Nation-Building Elevated

[Steve the Planner]

Relax:

Step 1 is still security, and to hold it until Step 2 can get done.

Oh, did I mention that step 2 is usually considered a process of social and economic advancement that takes place over about 20-50 years.

Here, we have to compress it a little...

Actually, the Genral should give it a few more weeks, and if nobody can come up with a credible and implementable civilian sub-national plan and schedule, develop and implement one based on the pieces he does have...and get on with it. Government by... and for...

For that, the rule is simple. Be humble and ask the people what they need to function reasonably, wrap that into a viable governance and economic implementation program that has prospects for sustainable application (and maybe even future societal advancement), and move down the road to implementation (if the partners will agree).

[Dayuhan]

For that, the rule is simple. Be humble and ask the people what they need to function reasonably, wrap that into a viable governance and economic implementation program that has prospects for sustainable application (and maybe even future societal advancement), and move down the road to implementation

If that's simple, I'd hate to see complex.

To start with, I suspect that the assumption of a centralized government is going to meet substantial opposition from local and regional powers, who are likely to be extremely suspicious of any central government they don't control.

[Steve the Planner]

I think that is the point.

Without an effective subnational governance plan emenating from the center, each area will set it's own course, which we will then support instead.

At that point, you have, by default, bypassed the central government, and, therefore, undermined it.

You already see it going on now with Intl aid starting to bypass Kabul.

A recent story on Pashtuns agreeing to oppose Taliban in exchange for development aid was quite instructive. They are as equally opposed to Kabul, which steals their money.

One deal at a time might end immediate AQ threats, but it won't make a nation (except by complete accident). Are we out to end immediate AQ threats or to build a nation as a more permanent threat reduction step?

[M-A Lagrange]

A recent story on Pashtuns agreeing to oppose Taliban in exchange for development aid was quite instructive. They are as equally opposed to Kabul, which steals their money.

Would not be surprised. In DRC we traded (with low effect) discipline and no civilian harassement against food for the FARDC who were not payed by the government.
As some say: peace has a price, just find it.

But it's an old concept. The may-may in DRC went up to the point to take hostages to get aid. Even government official who were on their side.
The result in the end is quite conter productive as Gov makes sure those places are margenalised after.

[Steve the Planner]

" But it's an old concept. The may-may in DRC went up to the point to take hostages to get aid. Even government official who were on their side.
The result in the end is quite conter productive as Gov makes sure those places are margenalised after. "

The risk of creating local self-government without connection and explicit support of the central government is that there comes a time when the locals eoither are, or are not, supported by the national government---which, in the end, will control money, police, and troops.

Where do the locals end up in that game? What was the net effect of disconnected local capacity building?

[Dayuhan]

The risk of creating local self-government without connection and explicit support of the central government is that there comes a time when the locals eoither are, or are not, supported by the national government---which, in the end, will control money, police, and troops.

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?

[Ken White]

Centralizing is invariably efficient. However, it is rarely as effective a a local or distributed effort...

All politics is local, quoth O'Neill.