Afghanistan RFI

[Schmedlap]

I've looked, but haven't been able to find an answer to this.

What exactly is "government in a box"?

I have only found vague descriptions in newspaper articles. My understanding is that it is an attempt to swiftly install some kind of community body through which information can be relayed and collective decisions made, but that is only an educated guess. Even if that guess is correct, I have absolutely no idea what the specifics are. What types of units are involved? What are their tasks/purposes? What are their MoP/MoE? Etc?

[Bob's World]

Quite honestly it is an unfortunate play on words made by General McChrystal that he probably wishes he could take back.

We have "Radio in a Box," a mini radio station that can go anywhere and set up quickly and begin broadcasting.

What he meant by "Government in a Box" is that GIROA would identify leadership and a tashkil of authorized manning (ministers, officials, police, etc) to go into areas directly behind the "Clear" force where there previously was no true GIROA presence. Like these radio stations would come in as a package and be able to hit the ground running.

Unfortunately the phrase implys something packaged up by the Coalition; and when also delivered by Coalitoin security forces, in Coalition aircraft, to a newly "liberated" populace that has been receiving governance of some sort from the Taliban for years, and little to none from GIROA; it does create perceptions of illegitimacy that are largely unfair and certainly unintended, but there all the same.

[marct]

It also produces some interesting pictures...

[Bob's World]

I guess, sadly, most government is "in a box" in far too many ways.

You just don't want it to be in a box built and delivered by some foreign intity. Goes to good Strategic Communications. 80% what you do; or more importantly, HOW you do things.

[marct]

I guess, sadly, most government is "in a box" in far too many ways.

You just don't want it to be in a box built and delivered by some foreign intity. Goes to good Strategic Communications. 80% what you do; or more importantly, HOW you do things.

LOL - too true!

Actually, a pretty decent example of GiaB that (sort of) worked was the Roman expansion in the 1st century bce, or Alexander's planting of Greek cities. It's a hub and spoke model of governance that worked pretty well.

[Surferbeetle]

Andrew J. Bacevich in the February 17, 2010 edition of the LA Times: 'Government in a box' in Marja

The purpose of Operation Moshtarak (Dari for "together") is to clear the Taliban from the city and then to fix the place, winning the hearts and minds of the local population. Toward that end, said Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of Western forces in Afghanistan, "We've got a government in a box, ready to roll in." As government arrives on the coattails of the Marines, it will ensure law and order, set up schools and clinics, repair roads, revitalize the irrigation system and cajole farmers into cultivating something other than opium poppies. The successful transformation of Marja will demonstrate the viability of McChrystal's plan to transform Afghanistan as a whole. At least that's the idea.

The United States tried once before to transform Marja and its environs. An ambitious agricultural reform program sponsored by the U.S. Agency for International Development in the 1950s proved a total flop in terms of lasting changes.

[Schmedlap]

What he meant by "Government in a Box" is that GIROA would identify leadership and a tashkil of authorized manning (ministers, officials, police, etc) to go into areas directly behind the "Clear" force where there previously was no true GIROA presence. Like these radio stations would come in as a package and be able to hit the ground running.

Is there any research/experience/etc that suggests this could work? Particularly in Pashtun areas, it's my understanding that vesting powers in a sovereign isn't a popular idea and the communities generally prefer to reach decisions and settle disputes through consensus, reparation, and mediation. As I understand it, resistance to attempts to install governance have historically been perceived as attempts by the central gov't to grab power in ways incompatible with the values of the community.

Have attempts thus far suggested that this concept might now work? Or is this just a good idea that we're waiting to see how it goes?

[Steve the Planner]

Schmedlap: Yes and No.

Plenty of experiences doing it poorly and doing it OK.

Question is: Any successful experience comparable to Afghanistan? No.

Even where Afghans (with foreign backing) tried it, it blew up.

Local consensus structures used to work, but these are increasingly the "remnant" population of a very long, difficult period of massive social dislocation and strife.

How do you put the egg back together once many of the best fled, or have trickled out later. Leadership by the best and brightest (who leave) is now leadership of the worst class of virulent "survivors" in many places.

Can one re-nurture stability across the conflict and intergenerational divides?

My guess is that the only "breeding ground" for a next generation of forward looking consensus builders might be in more stable urban areas, but, like in the past, How are these folks going to relate to rural and Pashtun communities?

My guess is that effective "government in a box" is an explicitly "provisional" government that intentionally goes in to first, stabilize, and only then turn-over. All this stuff about schools and road paving is not necessary in a "provisional" stabilization mission---that's the carrot that comes from progress toward self-governance, not the unsustainable veneer of interim governance.

What happens when these folks have to come up with the taxes and commitment to support systems dropped on their head? A tax revolt? Prop 32? What are all these projects about? Just stabilize.

Jed and I added a bit to the Marjah thread. Same thing.

Steve

[Schmedlap]

All this stuff about schools and road paving is not necessary in a "provisional" stabilization mission---that's the carrot that comes from progress toward self-governance, not the unsustainable veneer of interim governance.

But what if they already have self-governance in place? And the central gov't comes along and says, "no, you need to govern yourselves in this different way." I wonder if we're assuming that governance can only occur by way of a state and not by way of customary practices. If so, I think we're wrong.

[Steve the Planner]

I assume that, due to human condition, if there are just two people in the world, there is a governance structure of some kind.

Assuming you are going to do a Marjah, to drive out a governance you don;t like, or are feeding on the people, something has to be put in place quickly and effectively to "stabilize," not to create and develop. Goal is to stabilize immediately once you drive out the old system---after stabilization, you worry about governance.

Otherwise, you are just pushing big instability around.

25,000 Marjans fled (probably the better and smarter). What's left, about 2500 desperately protecting their assets, homes or activities (good or bad)---and not the "best and brightest."

Building a self-governance system around these folks (especially in an Afghan cultural context) is just setting up a new power block as an obstacle for the real folks when they try to come back. Only a "provisional government" can stabilize to get all the folks back, before you start dealing with self-governance.

Making permanent governments from fragments of remnant populations is a very dumb and bad idea with no history of success.

Steve