My trouble with the Bob Brief derives from my experience in state/local government in the US.

Somewhere, by focusing overseas, there is an inaccurate underlying myth about the nature of our government.

Federal, state and local governments in the US are, in most substantive applications, a contest for resources, with explicit and implicit decisions about winners and losers---and substantial "spoils" at stake, including by folks who never even know what was at stake, or what was trade away on their behalf.

Democracy is a constant struggle (including by folks like the K-Street lobbyist crowd whose focus is to keep everything behind the scenes), played out since the inception of our democracy, and gridded by rules and protections which often must be enforced through FBI busts (Prince George's County, Maryland), and Congressional Ethics Actions (Rangel). I am not being paranoid---this is the essential reality that has not, and will never change. The price of freedom is ETERNAL vigilance, questioning, verification, and, when needed, enforcement.

Even with a very open fourth (press) and fifth (public info/engagement) estate, we stand on the bring of looming and very serious state/local budget/bond dilemmas (June 30 budget cycles) unprecedented in recent years (but not in US history). Obviously, as in the past, they will threaten the foundations of democracy and public integrity, but does that mean they will end it? No. We, as a people of common purpose, will face the challenges and move forward.

Where are the viable and highly complex checks and balances (the essential DNA) in our pretend "nation-building" if all we do is stand as sentinel to an Afghan national government with so little to offer its people, and so much being looted?

Acceptable representative government means a lot of different things to a lot of different peoples.

If our mission is to really be accomplished in Afghanistan, it must reckon objectively with the actual dilemmas that jcustis has explained. Many confusing, contradictory and self-dealing parties, all in conflict with each other. The "success" in Iraq is, despite substantial instability, removal of a genuine threat to the institution of government, and focus on conflict-resolution through institutions (not warlords and local tribes).