Bill:

The comment on martial law is on point. This business of pretending someone else is going to be in charge until stability is reached is a pretty flat tire indeed.

The same with market and economic solutions.

Problem with economic engagement (anything beyond humanitarian and genuine reconstruction) is that, given our size and the amounts involved, we always distort the economy. (We have already done the damage, and the bigger our footprint/commitment, the more economic damage we cause.

But how do you develop a base line in a country that has been at war for thirty years, and didn't have much to begin with?

Take the population, and its internal production/output, and the number is diminimus---$100 per household??? So, what level of government, army and services is affordable? Never mind....

Afghanistan's economy has, in fact, been destroyed for a long time, and is on international aid life support, so any effort has to be carefully weighed---what has been created versus some future end state.

Pump in money for jobs/services, and you distort local wages. Pump in more food aid and you undermine agriculture.

Targeting regions is, in some ways, a whack-a-mole proposition given refugees, population instability. But starting out one region at a time to build the basics of a viable local economic infrastructure---linked to areas of prosperity/sustainability---is the only way to do that. The question is: Where is a successful example of doing this command-economy restart thing, other than in places with their own natural foundation?

The suggestion of deflating local currency to wipe out the drug profits is confounded by the reality that they profits are probably all stored in dollars (and off-shore).