Getting locals to take an ownership interest in the Afghan government

Would be interested in what you guys and gals think about our current efforts in Afghanistan, considering that the obvious point is that "we"/NATO have to get the local Afghans to take an ownership interest in their government to be successful in Afghanistan.

All the technology, special small warfare in the world is of little use with a population that is hugely illiterate, perhaps as high as 80% illiteracy.

The current NATO effort to train up/educate up the Afghan Army and National Police seeks as their "goal" a third grade education/equivalency, according to recent US press stories.

Be interested in any views from others on this excellent SWJ site on what we oldsters used to refer to as "civil affairs" with the "locals."

My views just stated build from the below source Internet quote/article sites:

http://timesunion.com/ASPStories/Sto...3&LinkFrom=RSS


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/international/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George L. Singleton

Would be interested in what you guys and gals think about our current efforts in Afghanistan, considering that the obvious point is that "we"/NATO have to get the local Afghans to take an ownership interest in their government to be successful in Afghanistan.

All the technology, special small warfare in the world is of little use with a population that is hugely illiterate, perhaps as high as 80% illiteracy.

The current NATO effort to train up/educate up the Afghan Army and National Police seeks as their "goal" a third grade education/equivalency, according to recent US press stories.

---

While recognizing the downside to introducing 21st century technology into
18th century society consider that if this is approached in the right way then a particular subset of society which should be a greatest concern in relation to future cultural evolution there would seem to be the most likely to benefit from and utilize it.

So while a slow and balanced approach is necessary I wouldn't necessarily discount the value of some of that "tech" in the long run.

They'll give guns to ten year olds don't ya think DS with brainbuilder might just be a little more productive in the long run.

Just a thought...

They can obtain and use technology about as well as anyone. Here's just one example.

Quote:

---

the obvious point is that "we"/NATO have to get the local Afghans to take an ownership interest in their government to be successful in Afghanistan.

---

As long as the government is corrupt and insensitive to the needs of their population, many Afghans won't be interested. For many it's a case where there is no capability to "take ownership" of the government because there is little or no interaction between the government and people. Neither exercises much influence over the the other and corruption does nothing or negatively impacts the lives of many. And many people did buy into the government only to be disappointed that so far the government has done nothing for them. As long as this remains the case, NATO and the US will do little but bang heads into the wall by trying to convince people to buy into something they view as not demonstrably in their interest.

With one of the highest illiteracy rates in the world...hard to take an ownership interest...guns for hire is the centuries old trade of male Afghans, particularly the majority Pukhtuns.

Corruption is a long standing problem there, nothing new.

90% of the economy, so-called, has been and still is generated by the poppy trade. We can't afford to fix our own economy, let alone buy off poppy farmers in the millions.

You as well as I have younger friends serving there in active serice or as contractors. Views not to be expressed on this site at least to me suggest tough sledding as far as unifying locals...about as unified as the warring tribes of the same ethnic Pukhtuns in Northern Pakistan.

Taliban left, villagers became more peaceful, girls schools restarted. Taliban moved back into neighborhoods, then started murdering their peaceful neighbors and blowing up, burning, and murdering teachers at/in girls schools.

This link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ghanistan.html goes to an article reflecting on the Soviet and British invasions of Afghanistan. The last sentence is 'So the relevant questions now are: Who are we fighting? Why?' Which have been covered recently on a seperate thread, the title of which I cannot recall or identify.

Nothing startling, but worthy of reflection. Not heard of the author either.

Another article, similar vein: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ghanistan.html

This one, to my alarm, refers to more cross-border action as the way ahead and no doubt to George's anguish some compromise with the Taliban.
davidbfpo

David:

I scanned the article which is a centerist to right leaning think tank's effort to promote compromise with the Taliban in hopes they will turn on al Qaida. This site, Real Clear Politics,was founded by a former Chicago options trader together with a political operative who enjoys doing polls of polls in elections. The site dates only from 2000 when founding and the fact that it is based in Chicago is "interesting."

While the Taliban are ethnic Pukhtuns, most of the al Qaida are "Arabs" but both groups are Sunni/Wahabbi influenced extremist Islamics.

The efforts in Iraq are very different, as that was and to a lesser extent still is a nation with other religions, Christians, still some Jews left over from the ancient times Dispora, and other minority religions.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are today a different world vs. Iraq. This is my studied opinion of course, not a gospel fact.

The trickiness of the Pakistan military and ISI are at issue here.

Pukhtun's who claim not to support either the Taliban nor al Qaida, who on various web/blog sites I read and am known on one day damn the Taliban, next day take up for them, defend this existance and cause. This is because to them "blood of common tribes,etc.", all of them being various tribes and subtrives of Pukhtun overall identity keeps them screwed up as to their so-called Pukhtun nationalism goals vs. Taliban (read that terrorist verision of Pukhtuns)....it is a winding, illogical to us world they live in.

I would offer one pot shot in the dark. All Taliban are not the same. Witness ex-old Afghanistan Taliban national government cabinet member, Hamid Kharzai, who is today's President of Afghanistan. He was a flat out Taliban of the most awful group formerly there in Afghanistan.

Sometimes a group of religious extremists, dressed in black, completely suppressive of women and intolerant of all other religious sects or nationalities can turn out OK if given time to evolve.

Take the British Protestant Pilgrims who settled the Plymouth Colony for example…


Tempered by the liberalism and ideals of personal liberties born in the far more diverse Dutch Colony to their south, as well as the elitest Virginians and fiercely independent Carolinians; a strong backbone of the thousands who came in either British prison ships or to willingly dedicate 7 years of bound servitude to have a chance at a small patch of land they could call their own; it all sorted out in the end. But it did not happen over night, and it only happend because an ocean of separation provided the necessary time to evolve and develop.

If we can provide the Afghan people a similar opportunity, they too will evolve and develop. This is a process that must be enabled, not controlled; and success cannot be measured by a 4-year election cycle.

I believe any strategy for Afghanistan that is centered around getting 'the people' to support a strong central government is doomed to failure, for two reasons.

1. Afghans have a deep-seated aversion to and suspicion of central government that would put the craziest gun-nut, tin-foil wearing, UN-hating survivalist holed up somewhere in the Rockies to shame. In 2000 years they have had exactly one powerful, successful, central government. Resistance to central power is not only a tradition, it is an organic part of their national identity. In order to instill support for a strong central government, you would have to dismantle the society, an effort which would only leave it more vulnerable to insurgency - a self-defeating effort, in my view.

2. The impending collapse of Pakistan is going to make the struggle in Afghanistan more explicitly about reorganizing the current political entities in the area around ethnic and religious identities. If a strong central government does emerge from the chaos, it will not be located in Kabul. And when Pakistan becomes the main area of concern in the Long War (well before the end of the current administration is my guess), the troops in Afghanistan will return to their accustomed role of backwater garrisons trying to hold the line.

"2. The impending collapse of Pakistan is going to make the struggle in Afghanistan more explicitly about reorganizing the current political entities in the area around ethnic and religious identities. If a strong central government does emerge from the chaos, it will not be located in Kabul. And when Pakistan becomes the main area of concern in the Long War (well before the end of the current administration is my guess), the troops in Afghanistan will return to their accustomed role of backwater garrisons trying to hold the line."

You in the main are correct, but have singled out this para for comment.

I do not forsee Pakistan collapsing.

All the hoopla over and about the Pukhtuns, which I have heavily contributed to discussing on this excellent website, SWJ, is disproportionate to the vast Punjabi and other ethnic identifies of the total of Pakistan.

Pukhtuns are a few million in a nation of around 160 million.

It is the havoc and chaos which so few, the Pukhtuns of the terrorist bent [as all Pukhtuns are not pro nor are they themselves terrorist minded] organized as the Taliban have been able to cause.

Peaceful Pukthuns ask simple, logical questions that need open, international answers:

1. Where exactly and how is money/financing getting to both the Taliban and al Qaida inside both Pakistan and Afghanistan?

2. Where or what is the terrorists line of supply? Are they just "feeding off of" our line of supply into Afghantistan, or is that a part of their logistics mix?

3. Just as you correctly note that most history in Afghanistan finds decentralized government administration, that same history finds repression of basic human rights and freedoms in these same decentralized oligarcies.

4. As so many Afghans have turned out to vote for their new national government and national assembly do they not as mere individuals wish to be particpating citizens?

5. Do you condemn out of hand any interest by even the most uneducated Afgan who is not a terrorist in a better life via better local and hopefully national government as well?

Just a few counter questions, but factually, you are on course if we were to simply give up and walk away.

BUT, the Taliban would fill the void fast and centralized oligarchy and despotism from the top down would come into being.

**I think one thing we Westerns judge incorrectly is the level of corruption in nations like Afghanistan, and to some extent in Pakistan.

Absent a strong central and even strong province government system in both nations, the process is you "tax indivdually" on the spot to pay your livelihood and overhead. This we Westerners see as kickbacks and graft. Think about it.

Eden's probably correct on his Point 1. but George is, I believe, correct in saying Pakistan is unlikely to collapse.

I also believe the long war focus will shift to better intelligence (well, hope is not a plan but... :wry: ) and better 'diplomatic' approaches. I suspect the focus will be about 1,800 mile west but minor efforts worldwide will continue.