Skip to main content

It isn't State-Building, It's Deflating an Insurgency

The former Commander of US Forces in Afghanistan, General Karl Eikenberry, Vice President Joe Biden, and now even Time Magazine agree: 70 percent of the Afghan men fight for the Taliban not for reasons of religion, or even against the occupation, but for the wages the Taliban pays so they can feed their families. Afghanistan is a desperately poor land with 50% unemployment.  This seems an extremely poor reason for us to be fighting a war.  Most of them don't hate us (yet,) they don't even especially want us out, at least right now.  They attack because they get paid for it and their children are starving.

I had my file folder of Powerpoint charts and plans for an alternative way to win this war ready to hand to General David Petraeus as I raced to the Kennedy School Forum at Harvard, upon hearing he was speaking in my neck of the woods yesterday.  I didn't have a ticket for the event so I never managed to even get near him.  What I did witness was the extraordinary spectacle, through the peek I had through the doors, of a Scottish bagpipe band preceding his entrance and a full-blown rendition, by a hired singer, of the Star Spangled Banner.

Does even Obama get this treatment at what amounts to a town hall meeting?  Hail Maximus.

The devil is in the details.  With broad agreement that we are walking into what every indicator says will be a quagmire, where soon plenty more young Afghan men will be fighting because they do actually hate us, is it possible to do anything to lure them away from the Taliban with hope and jobs?  After witnessing the inevitable civilian casualties and the unsporting fire-power of F-16s and C-130 gunships against AK-47s and rocket launchers, it's a sure bet that hostilities will harden.  It's like watching a train wreck approaching which you can do nothing about.  It can never stop in time, and there are no switches to divert it.

But are there?  Will anyone see it and lunge, to divert the train wreck?

Time Magazine:

valley elder Sham Sher Khan, [says] the way to counter the insurgency hasn't changed..."The Taliban say they are fighting because there are Americans here and it's a jihad. But the fact is, they aren't fighting for religion. They are fighting for money," he says. "If they had jobs, they would stop fighting."

The prevailing wisdom is that the country is rife with corruption.  We hear that money never makes it to the little guy.  So the question is, is there a program which can circumvent this?  

The metaphor I like to use is a physicist's "wormholes" through space.  There are vast distances between suns, but there may be "wormholes," bends in space, which are in essence short cuts which may make intersteller travel possible.  In this case the vast distances are the many layers of corrupt bureaucracy, inside the country and out, which prevents all but a trickle of reconstruction aid reaching the people who need it most.  

It should be noted that the biggest corruption takes place outside the country, where contractors like Louis Berger (schools, roads) skim off huge profits from cost-plus contracts before a dime ever reaches Afghans.

The solution, the track switch, the wormhole, is cash-for-work jobs programs, an innovation in Third World development tool which has been proven over time.  They are administered by humanitarian organizations like Oxfam (called NGOs, non-governmental organizations), local government authorities, and US agencies like USAID.  

Cash-for-work programs have already made a huge difference in some communities in Afghanistan, including in Jawzjan Province, Uruzgan, and Balkh Province.  The work involves basic infrastructure improvement like clearing canals, clearing irrigation waterways, building stone wall boundaries, and basic improvements of unsurfaced roads, which is most of the roads in Afghanistan.  There is no shortage of this kind of work, as most of the rubble lays right where it fell right after the Russians bombed it.  

The aim of cash-for-work programs, which have also been piloted in many other countries is to put hard cash into the hands of workers at the end of a day of labor.  They are easy to monitor, since little capital equipment is required much larger than hand-tools, and one can easily count heads at a worksite to see if the money is being spent properly.  The cash-for-work solution is ridiculously cost-effective.  The Taliban's recruiting pool could be greatly soaked up by spending what we spend on military operations in 2 months.    This would keep potential Taliban "off the street" for a year.  Pay $10 a day and these guys will do anything.  The Taliban pays $8.

Also, these kinds of simple projects like canal-clearing and ditch digging are not structures the Taliban can destroy right after they are built.  You can't blow up a ditch.

The time has come to take what works in Afghanistan and put it on steroids.  Cash-for-work should be the core around which the new military mission is built.  

General Petraeus is known for being innovative and a thinker outside of the box.  Post-surge, resurgent Taliban Afghanistan will be his greatest test.  Fortunately, many thinkers and brave humanitarian workers came before him to pave the way, at risk of life and limb.  They were soldiers too.  They and the general know that no one hates war like a soldier.

Obama warns us against extending our ambitions to "state building" rather than the sensible goal of simply defeating the insurgency.  Cash-for-work is not state-building.  It is deflating the insurgency.  

If real reconstruction is to have a chance, if the patient is to be saved, first the bleeding of young men into the arms of the Taliban must be staunched.  The question is whether the political will can be generated to make cash-for-work big enough, fast enough, to stop the train wreck.  Brave American soldiers like Capt. Sean Dynan are doing an outstanding job on the village level, sitting with tribal elders and asking, as Capt. Dynan did in July 2008: "We know many faces have come through here over 30 years...the question we have to answer to you is how we are different."

It is time for those who walk in to "Hail to the Chief" and bagpipe bands to show this graveyard of empires "how we are different."

Ralph is the co-founder of Jobs for Afghans.

Please circulate and forward this post to your congressmember and to the White House.

Originally posted to Ralph Lopez on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 09:00 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Great analysis. Thanks for diary. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nightprowlkitty, Obamican08

    The MIC just wants SUSTAINABLE wars.  Winning is for suckers because it dries up demand for their "industrial" arm.  So look forward to the long slog...and lots more silliness from Betrayus.  

    So...your completely rational solution would be dead on arrival.  Sure it would benefit the USA and Afghanistan...but, it clashes with the interests of the MIC which the C-i-C and Betrayus serve.  

    The "complex" wing (the media) would ridicule such rational solutions.  You are "serious" only if you advocate military force...while "deeply regretting" the inevitable "collateral damage."

  •  The financial calculus of the MIC does not allow (0+ / 0-)

    for sensible approaches like this.

    Sure, we could pacify Afghanistan for 1/6th of the price of maintaining a full-blown military presence but where's the profit and career opportunity in that for contractors and the military?

    True civic works projects - untainted by the military influence - will never see the light of day.

  •  Civic Action Platoons, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Provincial Reconstruction Teams, a lot could work.  Things are done better at lower levels as the authors of The Ugly American noted 50+ years ago.  (The actual ugly guy was a hero, by the way.)

    •  true they run court fairer than the gov's (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      John Minehan

      highest bidder system.  I'm not sure that alone would be enough to fire  RPGs at government and American troops.  The money does that.  I have written extensively on dovetailing these plans with the military mission, taking a page from what Russian generals say, which is do not try to beat these people militarily, you will lose, take it from us.

      I believed as sincerely as American officers do now that we were fighting there to help make our country safer," said Grachev, who later became defense minister and sent in Russian units to quell Chechnya during the 1990s, a campaign that also ended in disaster. "After the war, as a politician, I could see this war had been pointless."

      That said, Grachev offered some advice: Post soldiers to guard road projects and irrigation systems, and send in an army of engineers, doctors, mining experts and construction advisers.

      Pouring billions of dollars into infrastructure would be a lot more productive than firefights in far-flung villages, he said.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site