----- Original Message ----- From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 1:21 PM Subject: Re: Numbers on the rebuilding of Afghanistan
> At 10:37 PM 5/15/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: > >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. > > As evidenced, of course, by our track record in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, > and the FYR Macedonia. What is common in all three? Clinton. He was a masterful politician who was able to work out an arrangement where the US's efforts could continue. In other words, he was skilled enough to go against type. Bush, if you recall, didn't think much of this effort and was interested in pulling out as soon as he was in office. The Europeans and Powell had to argue long and hard to change his mind. He does deserve some credit for changing his mind, but the fact that it took effort to do so indicates America's natural tendency. > >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.) > > This just in, "Building Afghanistan" (note "rebuilding" is hardly > appropriate in this case) is going to be long and difficult. Film at > Eleven. Actually, rebuilding is appropriate because they have not gotten back to the pre-war levels. (By pre-war I mean before 1979). It will, indeed, take long and dedicated effort, and we're already reducing the resources committed to the effort. 25 years ago, the economy and the infrastructure was is far better shape than it is now. > I don't know if *you* thought that a country with almost no infrastructure > and no industry to speak of would be able to resist the allure of the drug > trade in a way in which, say, Bolivia has not - but I was certainly under > no such illusions. What I thought was that, since the drug trade was already out, we were in a position to keep it from being the main source of rural income. That's one thing that money can do. Its not that I didn't expect poppy cultivation to increase. I just thought we could keep it from providing over 50% of rural income. "He who pays the piper calls the tune." The drug trade is more important to the people of rural Afganistan than the aid provided by the US. I would have thought that there were ways for us to be better involved. > I also don't know if *you* thought that tha the > Taliban, the warlords, Al Qaeda, and other assorted Islamo-fascists would > simplyfade into the mountains and let Afghanistans transition to democracy > be peaceful in a way in which, say, elections in India and Pakistan are not > - but I was certainly under no such illusions. No, but I thought that a central government and the international peacekeeps would control more than the capital after 2 1/2 years. When do you think it would be reasonable to expect security to be provided throughout the country? After 10 years? > Lastly, it is classic liberal thinking to define the success of an effort > in terms of the dollars being spent. I udnerstand that the goal of the > study - and it is essentially a laudable goal - is to try and get as much > aid sent to Afghanistan as possible. Nevertheless, despite the nittering > nabobs of negativity President Bush's foreign policy has done more to bring > more freedom and development to more people of the world than any President > since FDR. For that he should be lauded. What freedom and liberty. I'll agree that Kabul has freedom and liberty. The rest of Afghanistan is probably better off being ruled by warlords than the Taliban, but I would not call it freedom and liberty. Iraq is quickly falling apart, as a result of horrendous mismanagement. Have you looked at the change in Al Sadir's poll numbers? Freedom is not brought to a country until the people are actually secure and free. Our armed forces did not make them free; they overturned ruthless dictatorships and improved the possibilities for freedom. The rest of the work is not merely icing on the cake as you earlier stated: its the cake. Dan M. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
