----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Tarr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:42 PM Subject: Re: Numbers on the rebuilding of Afghanistan
> At 02:37 PM 5/15/2004, you wrote: > > >At > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/13/business/13scene.html > > > >There was a report detailing how limited the effort in rebuilding > >Afganistan has been. The claim here is that the donations to Afganistan > >has been substantially lower than other recent aid efforts. > > > ><quote> > >Here is the dismal record so far. Financial aid to Afghanistan, measured > >per capita, has been far lower than for any other nation recently during a > >period of rebuilding after a conflict. According to the Center on > >International Cooperation at New York University, aid to Afghanistan for > >2002 and well into 2003 was only $67 annually for each man, woman and > >child. > > > >During its recovery from war, Kosovo received more than 10 times that - > >$814 a year per capita over several years. And Palestine received $219 a > >year per person in the second half of the 1990's, three times the amount > >for Afghanistan. > > > >Even Haiti received more aid per capita, some $74, in the three years of > >its post-conflict reconstruction. Rwanda received $114 a person in annual > >aid from 1994 to 1996. And those two countries are considered classic > >examples of neglect, said Barnett Rubin, who, with several colleagues, put > >together the center's study on Afghanistan. > > > >One consequence of the slow start in Afghanistan is that opium production > >and drug trafficking have easily become the most important sources of > >income. The United Nations estimates that a poppy farmer earns more than > >$2,500 a year, compared with $670 for other farmers. As a result, about a > >quarter of all Afghan farmland is devoted to poppy cultivation. > > > >In the meantime, security is increasingly difficult to maintain. As > >Afghanistan prepares for elections later this year, the American government > >reports that attacks by the Taliban have risen to their highest levels > >since its collapse more than two years ago. And many attacks are directed > >against aid workers. > > > ><end quote> > > > >It appears that Bush et. al. things that a military victory is 95% of the > >solution, with nation building being no more than icing on the cake. > >Unless these numbers are proven wrong, our policy in Afganistan is > >remarkably short sighted. From what I've seen, while better than Iraq, > >there is not much that indicates a good plan for a long term solution. > > > >Dan M. > > Come on, what a fucking poor method to scratch out a way to blame President > Bush. The population of Afghanistan is four times that of Rwanda and Haiti > and probably ten times Kosovo. The country is 25 times the size of the > other ones. > Did the war affect every man women and child in the country? I wouldn't > argue a person who said yes, but on the same level that the weather effects > everyone in a country. (A large country). Some are effected badly, some > profit in some manner but most it has no effect over. The point I have consistantly made is that, in order to achieve our stated goal for the Mid-East, we actually have to be seen making obvious positive improvements in the countries we intervene in. Afganistan was a good place to start. There was general support before and after the war, and there were few questions concerning why we went in. The US has gotten the reputation of ADD in foreign affairs. We're good at getting in and out, and bad at the long detailed needed in nation building. In the war agains terrorism, we needed to turn Afgainstan into a country that was hostile to terrorists. Instead, 2.5 years later, we have a country that is mostly controlled by warlords, where illegal drug trade is clearly the best chance farmers have to make any money at all, and that is slowly recovering. We are spending less on rebuilding Afgainstan in a year than we are spending in Iraq in a week. (We are probably spending a significantly greater amount on our military presence.) I'm not talking about an obligation for fixing the damage caused by our attack. I'm talking about our own enlightened self interest. The strongest proponents of intervention in Afgainstan on this list were talking about the importance of transforming it for the better afterwards. I agree/agreed with that, but didn't expect Bush to actually think much about that afterwards. I'm afraid I was right. The arguement was raised that we were spending at a reasonable pace. The first year, there was some basis for that arguement. But, now, we should be able to increase the practical payments as we set up the infrastructure. It isn't happening. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
