Deepa Narayan argues in an op-ed in the NYTimes that real change in Afghanistan will happen at the local level. Up to this point, success in Afghanistan has been tied to the success of the central government, headed by the fraudulently elected Hamid Karzai. Narayan argues that their fates are not necessarily shared. Democracy may not have been a high priority for Karzai, but free legitimate elections took place all over Afghanistan. Narayan reports that 22,000 villages have been enlisted in a project to elect local councils, and that overwhelmingly the Afghani people trusted these councils more than the religious councils, and certainly more than the government in Kabul.
You have to think that this all makes sense. Afterall, Afghanistan's collective tribal mindset will be the greatest challenge to overcome. Right? Maybe not. Maybe it will be what holds Afghanistan together. We've put so much faith into the idea that strengthening and legitimizing the central government in Kabul will be the first step in turning the corner in Afghanistan. And that by building a strong central government, tribal lines will be erased leading to a stable Afghanistan. Have our efforts been misguided? Maybe a little. I think it will be a stable central government allotting local governments as much freedom as they can, whilst providing the country with reliable security that will change Afghanistan. Changing the hearts and minds of Afghanis does not translate into stripping them of their tribal identity, but rather giving them a reason to work together with other groups, and trust that the central government has their backs. There are a number of examples of rival groups working together to decide how best to use government funds. It is through these interactions that the Taliban will find the people no longer need to turn to them for help. Through iterated interactions and the building of trust, a sort of "good Taliban" could develop.
Starting from the bottom up makes much more sense than trying to use a top-down approach. Afghanistan is a country so disjointed that any attempt to impose from the top without first securing up the bottom will fall short.
Right now, growing poppy or joining the Taliban are the two most lucrative occupations in Afghanistan. We've known this for a long time. We've also known that in order to budge the Taliban and al-Qaeda out of the picture we need to find a way to disincentivize cooperation with the Taliban. Perhaps the answer lies in the country's tribal loyalties and trusting the Afghani people to determine what's best for them.
That being said, Obama's choice to send 40k more troops is probably the right choice. Granted, he should have decided this months ago, instead of waffling for so long. I don't like the idea of 100k American troops in Afghanistan for an indeterminable about time, but for now, we have to give the Karzai government a chance, a chance to secure up the government in Kabul and lend its support to the local governments, whom the people trust. And maybe with enough time, by extension, the people can trust Karzai.
Just in case, don't hold your breath.
Starting from the bottom up makes much more sense than trying to use a top-down approach. Afghanistan is a country so disjointed that any attempt to impose from the top without first securing up the bottom will fall short.
Right now, growing poppy or joining the Taliban are the two most lucrative occupations in Afghanistan. We've known this for a long time. We've also known that in order to budge the Taliban and al-Qaeda out of the picture we need to find a way to disincentivize cooperation with the Taliban. Perhaps the answer lies in the country's tribal loyalties and trusting the Afghani people to determine what's best for them.
That being said, Obama's choice to send 40k more troops is probably the right choice. Granted, he should have decided this months ago, instead of waffling for so long. I don't like the idea of 100k American troops in Afghanistan for an indeterminable about time, but for now, we have to give the Karzai government a chance, a chance to secure up the government in Kabul and lend its support to the local governments, whom the people trust. And maybe with enough time, by extension, the people can trust Karzai.
Just in case, don't hold your breath.
The argument for empowering tribal leaders to be partners with the central government in Kabul is excellent, especially given Afghanistan's historical tribal divisions and ethnic diversity.
ReplyDeleteThe argument for decentralization (or federalism) is also a very conservative one, I might add. This makes the Bush administration (and Obama, until later this month, or whenever he gets around to elaborating a new strategy) push for favoring a strong central government, with the corrupt Karzai as its head, all the more baffling. In fact, it's an approach reminiscent of the Cold War-era US policy of propping up geopolitically convenient dictators. It's also contradicted by the rhetoric of both President Bush (the freedom agenda) and President Obama (transparency, opennness).