Quote Originally Posted by Steve the Planner View Post
I have always been aware, for example, that half of Afghanistan's population is heavily urban, but believed that the US strategy was just focused on agriculture and issues related to hard-scrabble Pashtun areas. Thus, there was no reason for me, as an urban planning expert, to leave wife and life to get involved.
That's far from true:

From the current CIA World Factbook;Urban population: 24% of total population (2008);Rate of urbanization: 5.4% annual rate of change (2005-10 est.)

then from Global security:

"As of 2004 the urban population of about 6.4 million, i.e., 30% of the total population, is estimated to double by 2015 at a growth rate twice the average growth rate in the country. More than 70 percent of the urban population is concentrated in six cities: Kabul, Kandahar, Herat, Mazar-ISharif, Jalalabad and Kunduz. Refugees choose to return to cities for the benefits offered by urban life; the population of Kabul has increased from 1.7 million in 2000 to at least 2.4 million in 2003. (LINK)

The UN puts it at 24%.(LINK)

I'd question all three figures as being high, if anything. The basic problem in planning and civilian expert assistance is that Afghanistan IS rural -- very rural -- and modern American city boys do not know how to play in the country...
Moreover, much of the urban technical skills that served my productive engagement in Iraq would be of little value in Pashtun areas---any more than the US should appoint me, a 50-something civilian planning expert, as a temporary Marine Major to lead a patrol up a hostile Afghan valley.
Nor do the modern Army's mostly urban and technically skilled folks know precisely how to handle the situation.
Very confusing.
Welcome to Afghanistan...