You have moved for the macro to the nitty gritty micro of the problem. The question I think you are posing is how should Afghanistan be governed which I think is a legitimate consideration even at this point in the process.

Under the last administration they form of government was spelled out, a capital market based economy, a representative democratic structure, with universal franchise, and open and free elections. In Afghanistan it is very clear that this model will not happen.

Afghanistan has a traditional folk culture that has been governed if you will by what amounts to a tribal, clan, village, family oligarchies.

Some western thinking can be incorporated such as women’s rights and universal education and some western social institutions such as health care and state funded education but thats about the limits of westernization that can happen at this time in history.

The Afghan’s are not yet ready to establish a criminal legal system and commercial code that suits the west, and a true parliamentary type of government or other western political or economic institutions. The US has to live with that.

In short I think the US can put in place some western reforms but the basic structure of governance is, as it should be up to the Afghan’s.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Unfortunately what they’re doing is escalating what is already turning out to be another Vietnam. Our problem isn’t military power, its legitimacy. They need to sort out / redo this election fiasco and bring some order and stability to A (any, pick one) section of the country.

I think as westerners, raised in a great country like ours we forget how unique we are in the world. We see that our system works and figure it will work everywhere else. The flaw in that thinking is that in order for our system of governance to work we need rule of law, a sense of national coherence, and acceptance of the governed.

We should have come in and taken over and established rule of law as step one. Only once there is stability does anyone care who’s in charge. Once you show them that a central authority can be fair, even BENEFICAL to their existence will you begin to see cooperation and acceptance. You win credibility and keep the peace by showing you’re here to help; so you set up hospitals, give out goats, connect trade routes, dig wells, etc. At first you gain the consent of the governed through security and economic development; whether you call it hearts and minds or buying their loyalty the result is the same. As you progress you gain their trust and loyalty by gradually handing over legal and administration to them until they think they did it for themselves…

I would say the question that General’s McChrystal, and Petareus show be asking of President Obama is do we want to go back to Afghanistan and do this all over, for a third time in the future or remove Afghanistan from the list of countries that are willing to incubate terrorists and provide a safe harbor to new terrorists organizations.

We can and will deal with al Qadea and bin Laden, one way or another and bin Laden himself will be history, but there is no shortage of wealthy interests that are willing to create and support terrorists organizations.

The Taliban who would rule at least part of a US free Afghanistan have already show that the will rent out their country to the highest buyer.

Al Qaeda only raised the bar on 9/11 and there are, I’m sure others, and not necessarily Islamic interests, that would like to raise the level of terrorism bar even higher.

This should be the question not the short term economic and political costs of Afghanistan, the last administration already did that and now we are having to revisit the problem seven years later.

Stupidity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different outcome.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner