Davis is not, however, completely wrong from my perspective. His conclusion that the results (real, imagined, or expected) are not worth the effort is accurate from my own perspective. While Davis toured with combat units, I toured with development folks working in the area of rule of law. Thus, our views become complimentary in that counterinsurgency doctrine places great importance on the development of rule of law, as it is the glue that allows hard won combat victories to mature into sustainable civil society. The issues of rule of law are every bit as complicated as the tribal and enemy dynamics described above. However, some are of our own making.
Americans have a tendency to throw money at problems in the belief that money can fix everything. Combine this with a myopic view of rule of law and the effort here becomes stagnant. Afghanistan is a poverty-stricken country with little hope of matching the influx of coalition money in the near future. Given the history of warfare here, Afghans are more likely to think in the short term than in the long term. This dictates that Afghan powerbrokers will look to absorb as much money from the coalition as possible before the coalition leaves (having an end date certainly provides incentive for this conduct). Thus, Afghan officials within the rule of law sector constantly ask for infrastructure and financial support for personnel. This is accomplished with little thought to sustainability. In other words, how will this infrastructure and personnel be paid for when the coalitions leaves? This strategy, however, does lead to a perception of success since supporters can point to the number of courthouses built, judges hired, and bad guys prosecuted without any in-depth thought to the long term sustainability of the effort. Unlike Davis, I do not see lies here – I see misperception.
Our approach to rule of law is also, generally speaking, too focused on criminal law. This, I believe, stems from the fact that criminal law is viewed as “sexy” by lawyer and layman alike. After all, Hollywood doesn’t make television shows about contract law, do they? However, when one is trying to build a sustainable government, it is necessary to generate revenue to pay for that government’s operations. Contract law fosters security of business contracts, which increases foreign investment. Customs regulations assist in the generation of tax revenue. Transportation law allows the efficient movement of people and cargo so that business can flourish. Lawyers and judges trained to settle land disputes (a huge issue here) allow for resort to courts rather than to violence. Sure criminal law is important, but not to the exclusion of civil law or the relegation of it to almost an afterthought.
The complexities of the situation here, and our seeming inability to address them, lead me to a pessimistic (although I think realistic is a more accurate term, but that’s my perception) view of the sustainability of this effort. Applying this to the questions I asked in the first paragraph regarding my contribution also results in a cynical outlook. As I do not think this endeavor to be sustainable (indeed I see civil war on the horizon) I cannot say I’ve made a difference. The men and women that reduced Al Qaeda to a shadow of its former self made the difference here, which, incidentally, was the original political objective of this war. Conversely, I have learned a lot, although I’m not sure that what I learned was actually intended. Unintended learning, though, is sometimes the best kind of learning. For that knowledge, at least, I am thankful.
Surf's up - here
Bookmarks