favor of punitive strikes. More rubble, less trouble. And the nation-building in Iraq at least has a potential very positive outcome.

For a place like A-stan, we should have the bare minimum necessary force to keep an eye on the situation, and whack any warlord who gets to big for his britches.

For most of human history isn’t that how the civilized world dealt with the useless parts? — make a deal with some local warlord. If he starts causing problems, whack him and his entourage and put in a new warlord. Might have to rinse and repeat once every 10–20 years, but it’s cheap and effective.

And if the problem is wealthy terrorists, then the solution would seem to be targeted killings, instead of nation building. But America doesn’t seem to have the stomach for that.

I’m a hawk. I supported both the Afghan and Iraq invasion. And I support nation-building in Iraq. I despise Obama for attacking and undermining the Iraq War and holding up the Afghan war as the “good war”. We are pulling out too early in Iraq, and staying too long in A-stan.

I’d rather the Afghan money be spent on hardening our ports, airports, and overall security. I’d rather the Afghan money be spent on bribing warlords in the backwoods, ungovernable regions of the world.

I just don’t get the Afghan “surge”. In Iraq there was real human capital to unleash. Iraqis were an urban, civilized people being held back by chaos and thugs. Afghanis are so much more more primitive than Iraqis.

I guess I just don’t see how nation-building in Afghanistan is in our national interest.

Hey, that’s not me above. That’s some other “Dave”. My fault. I put in a made-up email, but I guess some other “Dave” had registered that email. Sorry, about that. That was totally non-intentional on my part.

Now we are told that “Kilcullen said the U.S. must address the rot at the very top, and establish some kind of legitimate government in Kabul.” That is easy to say but hard to do. How do we find a “legitimate” person who can govern, and is it helping if we “arrange” to have them installed as the leader? Would that leader then be legitimate at all?

We need to let go of the idea that the Afghan tribal leaders are looking for a Western style legitimate leader who will ensure that they have fast food restaurants, FM radio stations, history museums, etc. They will be perfectly happy with a authoritarian government who rails against Israel, has diplomatic ties with Iran, etc. If their leader oppresses women and denies religious freedom — they will not object.

The people will be safe when they do as the tribal leaders tell them to do — even if that is growing opium for export to American suburbs. This is Afghanistan we are dealing with and not Belgium. If we put Ashraf Ghani up as a powerful figure we had better provide a helicopter to get him out of there (and one for Karzai) if he comes out second in the contest.

We need to make sure that Afghanistan does not become a haven for Mullah Omar or anyone that wants to come to the West and come after us. Other than that, leave them alone. Let them sort it out.

This is the story of Blogger McCabe
Who had twenty-three commenters, all nicknamed “Dave”…

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement