Dayuhan:

"What if the local people - who are, after all, supposed to be the raison d'etre of the government - are fundamentally suspicious of the idea of centralized Government? What if they see it as an entity that is at best going to be intrusive and may well be exploitive and abusive? In these circumstances, wouldn't an attempt to impose an unwanted strong central authority only serve to exacerbate insurgency?"

Isn't that the entire conflict? It is not just that Kabul hasn't extended itself down to the local levels, but that, in many instances, the locals are better off to reject it---and they do.

If Kabul has guns, drugs, corruption, and armies, other than that, what does it bring them? Improved services, more crops?

Even the taxes (a flat 10%) are better than the Taliban, and there is nothing under the table. Simple, brutal justice, no services, and no charges. versus?

It is unsurprising the the recently "flipped" Pashtuns did so not because of the central government but because of local conflicts with the local Taliban. They still do not embrace the federal government.