Getting it exactly backwards on Afghanistan
MA student Josh Loh discusses why our strategy in Afghanistan that focuses on government at the national-level is wrong-headed at the democratic piece. According to Loh, counter-insurgency theory suggests building capacity from the bottom-up, not the top-down.
2 Comments
Leave a comment
Sign up for our mailing list
Posts by Region
Posts by Topic
Recent Comments
Archives
- February 2012 (5)
- January 2012 (13)
- December 2011 (10)
- November 2011 (14)
- October 2011 (19)
- September 2011 (25)
- August 2011 (10)
- July 2011 (16)
- June 2011 (14)
- May 2011 (14)
- April 2011 (16)
- March 2011 (20)
- February 2011 (15)
- January 2011 (24)
- December 2010 (16)
- November 2010 (24)
- October 2010 (27)
- September 2010 (17)
- August 2010 (42)
- July 2010 (40)
- June 2010 (65)
- May 2010 (72)
- April 2010 (38)
- March 2010 (18)
- February 2010 (32)
- January 2010 (46)
- December 2009 (45)
- November 2009 (38)
- October 2009 (15)
- September 2009 (24)
- August 2009 (11)
- February 2009 (1)
Who we like
- AfPak Channel
- CIPE Blog
- Countries at the Crossroads
- Cyrus Samii
- Democracy Arsenal
- Democracy Dialogue
- Democracy Digest
- Democracy Resource Center
- EITI Blog
- ElectionGuide.org
- Fruits and Votes
- Global Voices Online
- One Blog
- Open Budgets Blog
- Open Democracy
- Policy and Power
- Progressive Realist
- Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Blogs
- Space for Transparency
- The Coming Prosperity
- The Democratic Piece
- The International Jurist
- The Kaufmann Governance Post
- United Nations Democracy Fund
- Zunia.org
Josh is probably right, all else being equal, to advise holding local elections before national ones. In the context of US Afghanistan policy, however, this prescription suffers from a political obstacle.
The premise of our occupation is that it’s really not an occupation. We are ostensibly there to replace Taliban rule with popular government.
Telling Afghans that they can’t elect national leaders until they are ready (i.e. until local elections sufficiently confer incumbent advantage on aspirants to national office) is contrary to our stated mission. How does one limit self-government when one occupies a country to defend self-government?
*aspirants with acceptable democratic credentials, that is.