Afghanistan Needs More Civil Projects
Following the London Conference on Afghanistan, I have interviewed Dr. Bente Scheller, the Director of the Heinrich Boell Foundation’s Kabul office. The German Boell Foundation is independent, but philosophically close to the Green Party, whose voters are more supportive of the Bundeswehr’s Afghanistan mission than those of the other parties.
While 50% of the Green voters support the troops’ continued presence, only 46% of the voters of the conservative CDU/CSU agree, according to a poll from September 2009; in German.
Three in four Germans doubt the international community will succeed in Afghanistan. Two thirds disagree with the government’s plan to send 850 additional troops to the Hindu Kush to support Obama’s surge. (Poll from January 29, 2010 ZDF, in German)
Security and stability are clearly important aspects of the international community’s mission in Afghanistan, but, as Dr. Bente Scheller points out, it is only part of the equation. There is a lot of room to improve the functioning of the state, its administration and legal system. Furthermore, unemployment must be tackled and income generating projects must be promoted. Strategies need to be developed towards improving these important civil areas.
Dr. Scheller also added to the debate currently running on atlantic-community.org, commenting on engaging the local population with small-scale community projects, the need to better understand the power structure and the role of warlords, and understanding corruption within a certain cultural context.
13 Responses to “Afghanistan Needs More Civil Projects”
Naïve….if not ludicrous. What portion of Germany’s 850 man “surge” contribution would social programs equally represent? We need about 30,000 soldiers from each of these European contributors and equal portions of civil aid for social programs. Token support not enough, that is why we need to leave Afghanistan. It is bankrupting us.
Afghanistan needs new large-scale civil projects the way Texas A&M students need their Aggie bonfire.
It's equivalent to watching our money burn unless we can assure that the Taliban shaln't destroy it as soon as it's built.
Afghanistan does need civil projects, but not the big, expensive kind. I've suggested before that US troops could leave psychological beachheads in every hamlet contested by the Taliban.
Currently, we send in enough troops during the day to chase the Taliban to ground, and leave by nightfall. The Taliban come back and threaten/kill any who have cooperated. I*t's the Viet Nam model of insurgency.
I purpose a simple change to this hide and go seek farce. If troops would enter a village and remain long enough so that civil engineers could complete wells, roads, or whatever most a village lacks, the Taliban would face a different reality. They no longer can tell villagers that US troops are invaders, nor can they destroy these public works without incurring the wrath of local tribesmen.
Access to water is perhaps the most needed commodity in Afghanistan. Likewise, the lack of roadways keep even fundamental trade between regions at a minimum. Free access to water trumps most any religious argument. Roads also hold a double advantage as even the Taliban would use these to travel in country. If they did not, their movements would be slow in comparison to US troops, and if they did use the roads, tracking their movements would be greatly simplified.
@ HemmD
“Afghanistan does need civil projects, but not the big, expensive kind.”
Why not? If they produce plenty of jobs then the employment and security situation improves and not so many US soldiers have to die.
“If troops would enter a village and remain long enough so that civil engineers could complete wells, roads, or whatever most a village lacks, the Taliban would face a different reality.”
That's part of the new Obama/NATO strategy.
@ Father Time
“We need about 30,000 soldiers from each of these European contributors”
It's naive to expect that.
“Token support not enough”
I agree. Many European countries don't contribute much more than token support.
Right, so we leave. The sooner the better.
—[but not the big, expensive kind]
There is no other kind.
Father_Time
Projects run through the Karsai government may all be high-cost due to kickbacks and graft, but local wells created away from Kabul at least have a chance for success at low cost.
I understand you don't want us there, and I know BushCo's incompetence makes this just another problem Obama has been left to clean up; but the only way to leave this country with any hope that fundamentalism does not make this again a home for bin laden et al is to leave behind tangible infrastructure that helps the masses.
Wells are cheap.
Wells are equally usable by all.
Wells are tangible rebuttal to “US is plunderer” mentality.
Blow em up and move on is Bush's doctrine. America is better than that.
Anyone who thinks bringing education and infrastructure to Afghanistan isn't a winning formula should learn about Greg Mortenson. Here's link to his interview with Bill Moyers. Fascinating stuff:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01152010/prof…
Hearts and minds baby, hearts and minds. The Afghanistani people aren't stupid.
JSpenser
You're right of course, but education is an area where we run into a problem. If the Taliban ever return to power, I am greatly concerned about the women of Afghanistan who now are in schools. You know well how the Medieval mindset of fundamentalism makes female education something akin to heresy.
My ongoing concern with our Western idea of equal education is that once we leave, Afghan women could well be punished for having the temerity to learn. More than any geopolitical concern, the possibility of a reign of terror against these women may be the worst possible outcome to this whole enterprise.
True enough, and I feel for the women of these countries that want to keep their women ignorant and under the thumbs of men. But education is the key to progress in any country and when the women want to be educated they deserve help. In any case, whoever helps the Afghans with their infrastructure is going to be looked kindly on by them – although not by the Taliban.
there was an interesting segment on npr in the last few days about taliban elders coming to Mortenson (sp?) and asking for him to come to their village to build a school for girls. I know its sacriledge to some to think that some in the service of any group are malicious killers for certain, and others are trying to be compassionate people who make better things happen wherever they are… but it's true. Of any group. Any resistance. Any group of people.
Sorry for the belated response.
You are correct, of course. However, I don't think the question is so much one of *if* we should investing infrastructure, but rather the order in which we tier our aims. To me, investing billions in infrastructure projects right now is tantamount to forgetting to screw the lugnuts on before driving away. The Taliban is running roughshod over the country at the moment, and I don't think it's too feasible to invest until the situation has stabilized a bit more.
Cheers!