In thinking about BPC, do you see that as equating to strengthening the 'state', in whatever form that may take? I ask that because, just about the time I left Afghanistan - and isn't that always the way - I came to realize that strengthening the central government might just be both incredibly difficult and counterproductive.

One of the strongest forces for stability in Afghanistan had always been the tribes. Guided by tradition and a very practical sense of local politics, tribal leaders enforced intratribal discipline and mediated intertribal conflicts. This included a certain amount of violence, but usually within well-understood parameters. The Soviet occupation, the ensuing civil war, the rise of the Taliban, the ensuing civil war, and the struggle with the US and NATO have severely weakened the influence of the tribes, regardless of the constant references to them in the media. It would seem to me that restoring the tribes' influence - if the social fabric is not yet, in fact, irreparably damaged - would go a long way in stabilizing the country.

This, of course, is not in line with the stated goals of NATO, the UN, or the US. But a weak central government in Afghanistan has always improved the stability of that country. The many power brokers in Afghanistan have preferred a central government strong enough to take on one of their competitors without being able to dominate the political or military life of the country. Thus the central government can be a source of largesse or protection from foreign/domestic competitors, but doesn't seriously interfere with the power brokers own activities (illegal or not) so long as he stays within certain parameters.

These two things produced a relatively stable society - if you define 'stable' not as 'violence-free' but as 'self-regulating' - for several centuries until the Marxists took over.

Our knee-jerk reaction to stabilizing places is to strengthen the central government. I think there are places in the world where extra-governmental or even commercial entities might be better candidates for our assistance.