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.

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.

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

“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.