Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
Outstanding article!

Glad that somebody has his eyes open
I pretty much agree with what he says: I don't think the Taliban are moderate in any way, and I don't think they've any interest in negotiation or compromise, except as a charade intended to move them closer to winning.

What I missed in the article was any clear sense of what the author thought should be done. He wrote previously on the subject here:

http://www.defenceiq.com/air-land-an...-nation-build/

How to win in Afghanistan: A lesson in nation building
On this subject I find myself agreeing with him less. His version of the core question:

The dilemma here is patent: How to nation build in a country that largely doesn’t need electricity, is tribal, and regards foreign intervention as hostile? How to win the approbation of diverse tribal populations that spend as much time feuding with each other as they do any centralised authority in Kabul?
I'm not sure the dilemma really is how to nation-build or win approbation. I'd have to ask why we feel the need to nation-build or win approbation.

Certainly it makes sense to evaluate the Taliban honestly, but I don't think failure to evaluate the Taliban honestly is at the core of the difficulties in Afghanistan. That place to me is occupied by unrealistic goals: the perceived "need" to build a nation in a place that is not a "nation" as we understand the term, and the desire to leave behind a government recognizable to Americans as a functioning democracy. I don't think those objectives were ever realistic or necessary, and I can think of no straighter road to failure than the adoption from the outset of unrealistic and unnecessary goals.

If we assume that nation-building and winning approbation are the goal, then maybe the author's recommendation (agricultural development) makes sense. I suspect, though, that the ends need re-evaluation more urgently than the means.