Check out these articles, one from the WSJ here:
And the other from the NYT here:
The WSJ article reports on new US aid to the Yemen military in an effort to combat Al-Qaeda's presence and influence in the Arabian Peninsula. It highlights a critical imbalance between military action and civilian development in Yemen and asks what must come first to prevent terrorism, investment or security. In Yemen, the US chooses to fund the Yemeni military although every military is historically a blunt public policy tool. Unfortunately, civilian development projects in Yemen have also been largely ineffective. Policy makers seem to be making the choice between guns and goods and are choosing guns. What if it is this policy choice of guns that makes Al-Qaeda attractive?
On a related note, the NYT article discusses waning faith and support among Afghan citizens for the Afghan government due to the blatant and rampant corruption. NATO, US and Afghan forces are struggling to establish security on behalf of a government that more and more people do not want. Foreign military forces may succeed in establishing security stability but the government will remain unappealing and the Taliban an attractive alternative. Security without an incentive does not create stability. Half of the equation is missing.
It is not clear what has to come first, development or security. The case of Afghanistan demonstrates, however, that it can be costly to try to find out.
No comments:
Post a Comment