[quote=Inquartata]
Quote:
|
What's needed in Afghanistan now, I think, is to shore up and protect the new government and to extend and normalize democratic institutions and thinking, to give both time to mature and for a generation of Afghans to grow up benefiting from them. I'm not sure that'd be more easily done with 300,000 troops than 30,000...or 3,000.
|
What is needed in Afghanistan depends on what are expectations of a succesful outcome is. Are we looking to increase the standard of living, levels of literacy, increase energy supply, religious freedom, political openess, press freedom? Or is it to remove the power of warlords, destroy all terrorists, end drug production and increase the authority of the police force? In tackling some of these issues there are cultural and physical impediments that are unaffected by troop numbers. Other issues, like drug control, are more dependent on affective police/army numbers and economic incentives.
If you ask me the answer lies in greater troop numbers to allow a 'space' for NGO's to operate in areas that the government, presently, has no authority. A withdrawal will not be politicaly necessary for three reasons. Firstly the relatively sustainable number of casualities. Secondly the fact that 90% of Europes heroin comes from Afghanistan. Thirdly the lesser levels of purely sectarian violence (a problem the West has decided it is powerless to stop)
Thus the West has to totaly overhaul the Afghan economy. This really depends on- The Afghan Investment and Support Agency (AISA) who will hold an Afghanistan International Investment Conference and Exhibition May 9 to 12 in Kabul.
The conference will actively highlight and promote three sectors that are key to the economic development of Afghanistan:
1.agribusiness and agriprocessing
2. infrastructure, construction and construction materials
3. energy and mining.
So what is needed is that capitalist fix all- investment, educational advancement and the security space to lure and sustain this. It seems that there is more opportunity for investment in Afghanistan (than Iraq) and a less divided authority in charge of its deployment. This is good news in my opinion. The other good news is the greater success in creating both, political institutions, a political concensus and a multi ethnic police force. Inflation is low and curreny reform has been fairly succesful as well.
The key to success wil be creating an investment climate- something that these people are desparetely trying to do.
http://www.export.gov/afghanistan/
If Afghanistan can get into the World Bank in the next few years then we know that progress has been very good. Before that, however, enough investment must have increased to the point that allows a viable alternative to poppy production and the security services must be in a position to take on the War Lords. It is long years of conflict that has destoryed other agricultul sectors, severed industries from their markets and seen skilled workers flee. It is only natural that 5 years of relative stabilty will reverse this. Industries like the carpet trade moved into neighbouring countries- there is no reason why they will not return. Better transport is the other major investment requirement for growth. Access to finance is the other major catalyst and I think that progress can be made here. At the start investment will probably need to be protected by guarantees from (probably) the World Bank.
Thus in my opinion- there is a five year plan in Afghanistan and don't expect to see much of a withdrawal before then. Yet this is a five year plan that is, unlike Iraq, a viable strategy for a tangibly succesful outcome.
Once this is in place then serious investment can begin on Caspian Oil pipes- however that might carry inherent problems of its own.
Linear Mode
