Afghanistan’s problems are “99 percent economics”
Boston Globe columnist Kevin Cullen wrote a good column based on an interview with Stephen Landrigan, a US aid worker who has spent five years working on humanitarian projects in Afghanistan. Landrigan supports the surge of troops, but recognizes that there isn’t a military solution to Afghanistan’s problems. Money quote:
“It’s 99 percent economics,” Landrigan said. “You want to beat the Taliban? It costs $1 million to keep a US soldier in Afghanistan for a year. Hold back 10 of those soldiers and spend the money to give computers to anyone who wants one, as long as they can read, and if they can’t read, teach them. For a small amount, you can buy off most of the Taliban. Some want to be martyrs. Most don’t. There’s just nothing else for them.
“Most Afghans don’t want to fight. They’ve done it for 30 years. Afghans are probably some of the best entrepreneurs, more hungry for education than anyone I’ve met. They don’t need nation building. They are a nation. Put Afghans to work. Build sewers. They have 22 hydroelectric plants, and only one is working. They need a WPA. They’d work their hearts out. They have an incredible work ethic.”
Thirty thousand more troops aren’t going to turn Afghanistan around. If they can open a window for more economic development, the maybe they will make a difference. But I haven’t heard much in the way specifics for rebuilding Afghanistan’s economy yet.
5 Responses to “Afghanistan’s problems are “99 percent economics””
I hope O's plan includes these strategies and there will be enough security to do and maintain these very needed projects.
The USA's problems are “99 percent economics”.
Almost as meaningful a headline as “Water is wet”.
Afghanistani government officials are flaudulent and amatuer at best, their political structure is the problem, not economics.
Afghanistan needs to reform a central government, promote socialism and clean out those individuals whos views are corrupt, actions are irrationally irrelevent, and morale is disturbed; they don't need to be in charge of anything.
Once the government becomes functional, stable, and reasonably resemblant of our own, the country can rebuild order and establish security.
From that point, Pakistan can be a bigger focus, as our job is complete with Afghanistan.
Then once Pakistan sounds a little more like Afghanistan, troops can come home.
Soldiers at home = U.S.$ spent on U.S. = less debt = better focus on domestic issues,
you know, kind of like what a President of the United States should do, focus on that which
it governs.
Alas, if buying off the Taliban were so easy, I'm Obama would've recommended it. At minimum, he must've considered that option during his long deliberations. But one of the clear lessons of counterinsurgency is that economic development doesn't work without security. By the same token, people rarely want to be bought off by the side they think is losing — it's a dangerous proposition. Some advocates of the economics approach, like Nick Kristof, insist that economic outreach can work without additional troops. The lessons of Iraq and the opinions of most military analysts are against him.
First off, why is Obama sending 33k US Soldiers to Afghanistan, when, before he was elected, he proved his opposition to war efforts? Democrat David Swanson wrote a poem saying,
“Barack Obama told the nation
‘Have no fear of escalation,
I’m trying everyone to please.
Though it isn’t really war,
We’re sending 30 thousand more
To save Afghanistan from Afghanistan.”
Though, Obama went against his words, some Democrats would say, “God I hope he’s right,” following their Democratic leader. “For now, he is granted his 18 months.” Though, a Republican response from Senator Richard Lugar says, “The President must justify his plan, not only how, on basis of, it will affect Afghanistan, but how it will impact our efforts to promote a much stronger alliance with Pakistan.”
Republican David Ignatius blogged that, “President Obama must deploy forces expeditiously.” Republicans feel that the war must continue until the Taliban and AQ forces are completely diminished, though only 100 or less are believed to exist as of current estimations. Ignatius even believes that, “Winning this war is a top priority instead of meeting arbitrary political deadlines for withdrawal.” Sending in more troops is vital to Republican strategy; they believe numbers will increase inevitably. “The eventual size of the buildup could be larger. They would need additional support for medical reasons as well as to detect explosives,” says Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who approved for 3k more troops to join the 30k already called for, if needed.
Democrats raise a large hand and say, “The time to get out is now,” as David Swanson said. Spoiling that opportunity, Obama announces his withdrawal schedule. This summons uproar in Republicans, who strongly argue that releasing such information strongly influences the outcome, offering a deceptive escape route for the Taliban and AQ forces. “If you tell the enemy when you’re leaving, it emboldens your enemies and dispirits your friends,” says Senator John McCain. Agreeably, David Ignatius says, “By setting a short deadline, he [Obama} is signaling to the Taliban that they can win if they are patient.” 18 months isn’t very long at all, and if it meant another chance to consume nations, rebellious terrorism forces could sure sit tight for 18 months. “They will wait us out,” says Republican Eldron In, “We should have kept the withdrawal date quiet.”
Though few Republicans felt the need to move troops out, it is more so a Democratic desire. “I just don’t get the sense at this point in time that there is a comprehensive policy that says that we will ultimately succeed in our national security,” says Democrat Robert Menendez, “Pakistan doesn’t want a strategic relationship; they only want the funds.” David Swanson agrees to “Urge Congress not to fund the war.” Democrats seem to agree that the people of the United States of America need “Jobs, not Wars,” as Swan says.
“I got a letter from B.H.O.
It said ‘You better pack and go,
It’s time to let the Army make your plans.
Though it may seem very queer,
We’ve got no jobs for you here,
So we’re gonna send you to Afghanistan.’”
“Jobs, healthcare, education, and global warming are more crucial to our interests, as well as reducing taxes and our own National debt of 12 trillion USD, as opposed to nursing Pakistan and Afghanistan.” Swanson states. The Republican Secretary of Defense Robert Gates combats the democratic view, supporting Obama, “A stable, supportive Afghanistan will make a big difference on how Pakistan sees its future.”