Afghanistan: A Misguided Mission
Nov. 20, 2009
The purpose of this paper is to offer a review and analysis of America’s objectives and mission in Afghanistan in light of the pending possible troop escalation as it will attempt to address the outcome of some of the shifting strategies and goals over the years.
As the 8th year of war and occupation in Afghanistan rolls on, the US administration is facing yet another quagmire of uncertainties, twisted behind a fog of misinformation and illusions about a history and people that have been little understood. Reports of possible troop escalation in Afghanistan, at the request of General McChrystal, makes this a critical juncture for reviewing and clarifying the objectives that are not only crucial, but long overdue. What are the objectives in Afghanistan and does the strategy meet the objectives? Some of the most declared and debated objectives include defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda for the purpose of national security as well as liberating the Aghans from the Taliban, and promoting democracy in the country.
The below section attempts to offer a comparative analysis of some expert views on the objective of democratization in Afghanistan as they apply to the current situation and the efficacy of US attempt in the installation of democracy in that country. In the process of researching this topic, what has become increasingly clear is the importance of a thorough and in-depth understanding of the historical as well as the current socio-economic and political dynamics and structures of the country. Not all countries develop uniformly, and neither do democracies. It is the combination and interplay of all the variables pertinent to the given country along with the external, international factors and its specific time and place in history that determine its best path to democratization. And while definitions and interpretations of democracy are varied, the most comprehensive interpretation includes both the liberal and the civil (political and social) aspects. The electoral process, though the most central and salient aspect, requires other supporting factors and components that make it meaningful and functional; and free and fair elections, while the most fundamental component of any democracy do not constitute a fully functioning one.
In order to understand the prospects of institutionalizing democracy in Afghanistan, a comprehensive look at its history, especially the last thirty years is critical. Afghanistan is a very poor, landlocked and war-torn country with more than half of its population living below the poverty line (CIA). With three decades of constant external and internal conflicts and instability, hunger and insecurity looming along with scarcity of other essential and basic resources such as water and electricity as well as a prevalence of narcotics, development of infrastructure and social institutions have suffered tremendous setbacks and created extreme dependency on foreign aid. Rampant violence between different factions and foreign forces has also contributed greatly to social and food insecurity.
Seymour Martin Lipset, a political sociologist and the first modernization theorist, posited a direct and strong correlation between the level of social and economic development and democracy. He identified four major aspects of socio-economic development that are closely associated with each other and are central to the promotion of democracy, which consist of the level of wealth per capita, industrialization, urbanization and education (Lipset, p58). According to Lipset, education is a necessary, though not a sufficient criterion that fosters democratic values (p56). The 2005 MDG report states that about 90 percent of women and over 60 percent of men in rural Afghanistan are illiterate (UN, 2009). About half of Afghan children, mostly girls, do not attend school and thousands of schools are without buildings (Oxfam, Jan 2008, p13). The level and degree of wealth and its distribution can also have an impact on democratic propensities as it greatly affects the nature and degree of the class conflict. Lipset’s analysis found increase in education, communication and equality leading to the growth and expansion of the middle class – the strongest proponents of democracy. The conclusion from Lipset’s analysis, therefore, would suggest the likelihood of real democracy taking root and surviving in Afghanistan with its current lack of socio-economic development, e.g., low literacy and high level of poverty, to be very slim and the best chance of its promotion to come from contributing to its overall development, specifically investment in social and economic stability, advancement of industry and education.
Barrington Moore, another political sociologist, emphasizes the critical importance of a strong middle class as essential to the development and maintenance of democracy as there needs to be a distribution and balance of power with the alternatives being a possible developing ground for fascism or communism (Moore, p413-432). Based on Moore’s view of the importance of the middle urban class, the best way to promote democracy in Afghanistan would be to support the growth of the working class and the expansion and growth of its civil society and urban population. And one way of building and promoting its growth, according to Moore, is the development of commercial agriculture, which would be a way of increasing the growth and expansion of the middle class (p430). The agriculture sector provides sustenance for 80% of Afghans, constituting up to half of its income, reports Oxfam (Jan 2008, p2). Yet with insufficient funding, resources and technology as well as the prevalence of violence, the majority of people remain food insecure. Poppy and opium production provides over 90% of the world’s supply, mostly as a means of income, which could be replaced by other viable crops given sufficient aid, as poverty contributes to the production of narcotics where there are no viable alternative sources of income available (Oxfam, Jan 2008, p11).
Other analyses and expert views by Rueschemeyer and colleagues identified the dynamic interaction of three main variables playing a central role in the rise of democracy, which are the power relations among different classes, the strength of the state’s autonomy and the effect of transnational political and economic factors on the balance of power. Their analysis of class stratification finds the landed upper class as the most anti-democratic while the urban working class as the most pro-democratic groups in society. Large landlords are not typically pro-democratic because of their desire for “cheap labor” and fear of losing their privileged status; and peasants often lack the means or opportunity for organization and communication, whereas the urban working class is the most effective and strongest proponents of democracy, inclusive suffrage and union rights (p8). Strong civil society can balance the power of the state; and increased urbanization, improved means of communication, literacy, and organizational ability of working and middle, affect that balance (p6). Economic dependence can keep the working class small and weak, which is another reason why economic development is critical. And while mobilization of women can have a positive impact, war and strong military can be detrimental. In addition, the strength and stability of the state power and autonomy is another crucial factor as well as it sole authority in the use of force and violence. The current government in Afghanistan is too ineffective to be sufficiently autonomous, and is not the sole agent of enforcement. Economic and transnational relations also affect the balance and coalitions of power structures as well as other geopolitical factors and international interventions including economic dependence due to prolonged war and conflict (p6, 18-19). Many ethnic divisions can also affect the unity and cohesiveness of a nation as it exists in Afghanistan, and adversely affect the efficacy of democracy. So measures should be taken that are beneficial to the interests of all groups and factions in attempting to unify them rather than fueling the divide.
Larry Diamond, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and an adviser to U.S. Agency for International Development, emphasizes the push for transparency of private capital flows and supporting social movements, the moderate groups and elements, independent media, universities, and overall strengthening of the civil society, all of which are lacking and far from being supported in Afghanistan. And although any country can become democratic, he emphasizes development and justice to be critical to its survival (Diamond, p23-24).
The path to democracy is as varied as its different versions. There are, however, some core essentials that are integral to its growth and sustenance. Historically the push for democracy has developed organically from within through the interplay and dynamics of various factors. Yet, more and more the recent trend has been towards an external pressure and its imposition as an ideal. But do these means of imposition lead to a real democracy that can be sustainable and long lived? With the struggle for power and interest that drives or impedes the force for its growth, unless the right structures are in place to restrict power consolidations and enforce some balance and equality, the policy of might makes right prevails. For any foundation to be long lasting and stable, it has to be built from the ground up as real democratic growth and transformation should be fostered and supported from within. Mere setting up of democratic institutions without the right relations and structures that make them work will only present a veneer that will too soon crumble or be corrupted and compromised. In short, democracy by invasion and force cannot be maintained without the necessary conditions as nothing created by force can be expected to last.
One very critical point to keep in mind involves the long and short term prospects of democracy as the factors that may give rise to it are not necessarily those that sustain it. I agree with the experts that there are no fixed paths to democracy, but what maintains them is a set of core essentials that are more uniform across the board. These essential characteristics involve power relations and equality that bring about conditions for the growth, progress and betterment of life for all the people in the society. And although there may be no uniform set of factors for its emergence, its maintenance requires the existence of some universal values and some essential elements, such as income equality and education. Even if the electoral process is in place, it will not be sustainable for long without development and the empowerment of people from the ground up. Education is important to creating informed citizenry as well as advancing means of communication and organization. The level of poverty is another integral factor. When people are too busy surviving, they lack the means or the ability for full political participation, which would entail more than voting every 4 to 5 years. And without some level of development, education, ability and tools to organize, communicate, be informed and mobilize, there cannot be effective political participation.
In applying some of these principles and looking at the current situation in Afghanistan, it is not hard to assess that the electoral process and the constitution set in place in 2004 was not nearly sufficient to bring real democracy to Afghanistan, or democratic values and protection for the Afghan people. President Karzai was elected, but the country is suffering from the essentials that a real democracy should be able to provide for its citizens. Security and rule of law, as well as the basic means of life are such rights that are sorely lacking for the majority of people in Afghanistan who have not been killed, maimed or displaced. The central government lacks the sufficient support and control over most of the country and its agents of violence, which has resulted in increasing chaos and anarchy where the state power should be the primary enforcement agency.
War has only increased the divides and destruction that has adversely impacted the growth of democracy in Afghanistan. It has destroyed the infrastructure of the country and caused radical elements to rise up stronger as increasing tensions and conflicts between the various groups have been fueled by external forces and decades of war. Severe conflicts have resulted in setbacks of all socio-economic developments. While what is necessary is a re-building of the infrastructure, investment in technology, and assisting the agriculture sector; escalating troops will lead to more civilian casualties, further antagonization of the people and insurgencies. US actions over the last thirty years have only increased internal instability where security is needed the most, by training and supporting the Mujahedeen, some of the most extremist elements in the country and using Afghanistan as its battleground to defeat the Soviets. This has been instrumental in the creation of Taliban and Al-Qaeda, which it now attempts to fight (Chomsky). There needs to be a support for the progressive and moderate Islamists vs. the extremists such as Mujahedeen. The war has only empowered the Taliban, escalated conflicts and insurgencies between the tribal chiefs and created warlords, destroying the security and the unity of the country while killing thousands and displacing many more. The US support of the Mujahedeen has also reversed the process of women’s rights and security (DN; Foster). It has instituted a weak and decentralized government and left the country at the mercy of foreign aid, with millions having no means of subsistence, let alone the ability to mobilize as a unified force for democracy.
The emphasis on the structure without the process of democracy is missing its very essence and purpose. Putting the structure in place does not make it self-sustaining, which is highly improbable without the proper and conducive conditions. Despite the complexity and multi-layers of problems in Afghanistan, security and development should be the main objective. First and foremost, security has to be established for the people, followed by extensive development and reconstruction of Afghanistan and strengthening the government to provide security for its own people. Use of bombs and military force only leads to more destruction of the country and its civilians, which will not quell or reduce insurgencies, but lead to increasing resentment among people. There has to be real and extensive support for development and empowerment of the Afghan people, especially the security and protection of its women and children. What is needed is creating the right conditions and fertile ground for democracy to grow along with a solid foundation for the resolution of internal conflicts through mutual understanding and agreement. The Afghanistan Compact drawn in 2006 by the international community that committed to providing and promoting security, governance, rule of law and human rights and economic and social development has fallen very short of its promise (Oxfam, Feb. 2008). Aids have been insufficient and inefficiently distributed and managed. Only a small percent of the aid pledged to Afghanistan is spent on the people and development, while the majority is spent on military and wasted on bureaucratic inefficiencies that lack accountability and transparency. Poverty, corruption, and extremism are some of the factors that are fueling conflicts and the military intervention is not addressing the causes as Oxfam reports (Jan. 2008).
There is a difference between the installation and imposition of democracy vs. its promotion and support. Even if democracy is institutionalized, it can still fail and be non-functional. After all, what would be the practical value of being able to vote freely without basic protection of human rights and other civil liberties? Even free and fair elections fail in their promise when the rights of citizens are not upheld. Can democracy stand the test of time without just provisions that foster stability? Does not the stability of democracy depend on the stability of the society and its power structures? And can there be stability without justice?
The views that have been explored and analyzed here all point to the need for the support and expansion of the lower and the middle classes, which can only take place through development and empowerment of people. And the political empowerment of the people has to also entail their social empowerment. As the current economic dependency and geo-political dynamics are negatively impacting the feasibility of real democracy in Afghanistan, the most effective and productive route of action for its promotion would be committing to a path of development rather than military intervention, to finance rebuilding its infrastructure and provide security for its citizens and assisting the consolidation of the central government rather than financing bombs and destruction, and to cease escalating and exacerbating the ongoing internal conflicts and suffering as the current US presence seems to be doing. Imposing the structural framework of democracy does not guarantee its functionality as already stated. There needs to be a social and political infrastructure in place for democracy to take root and those structures cannot ultimately be sustained if they are not based on some degree of justice and equity. Democracy is a multi-faceted process that cannot merely be installed or exported, for besides its essential framework and infrastructure, other factors of political and economic importance, some of which we have looked at here, can greatly impact its prospects for survival.
As the above analyses focused on the feasibility and efficacy of installing democracy with military force without the sufficient and critical development and infrastructure to sustain it, we now examine other possible objectives for US presence in Afghanistan. Building on past history, we turn our attention to some current views from the experts with considerable knowledge of the country and its people. First, a common point that all the experts stress is the critical importance of delineating between the Taliban and Al- Qaeda as there is often a great deal of conflation and confusion regarding the two. Taliban is a religious fundamentalist nationalist group who are basically anti-modernist rural indigenous people. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, is an international group without a fixed base in any one country. Rory Stewart, the current director of the Carr Institute of Human Rights Policy at Harvard University, who has walked across the whole country on foot and has spent considerable time in the villages among the Afghan people, in a recent interview explained that Taliban has no real, substantive capability for international terrorism and to harm United States. Hardly able to read and write for the most part, they “can’t find the United States on the map,” whereas, Al Qaeda is a group of educated middle class individuals from various countries (Stewart). So although Taliban are not a welcome group for the majority of Afghan people, they are a local group who strongly resent the foreign presence and often attack the people and villages that have been visited by foreign forces. And the pretense of protecting women’s rights against the brutal Taliban loses it legitimacy considering that the US-backed warlords, the former Mujahedeen who were supported and trained by US are just as brutal and abusive of women’s rights as the Taliban (Foster; Fitzgerald and Gould, p263-5). A 2003 report from Human Rights Watch holds the United States responsible for supporting the warlords to rise to power and the atrocities they have committed against the Afghan people (p11).
So if the Taliban is not the main target and a real threat to America’s security, and the main objective is to fight Al Qaeda, why are we in Afghanistan, where the enemy is not? Many experts including Rory Stewart and a former CIA Field Operative, Robert Baer state: “Al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan” and does not have a base and real presence there (Stewart; Greenwald). Even General Petraeus confirmed that fact in an interview with CNN’s John King, aired on May 10th of this year (2009). When asked: “No Al Qaida at all in Afghanistan. Is that an exaggeration, General Petraeus, or is that true?” He responded: “No, I would agree with that assessment” (CNN). So the pertinent question becomes, why would we send more troops to fight an enemy that is not there when the inevitable consequences will be creating more enemies by the ensuing destruction and further loss of innocent lives? Surely the first rule of any war should be to know where the enemy is, as well as who the enemy is.
A very eye opening documentary called “Rethink Afghanistan,” by Robert Greenwald, founder of the Brave New Films, features some experts including some former CIA officials who point out that the war has only made the world more dangerous for Americans and intensified resentments and hostility. So far, the objective of eliminating terrorism has succeeded in achieving its exact opposite, which is fueling more terrorism. Can extremism be stopped by creating more radicals – not only by expanding Al Qaeda, but also further radicalizing the Taliban who have no international agenda and are aggravated by the foreign intrusion and occupation of their land, which mores insurgencies without achieving the objective of defeating Al Qaeda or international terrorism? Implemented strategies thus far, in the pursuit of eradicating extremism, have only resulted in creating more extremists, hence the quagmire. With the political and civil consequences being the further loss of lives, destruction, insecurity and instability as well as the billions of dollars that could go toward saving and betterment of lives for millions abroad, and in the US, to sow the seeds of cooperation and goodwill, and promotion of security for all rather than fueling the divide and hostility, there is a critical need for a better understanding of the history including the many factions and groups and re-evaluating the goals and strategies. Stewart also points out the impracticality and inefficiency of the current strategy, and the need for a balanced and practical perspective that focuses on the development and stabilization of Afghanistan rather than implementing what he calls a “boom to bust” strategy, which refers to the unsustainability of the proposed troop level over a long period of time that will most likely result in the complete abandonment of the country, and all stated objectives (Stewart).
In light of these analyses, the current US military presence does not make much sense, let alone a surge. And reviewing or re-identifying the objectives seems to make the strategy not only efficaciously vacuous, but extremely dangerous as increasing civilian casualties and devastation of the country can only lead to more resentment, insurgency and resistance against what is viewed as foreign intrusion and invasion. After all, is it too hard to understand that escalating a war with its inevitable outcome of many more civilian lives lost and displaced, and further destruction to the country, can create more hatred and resentment among people than placate it? And if there is any illusion left about the desire to help the Afghan people, perhaps it is only logical to ask and hear their views, which has been absent from any strategic policies. So the inevitable question remaining, which becomes imperative to ask is: who is this war really serving?
References
But what can you do about it? There levitra shop buy are basically two avenues available to treat male sexual issues, and generic versions are being manufactured and developed. Magnolia state voters have no electoral leverage, meaning that Presidential nominees and incumbent Presidents have no electoral viagra mastercard india incentive to focus on your mental health to get over this disorder. It is the roots and bark that are the primary parts of the plant utilized viagra 50mg for “male purposes”. This FDA-approved drug can be conveniently purchased from an online or local drug store without any prescription from doctors as it has no side effects. purchase levitra online appalachianmagazine.com