On April 20, my posting was on the Revolution of Rising Expectations (RRE), described as a l950s-70s phrase "to explain the outlook in colonial and post-colonial countries as the population looked to a brighter future." It seems that we can now reformulate RRE to ELE, the Evolution of Lowered Expectations. We see ELE in this country, reflecting a view among many that the Great Recession has put our economy in a deep hole and when we finally get out, we will have a different world of less prosperity and an uncertain and perhaps dimmer future. But this posting about ELE is not about our economy and our future prospects, but about our expectations beyond our shoreline, specifically Afghanistan but perhaps elsewhere also.
The ELE way of thinking was stated most succinctly by Ryan Crocker in his hearing last week before a Senate committee considering his confirmation as the new U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. In his testimony he stated that the U.S. must continue its very large aid program to Afghanistan to achieve a "good enough" government, meaning to keep that country from returning to its former role as a home for al-Qaeda or other terrorists. Put that way, Crocker's testimony seemed to allow for a political settlement with the Taliban, a major target of our military action. So over the 10 years of our war in Afghanistan our grand goal of nation building to establish democracy in that historically very non-democratic country has evolved into a cross-your-fingers hope that we can even get a "good enough" government in Kabul to prevent its returning to being a haven for terrorists.
Nation building as a goal of American foreign/military policy reached its most recent zenith with the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to overthrow dictator Saddam Hussein and to implant democracy in the middle of the Muslim Mideast. As envisioned by the Bush administration, the democratic impulse would then spread from Iraq to other countries in the region. A similar hope accompanied the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 to overthrow the tyranny of the Taliban which was also hosting Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorists.
By the time President Obama took office we had abandoned the nation building goal, but beyond defeating the Taliban it was not clear if we had a level of expectation for the Afghan government for any democratic structure and its ability to govern. Presuming that Crocker's statement approximates Obama policy, we will now settle for a "good enough" government. But even that may be difficult to achieve.
If the Karzai government, with some democratic trappings such as elections however corrupt, is the basic building block for achieving "good enough", we may find ourselves greatly disappointed. Several previous postings have focused on the corruption of the Karzai government, corruption which was noted in a Senate report last week that focused on the $19 billion in aid going to Afghanistan over the last 10 years. Presumably the "good enough" standard doesn't include an expectation of even reasonably clean government, only that it be sufficiently capable of providing its own security and keeping a new generation of terrorists out of the country. For that we can continue to live with the corruption in the government as we have been accepting and helping to finance that corruption for the last 10 years.
If "good enough" means reasonable political stability, there are also many challenges ahead, particularly if any political settlement to end the war includes some form of governing participation of the Taliban. Historically Afghanistan has been a country fragmented by tribal/ethnic divisions that permitted local war lords to control their piece of territory. These divisions have not disappeared and contribute to the fact that control by Karzai's government does not extend much beyond Kabul. Any expansion of security and control is tied to the presence of U.S./NATO troops. Nothing has occurred that is converting these tribal/ethnic loyalties into any sense of national identity which underpins political stability, such stability being at least one element of achieving "good enough". Further, Pakistan, which has been a key backer of the Taliban past and present, has little interest in the emergence of a unifying national identity that would undermine its ability to interfere in the governance of Afghanistan.
Finally, with the beginning of troop withdrawals this summer to be concluded by 2014, there is reason to be skeptical that the modest "good enough" goal can be achieved by that time. In continuing aid beyond the military withdrawal, that would at least be a change of course from the l990s when we more or less abandoned Afghanistan after we had succeeded in achieving the goal of ousting the Russians. The final question: is there an ELE standard below "good enough"?
It seems like we continue to nation build if we're going to continue to shore up Afghanistan. $19 billion in the last ten years and all there is to show for it a corrupt Karzai government that is really not our friend. And what happens when NATO and the US pull out has always troubled me especially given the factionalization of that country. We are shoring up a good enough, corrupt Karzai government that doesn't even control the whole of Afghanistan and the different divisions. So if good enough means political stability I don't see how we can achieve that supporting the Karzai government, but I also realize there aren't any other options at this point.
ReplyDeleteThe situtation is the Middle East is looking really unstable. We don't know what is going to happen in Egypt and latest reports I've seen about Turkey becoming friendly with Iran are really worrisome.
Mountain Man
ReplyDeleteFor Karzai and what is happening in Afghanistan, I would resort to a quote I have used on a few occasions in the past: "The existence of a problem does not presume the existence of a solution." In one or two postings I have referred to Karzai as an SOB; there is no reason to change my mind. But our walking away from Afghanistan after the Russians left is often seen as having opened the way for the Taliban to gain control and I guess we'll keep dumping money there so it won't look like we're walking away again.
Right now it looks like everyone is scrambling to find out if there are any parts of the Taliban that have sufficient clout and that would be willing to discuss a political settlement. As an alternative, that is a bit scarey but it looks like the only way out since a military solution is not going to happen. Karzai was just in Pakistan and the latter says it will try to stop Taliban aggression into Afghanistan but counting on Pakistan to do so is a weak reed to lean on.
You've got it right about things looking unstable in the Middle East. Also in the larger Arab world. Guess we will get our first clue on how things may be going when Egypt holds its election this fall but even that will only give us an idea of who the significant players are. After that comes the maneuvering for control.
Guess I'm more pro-Turkey than you. It is true that Turkey has been dealing with the bad guys on the block but to me that's a plus. Turkey has growing clout in the region and someone has to play the role of engaging with the bad guys in hopes of making them play nicer. Certainly we can't play such a role and Turkey has shown itself to be a stable democratic nation with whom we are friends. One key to Turkey's success is to be sure that it is perceived to be acting independently of the U.S. and is not just our spear carrier.