An overriding theme of Ms. Chayes' article is her focus on the "Afghan People"; and some disparagement of those approaching Astan as a multi-tribal culture - albeit, my impression of what she wrote.

I just finished reading a study of the Taliban, which also studies the Pashtuns, and which was posted by Cavguy some months ago in another thread in this forum. I was struck by the tribal and sub-tribal nature of the Pashtuns (see Fig. 3, p.6 in the CAC article) - which is only one of the many large groups in Astan.

I wonder how many of Ms. Chayes' "Afghan People" think of themselves primarily as that - or, e.g., as Popalzai (one of the sub-tribes near her residence).

Ms. Chayes is clearly committed to a centralized government approach in Astan to solve its problems - thus, the need to emphasize the "Afghan People" concept, as opposed to a small community approach, which would look more to the local tribes and sub-tribes.

This all reminds me of the Hillary Rodham (before she became Clinton) argument against the traditional Saul Alinsky approach (organize small communities of people from the grassroots up).

Ms Rodham (in her senior undergrad thesis) argued that approach was too slow - and that large central government programs were the better way to reach the same end. Where a strong central government exists (as in the US), Ms Rodham's approach is feasible - whether desirable is another question.

Note that the dichotomy is not population-centric vs non-population centric. Both Ms Rodham's approach (much like Ms Chayes') and the traditional Alinsky approach look very much to the population as the key to success. The Rodham-Chayes approach is top down; the Alinsky approach is bottom up. These are two very different ways of looking at practical political action.