Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
In short, to address Afghanistan, one has to think like an Afghan to fight an Afghan, rather than superimposing western modes to combat the situation.
If this is your take, and it is a reasonable one, then it sounds like something best left to Afghans. Who will prevail? Ahh, that it the $64000 question that keeps us stuck to this tar baby that we have created.

Once we get comfortable with the understanding that we really don't have any vital national interests at stake that demand us staying and artificially propping up a particular solution, the sooner we can evolve to more reasonable approaches.

Governance is a a market economy. The best might not prevail, but the strongest will. If that too turns out to be bad new challengers will emerge. Right now we are propping up an artificial solution that is failing the governance "market" model. Kind of like the Fed printing cash or bailing out banks at home. Maybe Afghanistan is so important it warrants such artificial measures that create long-term risks for short-term gains. Maybe not. Reasonable minds can indeed differ.

Personally, I think walking away has to be on the table as a real option. If we do not put it there then Karzai and GIRoA have no incentive to truly seek to govern the entire populace. They will just keep serving the Northern Alliance populace and excluding the rest.