By Steve Hynd
It was an argument that was made forcefully about Iraq by the very same Democrats who are now cheerleading Obama's foolish escalation-without-end in Afghanistan - that only by by setting a strict deadline to withdraw troops could Iraqis be convinced to stand on their own, to tackle endemic cronyism and corruption or to foster reconcilliation between competing factions.
Now the same argument is being made by World Bank Legal Consultant in Afghanistan, Prof. Patrick McAuslan, in respect of Afghanistan - and in the pages of the neoconservative Daily Telegraph no less:
One of the stated reasons for our troops fighting, and dying, in Afghanistan is to provide support for the Afghan government so that it can provide governance and services to its people. Troop numbers have been increased specifically to facilitate Presidential elections in August, so as to bolster the democratic credentials of the government. The assumption behind this policy is that there is a reasonably democratic, efficient and effective government in place and we must play our part in defending it against �insurgents�.
But what kind of government does in fact exist in Afghanistan? When I worked there for the UN and the World Bank in 2005 and 2007 on land reform, I met with many government officials and Ministers. They could talk the talk about reform, justice, fair and efficient systems of land management in a very convincing manner, but little action followed the talk. The same lack of effort to grapple with the corrupt system of justice was also apparent. This was for one overwhelming reason. There was then, and there is now, no commitment and no interest at the top of government to undertake any meaningful reform of any aspect of governance which might in any way interfere with its ability to siphon off government resources for their own ends.
...Every time the Prime Minister or a senior general states that �we have to stay the course� or �to leave before the job is done is not an option� they are telling President Karzai and his cronies that they can more or less do what they want, and we won�t do anything meaningful to stop them. The best evidence of this is the current situation, where British troops are dying to help President Karzai win an election by hook or by crook � almost certainly the latter � and continue to misgovern Afghanistan.
...Only by facing a tight deadline for ending our military involvement might President Karzai begin to recognise his responsibilities: negotiating with his Afghan opponents to end the civil war; committing his troops to fight and providing more honest government to his people. That should be the thrust of our policy.
That was the exact argument advanced for setting a withdrawal date from Iraq. So if it held true for Maliki in Baghdad, why do liberal pundits who made that argument - folks like Matthew Yglessias, Matt Duss, Spencer Ackerman, Ilan Goldenberg and Robert Farley, to name but a few - not now support the same argument for Afghanistan? They haven't said.
No comments:
Post a Comment