In President Obama's speech Tuesday night on Afghanistan, he laid out three strategies:
First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.<...>
Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.<...>
Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.
In my reading, I have seen a lot of words devoted to the first and third strategy, but not much about the second. Here is what Obama said about it Tuesday night.
This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas -- such as agriculture -- that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
This part of the plan is most often referred to as a "bottom-up" strategy. Tracy Rubin, who writes for the Philadelphia Enquirer, puts it this way.
One of the main critiques of President Obama's new plan for Afghanistan is that it depends on the whims of President Hamid Karzai, and his cabal in Kabul.
Why send more American troops, this argument goes, if Afghan government corruption continues to fuel the insurgency?<...>
Having just returned from Afghanistan, I believe the administration can circumvent Karzai. Obama suggested as much in his speech, but few noticed his point.<...>
In other words, U.S. officials will pursue a bottom-up strategy of assisting effective ministers, provincial governors, and local officials who deliver services to the people. And they will press Karzai to appoint more such officials in his second term.
Rubin goes on to talk about officials like Gulab Mangal, Governor of Helmand province, whose work has resulted in a drop of poppy production by a third over the last year. And Mohammed Ehsan Zia, the minister of rural rehabilitation and development, who has established local community development councils that select development projects which are funded by international aid.
Deepa Narayan, director of the Moving Out of Poverty Project with the Global Development Network, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times last month in which she championed just this type of bottom-up approach and the use of these local community development councils.
More than 19 million people have participated in a community planning and budgeting process to decide how to best use government grants of around $30,000 per village. In a community in Kabul Province that was layered with 12,000 land mines, without a single standing building in 2002, the men decided to invest funds in reviving irrigation canals, and the women in electricity generators. Men in the village told us that animosities between the Tajiks and the Pashtuns had eroded as a result of the collective budgeting negotiations.
No central agency in Kabul can ever know the priority needs of people in every Afghan village. Unity cannot be delivered from the top. But when local leaders, engaged in the nitty-gritty of local policymaking, practice fairness and inclusion, the people follow. A weak state cannot be made strong overnight. But it can set up the systems that catalyze strong local communities.
In comments to other diaries here about Afghanistan, I have expressed my own ambivalence about Obama's plans to escalate troops. I continue to have very serious questions about that part of the plan. But this part seems significant to me as well. And to the extent this kind of development is possible, I support it 100%.