Dan Brumberg on Afghanistan

Dan Brumberg, Co-Director of the Democracy and Governance Program at Georgetown University and Acting Director of the Muslim World Initiative at the United States Institute of Peace, argues that the US faces a no-win situation in Afghanistan as more US troops alone is not sufficient to defeat the Taliban:

the battle against the Taliban cannot be won by American (or other Western) soldiers and pilots…there must be a political solution that unites all factions behind a government widely seen as both effective and legitimate.

Brumberg contends that Afghani leaders, especially President Karzai, have not been serious about addressing these issues.  He concludes:

This may be a no-win situation…we cannot stay but we cannot go. This is the great conundrum that President Obama faces as its pulls U.S. troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan.

Not all agree with Brumberg’s conclusion that we cannot leave.  As I wrote in a recent post, knowledgeable people on Afghanistan are beginning to suggest that US interests do not require that we defeat the Taliban.  See, for example, discussions at Abu Muqawama and Democracy Arsenal.

A Closer Look at US D&G Funding

In a recent post, I discussed how pleased I was to see that the Obama administration is asking for a sizable increase for Democracy and Governance (D&G) programs in its 2010 budget request.  Since then I have taken a closer look at the numbers to get a sense of what they tell us about the priorities of the administration in this area.  There is some good news and some less than good news.

First the less than good news.  D&G funding is overwhelmingly and increasingly concentrated in a small number of countries in conflict.  Just over 50% of all D&G funding goes to four countries, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Sudan, and one-fourth of the requested increase is for these countries. The governance challenges these countries face suggest that D&G programs in them face a high likelihood of failure.  As one might infer from my recent post on Afghanistan, D&G programs are unlikely to be successful in a country where soldiers openly and publicly demand bribes from foreign election observers on election day while neglecting their duty to provide security.

At the same time, there is some good news.  The administration is increasing funding for a number of countries where democratic institutions are functioning, but where democratic consolidation is not yet certain (and in some cases where serious backsliding is occurring), specifically Bangladesh, Bolivia, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Lebanon, Liberia, Serbia, Nigeria, Nicaragua, Serbia, and Ukraine.  I am very pleased to see funding increases in these countries as D&G programs are likely to be most successful in countries where governments are trying to govern democratically and/or where pressure forces them to do so.  Greater funding for these countries amounts to almost one-third of the total requested increase.  Nevertheless, total D&G funding for these countries is only about 10% of global D&G funding and only 20% of the amount for Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Sudan.

In sum, we are far from using D&G funds in their most productive way.  While D&G programs can help stabilize a country in a post-conflict environment, they are no substitute for security.  In my opinion, concentrating funds in countries where security is the main challenge is a questionable policy.

Senator Edward (Ted) M. Kennedy

From the New York Times

Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, a son of one of the most storied families in American politics, a man who knew triumph and tragedy in near-equal measure and who will be remembered as one of the most effective lawmakers in the history of the Senate, died late Tuesday night. He was 77…

President Obama issued a statement acknowledging Mr. Kennedy’s accomplishments. “An important chapter in our history has come to an end,” the statement said. “Our country has lost a great leader, who picked up the torch of his fallen brothers and became the greatest United States senator of our time.”

Well said.

Hillary blames the Kenyans

Although this is a few days old, I think it is very worthwhile to take a detailed look at Hillary Clinton’s remarks from her “Townterview” at the University of Nairobi on August 6.  You can find the entire transcript of the event from the State Department’s website.  The most interesting part of the program from my perspective was how Secretary Clinton discussed the much-disputed Kenyan 2007 Presidential election.  I won’t go into the details; you can read about them here and here.  The basic point is that there is a significant amount of evidence to suggest that the US Embassy in Nairobi deliberately suppressed evidence that the election was not free and fair.  Rather than countenance that the US had any role in helping Kibaki prevail in the election, Secretary Clinton blamed the Kenyan people for the outcome.  Consider the following remarks:

…no one can reform a government from the outside. It takes the people of the country and particularly the role that civil society and the private sector played in trying to deal with the aftermath of the election. So yes, I mean, we can encourage, we can lecture, we can offer assistance, we can try to highlight good practices. But it has to be done by the people of Kenya.

…it is not only our policy, but it is our intent to do everything we can to ensure as free and fair elections as possible.

…it is not up to the United States…we cannot dictate to you who you have in your government. You have to determine how to influence and change this government, and do not be deterred by the difficulty of it.

…So it is my hope that those of you who are pushing for reform, keep thinking about ways of putting the right kinds of pressure to bear on those in power.

Now, to be clear, I do not hold Secretary Clinton responsible for the role of the US in allowing President Kibaki to prevail in the flawed election.  It took place when the Bush administration was in power and before Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State.  But to blame the Kenyan people for not doing their part to ensure the election was free and fair while the US Government has never come clean with it’s own role in suppressing evidence of rigging seems a bit much to stomach.

Daniel Kaufmann sums up the situation nicely from my perspective:

it is no secret that the US embassy in Nairobi, alongside some key international donor agencies, committed major mis-steps around the time of the ill-fated elections in late 2007.   In spite of their glaring biases and policy mishaps, the US, UK and the World Bank have largely been ’silent witnesses’ regarding what transpired on their own roles and actions at the time.

Indeed.