Consider the matter of "War Lords" that the US found so offensive.

Who did War Lords owe their patronage to??

Who provided security under the War Lord system??

How was security paid for, and who paid for it under the War Lord system?

Who benefited from patronage under the War Lord system?


None of that exists any more under the constitution. Some good in that, and much bad as well. The net loser is the average Joe Afghan.

Sure the people did not select their War Lord, but they respected and understood the process under which a guy rose to that position and how he held it. He had "legitimacy" of the variety that is essential for stability. Not the legal variety we put so much stock in with our "rule of law" approach.

Today leaders at District and Province level are selected from above and owe their patronage to above. The security leaders do not owe patronage to the political leader at their level, but to above as well. Money is collected and sent up. Security and Political leaders compete with each other for influence from their respective Patrons on high, and one sure way to be a rising star is to send big bags of cash up to Kabul. The loser of this competition? Average Joe Afghan.

I do not say that constitutions are cure-alls. Like the Rule of Law in general, they can be a miracle of COIN like the US Constitution is; or a miracle of Insurgency causation like the Afghan Constitution is. The difference is in fine nuance and the societies they are applied to. I do not know what an effective Afghan Constitution looks like. It will contain many aspects that make US officials blanch. But so long as it empowers the positive aspects of that society and creates mechanisms that allow for trust to grow where none currently exists it will be a major move toward stability.