A Times article on security in Afghanistan here
And another article on political institution building, security and corruption here
A couple notes:
1. Instability and Elections - as the articles discuss, if NATO forces can not provide sufficient security, the Afghan election committee will have close some rural polling stations for next Saturday's Parliamentary election. With a large portion of Afghanistan's population living in those rural areas, this exposes the election to claims of fraud and coercion. The investment-security argument may be complex but there is a direct cost politically for contested state rule in Afghanistan. Legitimate elections could improve the government's image among it citizens but that is currently in jeopardy.
2. The cost of corruption -Again, a goal on par with providing security in Afghanistan is creating a government that Afghans actually want. The current one is plagued by corruption which either makes citizens indifferent between the state and the Taliban or drives them to the Taliban.
3. Winning and Losing - What does winning look like for NATO forces? The eradication of the Taliban and delivering a secure and stable Afghan state. What does winning look like for the Taliban? Not losing. To accomplish its goals (whatever they may be), the Taliban simply has to survive. It does not have to build a comprehensive infrastructure or eject NATO forces from the country, it just has to stay around long enough to erode NATO's will to be in Afghanistan. This is true of almost insurgencies that pressure of military victory only falls on the state. Time is on the side of the Taliban.
No comments:
Post a Comment