Dayuhan, Hey I always make sense! (ok, at least that's what my mother tells me.)
Also, I get it that you disagree in regards to the effect and importance of the Afghan Constitution. I think you're wrong, but I can live with neither of us changing our mind on this issue.
I don't take this position as a lawyer, though being one does bring a certain background and experience that shapes my thinking. I don't take this position as a guy who spent 20 years as a US Special Forces officer (and yes, we often jump out of short aircraft...). I don't take this position based on my time and experience in Afghanistan. Nor from all of the research and writing on insurgency in general and related matters over the past 7-8 years. All of these things do contribute, however to my thinking on this.
I do not believe that ALL constitutions can have such positive or negative effects, nor do I believe that every nation needs a constitution. I do believe, however that some constitutions are special in terms of their either positive or negative effect on the likelihood of insurgency in the nation they define. The US Constitution is an example of excellent preventative COIN (Of note it was produced by one class of citizen, but from across the young country, and with no external influence as to what it should or should not be; and all of those men had been oppressed citizens, insurgents, and were newly counterinsurgents at the time of the convention). The Afghan Constitution is an example of excellent insurgency causation (of note, half the populace was excluded from representation and Western "experts" weighed in throughout the process). My assessment. Reasons for that laid out above.
Oh, and put on your helmet before reading this post!
Bookmarks