With the mission of eliminating Al-Qaeda having ended in failure, the United States changed its purpose in Afghanistan to nation building. This has come into conflict with their second original objective: ending Taliban rule. FULL ARTICLE by Jonathan M. Finegold Catalan
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/12228/nation-wrecking-in-afghanistan/
Nation Wrecking in Afghanistan
Previous post: A Prelude to Natural Philosophy
Next post: The American Revolution
{ 16 comments }
Quite so, however the author neglects a rather major point in that Afghanistan is now, more than ever, a zone of influence wrestled over by Pakistan, India, Iran and the US (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LC13Df01.html), even more so than before 2001. This does not bode well for any kind of stability whatsoever, with or without a central government.
“Letter to a Conservative Friend” — how to talk to conservatives about this (or any) “preemptive” war.
Yes, you are right. Stability in the hinterlands of Afghanistan will not come directly from Kabul. The solution is with the tribes. Take Loyal Paktika, for example. During the time the Nadir Shah and Zahir Shah, the central government did not try to rule the people of Paktika. The tribes were more than capable of doing it themselves. The King would simply call tribal leaders to Kabul every once in a while, check into the state of their affairs, give them some money, and send them on their way. Governing from Kabul is a product the Bonn Agreement, the progeny of the intellectual elites. Many over here know that Afghanistan will never have a central government capable of extending its reach to the tribal areas like Ajirestan and Barge Matal. Pakistan isn’t even capable of administering in its FATA, other than a 100 meters on either side of the road. Instead of turning to our roots, the intellectual elites turn to catch phrases like “fixing failed states.” Their illusions reinforced incestuously by those who have never lived among the people.
The Afghans embrace classical republicanism through their own ways. It is natural for them. Our failures in building governance in Afghanistan reflect the failure of Westerners to understand our own origins of Liberty.
Good article.
My personal view, based on logical deduction, is that any justification for any war is just a nice wrapper in which to put the bodies of innocent victims. Unfortunately this is not the claim of those who start wars or those who support them or justify them. It is also unfortunate that many people don’t have the time, energy, or necessary factual information to unwrap this nicely wrapped package. We often support, or simply fail to oppose, something that sounds good from the mouth of a politician, without being aware what it really entails. I have seen the suffering and death of the innocent who felt the military “humanitarianism,” and I fail to understand how one person’s misery can be justified by claiming it was a necessary means for preventing another person’s misery. Well, it can’t, but the “wrapper” in which this claim is packaged looks nice and shiny. And, we humans tend to like shiny things.
There are a number of misunderstandings about Louis XIV and his time. For example the old view, originally held by Saint-Simon (a blue blooded snob), that Louis XIV “emasculated” the French nobility to create a powerful central State, is plainly wrong. Louis couldn’t do without the large French noblesse to gather taxes, put down rebellions and, much more critical, recruit and lead his troops. He just took pains in avoiding the old excesses of the feudal period: to be honest he continued on the course set by Richelieu, Mazzarino and his father, Louis XIII. A country with over 100.000 nobles, most of them career military officers, couldn’t be turned into a central State by a king, who himself had many blood relatives among that same noblesse and who firmly believed in the importance of rank. The last thing any king wanted to do was to undermine the prestige of the nobility or blur class distinctions.
The France of the Grand Siecle cannot be used as a paragon for present day Afghanistan.
While I find no fault with the majority of this article, and come to the same conclusions as the author about US strategy in Afghanistan, it seems to me that the article is cut short from a discussion of the consequences of the strategy (or anti-strategy) Mr. Catalan advocates. Certainly less central government is the correct path to stability in Afghanistan, but how this is best achieved is certainly a matter of debate. The US toppled the obviously oppressive Taliban government, necessarily removing any structure an Afghan merchant class would be able to use to secure contracts and the like. The best course of action the US can take is to allow it’s volunteer military to provide security for the business interests in Afghanistan until a native force can accomplish this task. Peace in Afghanistan must remain a priority for those who advocate freedom, because with Afghanistan remaining in the hands of criminals, nobody can be free from daily fear of a repeat of their former actions.
Justin,
Fareed Zakaria wrote the following in an article published a long while ago in Newsweek:
Zakaria is referring to the late-2008 Israeli invasion of Gaza, but the quote is just as applicable to the current NATO occupation of Afghanistan. While it would be nice to believe that NATO forces can provide peace and stability—of course, at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer—it’s not clear whether this is true. You have to consider that NATO occupational forces are a major reason why there is still growing resistance and civil strife. It is also possible that NATO occupational forces and the continued destruction of property are driving the Afghans to side with their local warlords and Taliban forces.
With that said, I do not believe that a NATO occupation is the best method by which to secure a stable environment in Afghanistan, or at least provide the environment necessary for the growth of a middle class.
All considered, El Tonno—with the first comment on the blog—alludes to a very important fact. A NATO withdrawal will not lead to an immediate peace in Afghanistan. Afghanistan will be a long road, and prosperity will depend on a great deal of factors. There are plenty of other countries that have had centuries to introduce liberalism, and yet they have not—I think my native Spain is included. My intentions were not to lay down a roadmap to success in Afghanistan, because that would be impossible. The point of the article was only to illustrate why NATO forces should not consider themselves a part of any such roadmap, because despite being self-titled “peacekeepers” they do nothing but introduce a greater degree of uncertainty.
I think you allude to an important fact:
For all the tyranny the Taliban regime represented, there was a greater degree of certainty under them than there is today. Certainty, or at least relative certainty, is an important factor which leads to prosperity. The paradox is that even an oppressive regime such as the Taliban represents a greater opportunity for long-term prosperity, rather than the current situation where you have a world power fuel conflict by arming and negotiating with all the belligerents. The U.S., in other words, is fueling the civil war, not helping to end it.
I’m humbled every time I read a piece written by such young people like Mr. Catalan, whose thoughtful and careful analysis of such an important topic is greatly appreciated.
When I was your age in 1986, I skipped this sort of analysis entirely and instead dedicated myself to learning actual warfighting, not knowing the first thing about history, foreign policy, the US Constitution or anything else found on this wonderful treasure trove of Misean goodness.
Speaking of the US Constitution, I’m curious what your opinions are regarding our nation-building role…how that squares with Art I, Sec 8. I can only assume you’re not ok with it.
(No need to answer if too busy)
I’m sure that the U.S. Constitution was meant to be breached at certain points, although the original writers probably never imagined the U.S. as it is today. I don’t think that any of them that truly believed in liberalism would have supported the war in Afghanistan, given that it has absolutely nothing to do with our national defense. Indeed, the group that supposedly attacked us is now long-gone from Afghanistan.
To be honest, I don’t know too much on the U.S. Constitution, and never considered it a serious document in the sense of whether current government policies were in line with the Constitution. There is sufficient enough room for the U.S. Constitution to be breached, and irregardless it has become an obsolete document since today’s government really has no intention of reverting back to how the federal government when the country was first founded.
No, there are no longer enemies in Afghanistan, save for the Haqqani Network whose founder, Jalaluddin Haqqani, has had a close relationship with AQ since its founding in 1988. Just this week, Hussein al Yememni, a senior AQ leader, was killed in the FATA. The only way to realistically deny this sanctuary is to create a force capable of defending it’s sovereign territory. The ANA is close, and the commandos are closer.
Once we save the world by killing all the bad guys, we can focus on living in peace and prosperity. Too bad that the “bad guys” think the same about us.
“Lacuna”?
It means “gap”. I learned it from Murray Rothbard.
Iraq was one of the wealthiest and best educated countries in the Arab world before US interference began with the first Gulf War. (and before with US and Israel meddling to promote and expand war with Iran.)
And why should we need to go back to Louis the 14th to make excuses for rapacious US imperial capitalism.
They Hate Us Because We’re Free:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/photos/;kw=8664,35690
Hmm, link doesn’t work. My sardonic joke is Rihanna riding a pink cannon in the third picture scrolled: Robert Downy Jr., Jimi Hendrix, Rihanna.
Comments on this entry are closed.