Fareed Zakaria thinks he has a solution for Afghanistan:
The central problem in Afghanistan is that the Pashtuns, who make up 45 percent of the country and almost 100 percent of the Taliban, do not feel empowered. We need to start talking to them, whether they are nominally Taliban or not. Buying, renting, or bribing Pashtun tribes should become the centerpiece of America's stabilization strategy, as it was Britain's when it ruled Afghanistan.
Zakaria is normally a thoughtful guy, but if Pashtuns not feeling empowered was Afghanistan's central problem then it would be in a lot better shape than it is. Being one of the poorest nations in the world, lacking a centralized and corrupt government, and having its infrastructure and population decimated by 30 years of war are all candidates for Afghanistan's "central problem." Pashtun disenfranchisement? Not so much.
But then, Zakaria and I have different goals:
A few years from now, we can be sure that Afghanistan will still be poor, corrupt, and dysfunctional. But if we make the right deals, it will be ruled by leaders who keep the country inhospitable to Al Qaeda and terrorist groups like it. That's my definition of success.
Like this post? Get updates via|
Comments (3)
Apologies for my ignorance but I only recently picked up your blog in Google Reader so I may have missed you previously discussing your specific goal. With that said, what is your goal for Afghanistan? I assume it would be to lift it out of the category of a "failed state" and make it into a country with real development and opportunity for its people.
To that end, do you not feel that creating an environment in which the Taliban/AQ are rejected would be the first step in moving towards this goal?
Posted by Overlord | September 20, 2009 12:02 AM
Overlord, real development is what I would like to see, and removing the Taliban is certainly a key step in that. Is it a first step? I don't really have an answer for that; it's a bit of a chicken/egg scenario. Is Afghanistan failing because of the continued presence of the Taliban, or does the Taliban persist because it's a failed state? I see the two as going hand in hand.
Zakaria, at least in this piece, seems only interested in one side of the coin if he's content leaving a "poor, corrupt, and dysfunctional" state. He wants to try the strategy that worked in Iraq, but Afghanistan is much more tribal and disconnected and isn't as far along in terms of its political structure and economy. Bribing Pashtuns seems guaranteed to only provide temporary relief; if we're going to spend money, investing in the country itself seems like a wiser allocation of funds.
Otherwise, I don't see how this bribed coalition is going to be able to make such a disjointed country inhospitable to terrorists without ruling with a bit of an iron fist.
Posted by Elyas | September 20, 2009 7:45 PM
Just to clarify, I say Zakaria and I have different goals not because I disagree with the need to tackle the Taliban issue, but because I think he sets the bar too low.
Posted by Elyas | September 20, 2009 11:39 PM