Sanctuary or Ungoverned Spaces:identification, symptoms and responses

[Bob's World]

Robert,

The Republicans and Democrats have co-existed and cooperated under a democratic constitution for over a century. The taliban are not the democrats (or the Republicans). You need to stop seeing at Afghanistan as some kind of 51st state.
The US can:
1. With enough determination and finesse (NOT an infinite amount of money or manpower, but definitely more determination and FINESSE than they may be capable of) stabilize this current ruling coalition, including deals with reconcilable Taliban and pressing Pakistan to cooperate with such deals. While it is not clear if that is a job the US should have taken on in the first place, it is a job they promised to do. Still, realpolitik (no oil in Afghanistan, not worth it, etc) and determined opposition from GHQ may dictate that this aim be dropped.
2. Stabilize and help to defend a new regime with less ambitious aims, but one that guarantees protections for those parties that stuck their neck out and worked with the US against the Taliban. This would mean a rupture with Pakistan and renewed civil war, but with the anti-taliban regime having an upper hand in large chunks of the country. It would get very ugly though. I personally think Pakistan would suffer most in this scenario, but the Pakistani army has to do what the army has to do. But from an American point of view, its very much doable and the cost is relatively low.
3. Pull out with Pakistani help and let Pakistan negotiate some deal between the parties in Afghanistan. This is the least expensive option. It will be followed by a renewed civil war and a bigger regional mess (because the deal will not stick), but that will be China's heacache (and India's and Iran's and so on). I assume this is what you might pick as the least bad of the three scenarios I listed? (i obviously did not list your 51st state scenario, but that one does not look plausible to me).
I should add that I dont expect any of these scenarios to come to pass soon. I expect more of the current picture for several years and then some unexpected disaster in Pakistan may change the situation. It doesnt look like there is any way out of the current impasse with current assumptions.

Here is a link. In fact, it allows one to read and compare all 6 Constitutions that Afghanistan has had since 1923.

http://www.afghan-web.com/politics/

But, please, do not insult me to tell me that I see Afghanistan as some 51st state. Below is a simple cartoon to depict the difference between governance under the Afghan Contstitution and governance under the US Constitution:



Now, we set out to help Afghanistan create a strong central government to deal more effectively with the problems of warlordism to help Afghanistan become a modern Democracy; but this is infact what we enabled Karzai to create.

Note the little American. He bestows his legitimacy up directly to shape several distinct levels of governance. He picks his National leaders, who in turn responsible for national level governance and security forces. He picks his state leaders, County leaders and local leaders. Each in turn responsible for governance and security at their level and each in turn drawing their legitimacy directly from the people they serve.

Now look at the little Afghan. That little box he is standing in is where 95% of the Coalition COIN effort is focused. We are going to "Clear-Hold-Build" enough of those little boxes, or do Village Stability operations in enough of those little boxes so that stability will occur.

But that little guy has only one shaky, highly suspect line of legitimacy upwards, and that is to the President. There is quite possibly no one on the face of the planet who believes that line from the people to the president is completely corrupted. How could it not be? Look who all draws their postion and patronage from that same President? If the President falls, everything below him falls as well, except for the little box that every afghan lives in, largely unaffected by, and unable to legally influence all that happens in that larger box. He has no District government that draws legitmacy from the people in the district, or that is secured by people of the district, or that owes patronage to the people of the district. He has no Provincial government that draws legitimacy from the people of the Province, or that is secured by people of the province, or that owe patronage to the people of the province.

This is what we enabled, and this is what we dedicate ourselves to protect. I have never implied that the Taliban and Northern Alliance are like Democrats and Republicans (but if the Republicans had had to flee to exile in Canada and Mexico as the Democrats rode to office on the back of Chinese military power, I suspect we would see that the differences may not be quite so great as many seem to presume).

Will a new constitution "fix" Afghanistan? Who knows, and I never said it would. What I said, and stand by, is that the current Constitution is the primary source of causation of the upper tier revolutionary insurgency between the Taliban in exile in Pakistan and the Northern Alliance. This constitution guarantees that they have no legal, effective or trusted means to participate in the governance of this country short of subjugating themselves to the current ruling party. Hell, we won't even let a local fighter "reintegrate" without swearing to support this constitution that legalizes the functional slavery of half the populace of this country.

At the root of this debate is the question of who causes insurgency. Governments blame the insurgent, or perhaps ideology, or perhaps some foreign country. Governments are not good at taking responsibilty for their actions, and besides, by any measure, the government is the legal actor and the insurgent is the illegal actor. This is the majority position, and it is the position taken by colonial powers bent on defeating any challenge to the colonial governments they put in power; and it is the position captured in our current COIN doctrine of FM 3-24. I think it is wrong.

I argue that causation radiates out from the government. Insurgency is a reaction by segments of a governed populace that typically believes its position to be unbearable, and that also believes that they have no legal recourse. The Taliban are in exile, the Pashtun south is subjugted to the Northern Alliance, and under the current constitution they have no legal recourse.

If our goal is a stable Afghanistan, we must first achieve a sustainable model of governance. No amount of "Clear-Hold-Build" can overcome the current governance defined by the current constitution. Afghanistan does not need an American Constitution, but they do not need a Northern Alliance Constitution either. They need an Afghanistan Constitution, and we are currently dedicated to denying that from happening.