by Patrick Appel
It is impossible for Britain and its allies to build an Afghan state. They have no clear picture of this promised state’, and such a thing could come only from an Afghan national movement, not as a gift from foreigners. Is a centralised state, in any case, an appropriate model for a mountainous country, with strong traditions of local self-government and autonomy, significant ethnic differences, but strong shared moral values? And even were stronger central institutions to emerge, would they assist Western national security objectives? Afghanistan is starting from a very low base: 30 years of investment might allow its army, police, civil service and economy to approach the levels of Pakistan. But Osama bin Laden is still in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. He chooses to be there precisely because Pakistan can be more assertive in its state sovereignty than Afghanistan and restricts US operations. From a narrow (and harsh) US national security perspective, a poor failed state could be easier to handle than a more developed one: Yemen is less threatening than Iran, Somalia than Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan than Pakistan.
For another view of Afghanistan and Pakistan, David Kilcullen is always worth reading.
(Photo: US Marine in Afghanistan/Joe Raedle/Getty)
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.