Tag: Afghanistan
This week’s peace picks
Not a slow week, but one with a bit longer term focus than some:
1. Persian subversion: Can America withstand an Iranian oil shock? AEI 10-11:30 June 12.
1150 Seventeenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036
(Two blocks from Farragut North Metro)
In recent months, Iranian saber rattling has shaken energy markets. Although sanctions targeting Iran may raise the price at the pump, inaction is also costly: allowing Tehran to pass its nuclear threshold will endanger security in the Persian Gulf and may lead to even greater oil price hikes.
Against the backdrop of the Iranian nuclear crisis, American policymakers are increasingly considering ramping up domestic oil production and alternative energy. How much can shale oil, new pipelines and offshore oil production shield the U.S. economy from instability in the Persian Gulf and Iran’s leverage over world oil prices? How do the recent bankruptcies of U.S. solar energy firms affect American alternate energy strategy? Join a panel of foreign policy, national security, energy and transportation experts for an open discussion.
If you cannot attend, we welcome you to watch the event live on this page.
9:45 AM
Registration
10:00 AM
Panelists:
Elliott Abrams, Council on Foreign Relations
Gen. (ret.) James T. Conway, 34th Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps
Sam Gilliland, Sabre Holdings
Daniel Yergin, IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates
Moderator:
Michael Rubin, AEI
11:30 AM
Adjournment
2. Japan-Korea-China Economic Relations, 9-10:30 June 12
Washington 20006
As Korea strives to be a global leader, the country has concluded several bilateral and multilateral Free Trade Agreements since 2003 and is currently negotiating additional agreements while laying the groundwork for a Korea-Japan-China FTA and considering the resumption of negotiations with Japan. Japan’s trade strategy also continues to evolve as it develops a new growth strategy after the natural disasters of 2011. Both Korea and Japan are carefully watching the developments around TPP. In the meantime, China has become the largest trading partner of Korea and Japan and the three countries recently signed a trilateral investment agreement as a potential first step toward a trilateral trade accord.
The seminar will assess the current status of the Korean and Japanese trade policies in light of the implementation of the KORUS FTA and the continued discussion of the TPP, Korea-China FTA and Korea-Japan-China FTA.
3. 2012 GPI Launch: How Can Global Peace Metrics Inform Foreign Policy? CSIS, 9-10:30 June 12
Please join us for the results of the sixth annual Global Peace Index and inaugural Positive Peace Index:Tuesday, June 12, 2012
9:00 AM – 10:30 AM
B1 Conference Center, CSIS
1800 K St. NW, Washington, DC 20006
A Panel Discussion With
Amb. William Garvelink, Senior Adviser, U.S. Leadership in Development, Center for Strategic and International Studies (Moderator)
Anne-Marie Slaughter, Bert G. Kerstetter ’66 University Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University (Opening Remarks)
Lawrence Wilkerson, Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy, William and Mary College
Josh Rogin, Staff Writer, Foreign Policy
Emily Cadei, Foreign Policy Reporter, Congressional Quarterly
Michael Shank, U.S. Vice President, Institute for Economics and Peace (GPI Results Presentation)
In a world often described by crisis and conflict, which countries are the most peaceful? How do we measure peace and its economic value? How can peace metrics inform U.S. foreign policy?
The Global Peace Index (GPI) is the first-ever analysis to methodically rank countries on their peacefulness and identify potential determinants of peace. Comprised of a range of indicators measuring the absence of violence in society, the GPI takes into consideration both internal and external factors, and measures 99% of the world’s population.
For the first time, this year’s report includes a Positive Peace Index (PPI), highlighting the key institutional factors associated with creating peaceful and resilient societies. The PPI ranks countries by their institutional capacity to move away from violence and towards peace.
The GPI is produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), guided by an international panel of independent experts and supported by the Economist Intelligence Unit, which collates the data and calculates the rankings in conjunction with the IEP.
Please RSVP to achang@csis.org
4. Culturally-Based Approaches to Peacebuilding in Pakistan, SAIS (Kenney) 9:30-11:30 June 12
With Libya’s first nationwide democratic election quickly approaching, serious progress on political and institutional development is essential as the country proceeds with its transition. While re-establishing security remains vital in the short term, many long-term development challenges also require immediate attention, including building effective, accountable institutions at the national and local levels; developing an independent and diverse civil society; establishing and protecting a free, professional press; and reforming the military, police, and other security forces. Meanwhile, Libyans must engage in a national dialogue on how to ensure adequate representation in government for women, youth, and and various tribal and ethnic groups. By smartly leveraging domestic resources and international assistance, the Libyan people could be well-positioned to build a prosperous and free country.
What will the assembly elections – originally slated for June 19th but now expected to be delayed until July – look like? What are the major political forces emerging in the country and how are they preparing for the elections? How will the election of a national assembly affect the role of the National Transitional Council (NTC)? What are the top priorities for the Libyan government, particularly regarding institutional reform? How can Libyans develop a robust civil society and ensure freedom of opinion, press, and assembly? Which best practices from other state-building efforts would be most appropriate for the Libyan case? In particular, how might various models of federalism and decentralization be useful? And what is the most constructive role for international actors to play in supporting capacity-building, among other needs?
Director of Iraq, Iran, and North Africa Programs, Center for Post-Conflict Peace and Stability Operations, U.S. Institute of Peace
Executive Director, POMED
President, American-Libyan Council
Associate Director, Sustainable Security and Peacebuilding Initiative, Center for American Progress
Click here to RSVP for the event.
We’ll also be live-tweeting from the event, so follow the conversation at #POMEDLib. If you’d like us to ask one of your questions, we’ll try to include a few from our virtual audience.
Please contact Anna Newby at anna.newby@pomed.org with any questions, or call (202) 828-9660, ext 23.
6. The State of Health in Afghanistan: Implications for Economic Stability, Security and Women, USIP, 3:30-4:30 June 12
Despite the number of negative trends in Afghanistan, tremendous achievements have been gained in the health sector. Most notable is the programming on maternal health, which has contributed to a significant decline in infant and child mortality rates. The percentage of female healthcare worker has risen dramatically in USAID-funded healthcare facilities.
How has the health sector improved the overall health of a country? What can we learn from the Ministry of Health that might be applied to other sectors? How has the sector supported economic stability and security? What are the country’s health goals as Afghanistan prepares for its security and political transitions in 2014?
Please join USIP’s Center for Gender and Peacebuilding, in collaboration with the Afghan Embassy, the Department of State and USAID, for a panel discussion on the health sector’s contribution to economic stability and security in Afghanistan leading to 2014. The minister of Public Health of Afghanistan, Honorable Dr. Soraya Dalil, will discuss the “state of health” in Afghanistan. She will be joined by U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Melanne Verveer and Michele Schimpp, deputy director for USAID’s Afghanistan and Pakistan Task Force.
Panelists
- The Honorable Dr. Soraya Dalil
Minister of Public Health - Ambassador Melanne Verveer
Ambassador at Large for Global Women’s Issues, U.S. Department of State - Michele Schimpp
Deputy Director for Afghanistan and Pakistan Task Force, USAID - William Byrd, Discussant
Senior Expert in Residence, U.S. Institute of Peace - Kathleen Kuehnast, Moderator
Director, Center for Gender and Peacebuilding, U.S. Institute of Peace
7. The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR): Complementarity or Cooperation between State, USAID and the NGO Community, USIP, 9-4:30 June 15
After Secretary of State Hillary Clinton introduced the QDDR as a major step in elevating development alongside diplomacy as a key pillar of American foreign policy, many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) welcomed the QDDR as the beginning of a better coordinated and more effective approach to global development. USIP and Webster University will host a day of discussion about how the QDDR complements NGO efforts in development, humanitarian relief and conflict management as well as the current challenges and opportunities that result from the QDDR.
This discussion will be built around presentations from senior United States government officials from the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development and from leaders in the NGO community. These will be followed by panel discussions that combine the perspectives of policymakers and NGOs on the topics of economic development, public health, education, human security, and human rights.
USIP was among the organizations that contributed ideas to the development of the QDDR, particularly in the areas of stabilization and conflict prevention. Discussion of the QDDR and its goals will enhance the effectiveness of both NGOs and the U.S. Government in global development and conflict prevention efforts, particularly in building local capacity and promoting innovation.
-
What in the QDDR is relevant to the work of NGOs and private voluntary organizations (PVOs)?
-
How will the objectives of the QDDR affect NGOs and PVOs?
-
Where is there complementarity in the following areas?
- Conflict Prevention
- Capacity building
- Development of effective civil society
- Humanitarian aid
- Contributions of new technology
Download Conference Agenda
Speakers
-
Nancy Lindborg
Assistant Administrator, USAID -
Melanie Greenberg
President and CEO, Alliance for Peacebuilding -
Lindsay Coates
Executive Vice President, Interaction -
Ambassador Robert Loftis
Former Acting Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, the Department of State -
David Wilson
Dean of Humanities, Webster University -
Jeff Helsing
Dean of Curriculum, U.S. Institute of Peace
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
A relatively slow week with most interesting things concentrated in the first couple of days:
1. Disentangling Smart Power: Interests, Tools, Strategies, SAIS, 9-5 June 4
Kenney Auditorium
1740 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington DC, 20036
9.00 AM – 5.00 PM
9:00 Registration
9.30 Welcome, Amb. András Simonyi, Managing Director CTR, Aude Jehan, French Embassy Fellow
9.40 Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century: New Approaches in a Changing World
A discussion with: Bruce Wharton, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Public Diplomacy, Bureau of African Affairs
Amb. Philip Reeker, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
Spencer P. Boyer, Senior Fellow, Center for Transatlantic Relations (Moderator)
10.15 Setting the Stage: Battleships, Diplomats, and Rock & Roll
Amb. András Simonyi, Managing Director, Center for Transatlantic Relations
11.00 The New Face of Public Diplomacy
Walter Douglas, Senior Visiting Fellow, CSIS (Moderator)
Tom Wang, Executive Editor, Science and Diplomacy, Deputy Director, AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy
Emilienne Baneth-Nouailhetas, Attaché for University Cooperation, French Embassy in the United States
Sharon Memis, Director British Council USA
12.30 Lunch Break
13.15 Smart Power 2.0: Suzanne Nossel, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA
14.15 Combining Hard and Soft Power: Dilemmas and Opportunities
Mark R. Jacobson, Senior Transatlantic Fellow, German Marshall Fund of the United States (Moderator)
The Hon. Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, Member of European Parliament, Belgian Minister of State
Amb. Kurt Volker, Executive Director, McCain Institute for International Leadership
Stacia George, Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow
Douglas A. Ollivant, Senior National Security Fellow, New America Foundation
16.00 Smart Power in Action: A View from the Obama Administration, Assistant Secretary Esther Brimmer, Bureau of International Organization Affairs
16:45 Closing Remarks: Daniel Hamilton, Director, Center for Transatlantic Relations
17.00 Reception
2. Gains in Afghan Health: Too Good to Be True? Center for Global Development, 12-1:30 pm June 4
Brownbag Seminar
**Please bring your lunch–beverages provided**
Featuring
Kenneth Hill
Professor of Global Health and Population
Harvard School of Public Health
With discussants
Pav Govindasamy
Regional Coordinator for Anglophone Africa and Asia
ICF International
Mohammad Hafiz Rasooly
Technical Advisor, Afghan Public Health Institute
Ministry of Public Health Afghanistan
Hosted by
Victoria Fan
Research Fellow
Center for Global Development
The results of the 2010 Afghanistan Mortality Survey were hailed as showing dramatic declines in child and maternal mortality when they first became available last year. Afghan surveyors in all 34 provinces brought back data suggesting that life expectancy at birth is now 62 years. Child mortality under age 5 dropped to 10 percent. Of 100,000 live births, the maternal mortality number was down to 327. However, more detailed examination of the results has raised questions about their accuracy. In this presentation, Kenneth Hill examines data quality indicators and issues of plausibility to try to establish what can, and what can’t, be believed from the survey.
3. Inside the Iranian Nuclear Crisis, Carnegie Endowment, 9-10 am June 5
Seyed Hossein Mousavian, George Perkovich
Register to attend
Seyed Hossein Mousavian, who served as Iran’s nuclear spokesman and a member of the Iranian nuclear negotiating team from 2003 to 2005, will discuss his new book providing an insider account of Tehran’s nuclear policy and negotiations with the international community. Mousavian will analyze the West’s current options for dealing with Iran as well as outline what a nuclear agreement needs to include for it to be acceptable to both the West and Tehran.
For over four years, Mousavian operated at the heart of Iran’s power structures before political tables turned and he was arrested and tried for espionage by the government of President Ahmadinejad. The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: A Memoir is a first-of-its kind book that describes the history of the Iranian nuclear crisis and explains how to bring it to a peaceful resolution.
Copies of The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: A Memoir will be available for purchase.
Ambassador Seyed Hossein Mousavian is an associate research scholar at Princeton University. He previously served as the Iranian ambassador to Germany (1990–1997), the head of the Foreign Relations Committee of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (1997–2005), the spokesman for Iran’s nuclear negotiation team (2003–2005), and foreign policy adviser to the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (2005–2007).
4. Sudan in Conflict, Carnegie Endowment, 12:15-1:45 pm June 5
Amb. Princeton Lyman, Amb. Alan Goulty, Marina Ottaway, Frederic Wehrey
Register to attend
Less than one year after the formal split between Sudan and South Sudan, the two countries are wrapped in conflict again over border demarcation, oil, and other issues. Both nations are also contending with serious internal turmoil in the form of tribal conflict, weak institutions, and mounting popular dissatisfaction.
|
|||||
| June 6, 2012 | 6 – 8 pm | |||||
| Johns Hopkins University School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS) Kenney Auditorium | |||||
| 1740 Massachusetts Ave. NW | |||||
 Can Sustained GDP Growth in Africa Lead to a New Future? The United Nations Association-National Capital Area Chapter (UNA-NCA) and the Africa Society invites you to a panel discussion on economic growth in Sub-Saharan Africa.
The World Bank recently reported that in eight of the last ten years Sub-Saharan growth has been faster than East Asia. With an average of 5% GDP growth, amid a global financial crisis, “Africa could be on the brink of an economic take-off, much like China was 30 years ago and India 20 years ago.” Can this record GDP growth provide substantial poverty reduction and positive change in the lives of everyday Africans? Anthony Carroll, Vice President, has 20 years of experience as a corporate lawyer and business advisor in the areas of international trade and investment, with a particular focus on the countries of sub-Saharan Africa. He possesses an extensive background in intellectual property law, first as an in-house lawyer with a venture capital firm specializing in high tech investment, and more recently as an adviser to the international pharmaceutical industry and sovereign and regional governments on TRIPs and WTO accession. Panelists: Volker Treichel has been a Lead Economist in the Office of the Chief Economist and Senior Vice President of the World Bank since December 2010. From 2007, he was the Lead Economist for Nigeria. He also led the first subnational Development Policy Operation in sub-Saharan Africa in Lagos State as well as the initial engagement with the Niger Delta. Prior to 2007, Volker was at the IMF, including as mission chief for Togo and resident representative in Albania. Dr. Susan Lund is the director of research and a Washington, D.C. partner at the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), McKinsey’s business and economics research arm. Her research focuses on global financial markets, labor markets, and on economic growth. Recent reports have looked at shifting pools of global wealth and the rise of emerging market investors, prospects for US job creation and the future of work, and the long-term growth prospects for African economies. Dr. Ezra Suruma is a Senior Adviser to the President of Uganda on Finance and Economic Planning. Dr. Suruma is a former visiting fellow with the Africa Growth Initiative at the Brookings Institution. While at Brookings, his work focused on governmental and financial institutions and its impact on stability and economic growth. |
|||||
| Add Event To My Calendar | |||||
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Memorial Day for all, again
I have little to add to what I said last year on Memorial Day, so I am republishing what I said then:
I spent my high school years marching in the Memorial Day parade in New Rochelle, New York and have never lost respect for those who serve and make sacrifices in uniform. Even as an anti-war protester in the Vietnam era, I thought denigration of those in uniform heinous, not to mention counterproductive.
It is impossible to feel anything but pride and gratitude to those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Kosovo, Bosnia, Panama and Somalia during the previous decade. Nor will I forget my Memorial Day visit to the American cemetery in Nettuno accompanying Defense Secretary Les Aspin in the early 1990s, or my visit to the Florence cemetery the next year. These extraordinarily manicured places are the ultimate in peaceful. It is unimaginable what their inhabitants endured. No matter what we say during the speechifying on Memorial Day, there is little glory in what the troops do and a whole lot of hard work, dedication, professionalism and horror.
That said, it is a mistake to forget those who serve out of uniform, as we habitually do. Numbers are hard to come by, but a quick internet search suggests that at at least 1000 U.S. civilians have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. They come in many different varieties: journalists, policemen, judges, private security guards, agriculturalists, local government experts, computer geeks, engineers, relief and development workers, trainers, spies, diplomats and who knows what else. I think of these people as our “pinstripe soldiers,” even if most of them don’t in fact wear pinstripes. But they are a key component of building the states that we hope will some day redeem the sacrifices they and their uniformed comrades have endured.
I spend my working hours worrying about how to improve the performance of the pinstripe soldiers, but that should not reduce by one iota appreciation for them. These are people who sometimes go places before they are safe enough for the troops, and they stay long after the troops are withdrawn. I hope my readers will add a minute to their Memorial Day reflections for those who serve in mufti. And count the many non-Americans who support our people also in your appreciation.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Red lines drawn
The audience for the President’s speech last night on the Strategic Partnership agreement with Afghanistan was the American electorate, but the agreement itself is more interesting for the messages it sends to President Karzai, the Taliban and the Afghan people. In part it sets out American red lines, that is limits beyond which the Washington is not prepared to go. There are also some Afghan red lines, drawn to hem in the Americans. What are they?
Here’s a sample extracted from the text:
Afghanistan reaffirms its strong commitment to inclusive and pluralistic democratic governance, including free, fair and transparent elections in which all of the people of Afghanistan participate freely and without internal or external interference….Afghanistan reaffirms its commitment to protecting human and political rights…Afghanistan reaffirms its commitment to ensuring that any kind of discrimination and distinction between citizens of Afghanistan shall be forbidden…Afghanistan shall ensure and advance the essential role of women in society, so that they may fully enjoy their economic, social, political, civil and cultural rights.
These clauses are clearly intended to limit what can be agreed in the talks with the Taliban, as well as to fence in Karzai. No selling out women and minorities.
Contrary to what some have claimed, the agreement does not cover the status of U.S. forces, which continues under existing agreements until a new one is negotiated, with a goal of doing so within a year. The existing agreements are to remain in force until the new one is negotiated, which is good since the one-year goal may not hold.
The agreement also sets out some Afghan red lines. The United States
…reaffirms that it does not seek permanent military facilities in Afghanistan, or a presence that is a threat to Afghanistan’s neighbors. The United States further pledges not to use Afghan territory or facilities as a launching point for attacks against other countries.
The “permanent military facilities” is a bit of a sop, since the U.S. claims none of its overseas bases are permanent. They just tend to stay around for a long time. Afghanistan will have sought the pledge about launching attacks to reassure Pakistan and Iran, but “pledges” are less than complete commitments, and of course Afghanistan can always agree (overtly or covertly) to such operations.
The U.S. says it will try to get money for the Afghan security forces year by year. No amount is specified, but it is likely to be a few billion. The U.S. also says
…it shall regard with grave concern any external aggression against Afghanistan.
If someone attacks, the Afghans get consultations to decide on an appropriate response. This is pretty thin gruel, far short of a mutual defense pact.
There is some handwaving about regional cooperation, but the language is aspirational and the proof can only come with the pudding. Ditto the stuff on economic cooperation, including the fight against corruption, drugs, money laundering and organized crime.
The U.S. pledges to put 50% of its aid through the government and to align 80% with Afghan priorities. Those would have been decent goals years ago: a lot of our aid goes directly to U.S. contractors and grantees and never enters the government’s field of vision. Try running a country without knowing what your biggest donors are up to.
The agreement sets up a bilateral commission, which is standard operating procedure.
If this is all it takes to get us out of the longest war in our history, we’re lucky. It will likely be enough to get us through the NATO Summit in Chicago next month, which was one of the purposes of getting it signed now. Beyond that, there are a lot of uncertainties, but at least we’ve got some red lines drawn, on both sides.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
All deliberate speed
President Obama flew in secret today to Kabul, where he signed with President Karzai the strategic partnership agreement that will govern the bilateral relationship with the United States after security responsibility is turned over to the Afghans by the end of 2014. At best, this agreement marks the final, peacebuilding phase after the longest war in American history.
The President’s speech will be given at 4 am local time, which means it isn’t intended for Afghans. The target is the American electorate, tired of the war and focused on domestic problems. It will be hard to make Afghanistan resonate with his fellow countrymen, but he will try.
The agreement, I imagine he will say, is the responsible way to end a war that America undertook in self defense against Al Qaeda and the Taliban authorities who sheltered it. We have succeeded. But Afghanistan will need our help and support for long into the future: it is a poor country that has sacrificed a great deal and will need our continued help to keep extremists at bay even after its security forces take on the primary responsibility.
I am an Obamista, but even to me this is not the full story. The price tag for the help we provide Afghanistan will be billions per year for the foreseeable future. Leaving aside the questions of how many U.S. troops will stay and the capacity (or lack thereof) of the Afghan security forces, there are still has a lot of wrinkles that need ironing out: Pakistan’s refusal to deal Al Qaeda a death blow or to rein in the Taliban, the so far inconclusive negotiations with them, growing Taliban influence in some areas, the corruption that is rife in Karzai’s government, the failure to create anything like decent governance in most of Afghanistan, the shaky economic foundations on which the Afghan government sits, the role of Iran in Afghanistan, and whether some U.S. troops will stay longer than currently planned.
We are not so much getting out of Afghanistan victoriously as getting out before it all flies apart. Don’t get me wrong: I wouldn’t want us to stay, and I’ve said it is time to go, without however destabilizing the situation. We cannot and should not stay to iron out all the wrinkles, but we should at least be aware that they are there and may cause difficulty in the future.
Mitt Romney, John McCain and others will complain that we are not doing enough–that we should stay in Afghanistan until we’ve ensured that things will not come apart, or the Taliban back to power. But if they think that is likely to be a view popular with the American electorate, they are fooling themselves. By a wide margin, Americans want out of Afghanistan to take care of priorities at home.
I’ll be happily surprised if ten years from now we’ll be proud of what Afghanistan has become. But move we must, with what the Supreme Court famously called “all deliberate speed.”
PS: I haven’t seen the agreement yet, but here is a White House fact sheet.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Long war, long peace
The United States and Afghanistan today initialed a strategic partnership agreement that reportedly commits Washington to support Kabul for ten years after the U.S. turnover of security responsibility by the end of 2014. The New York Times says the text was not released, and it hasn’t yet crossed my computer screen, but it apparently includes a substantial financial commitment to the Afghan security forces of at least several billion dollars per year.
This is the good news out of Afghanistan, where things have not been going well on many fronts. But I attended a relatively upbeat meeting last week. The ground rules prevent me from quoting or identifying anyone. Here is what I heard some well-informed people say.
The counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan is relatively recent, dating officially only from 2009 though it had started in some places earlier. Before that, Afghanistan was shorted in order to fund and staff Iraq. And military action focused on persistent, targeted attacks rather than protecting the people. Only in 2011 did we get maximum pressure exerted on insurgents with use of the American surge forces and the Afghan army and police, who responded well to recent coordinated attacks in Kabul and other places. Finally we are now able not only to clear but also to hold. We need to keep the remaining surge troops in place through 2013 for maximum effect, but this should be considered only after the 2012 “fighting year” has ended in the fall (when of course there is also an American election). It won’t cost much, only a pencil-dust few billion. Build wasn’t mentioned.
The political part of the strategy seems to consist of not much more than the 2014 national election (possibly to be moved up to 2013). There is no plan for provincial elections, despite the Afghan constitution and the importance of local governance. A peaceful transfer of power at the national level would be a first for Afghanistan and an important precedent. State Department has little capacity to do more than help ensure that. Expectations for governance should be minimal. The best we can do is leave behind Afghan security forces capable of maintaining a relatively stable environment in which governance can gradually improve.
Tony Cordesman has detailed the uncertainties of a sad economy, another vital ingredient to overall success in Afghanistan.
The strategy now is basically one of Afghanization of security responsibilities over the remaining two years and six months or so. Even for this narrow objective to succeed, much more responsibility will have to be shifted to the Afghan security forces more rapidly than is currently the practice. Embedding a handful with American troops is far from sufficient to develop the kind of independent operational capability that they will need soon, but American troops have been reluctant to sacrifice operational effectiveness for a longer-term training objective. Also critical, but still rudimentary, are Afghan logistical capabilities.
What is the cost of failure in Afghanistan? Extremists will return there and may provide Al Qaeda with safe haven. The international community will lose confidence in American leadership. It could become far more difficult to organize coalitions needed in the future in other parts of the world.
The war has been a long one. If there is to be peace, it will take time to consolidate and continue to cost the American tax payer for at least another decade.
RSS - Posts
