You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Afghanistan
US general: ’West is failing Afghans’
2003-03-23
As American and British cruise missiles create havoc in Baghdad, a US general has accused the West of failing to do enough to rebuild the last country visited by President Bush's military — Afghanistan. His remarks come amid widespread fury in the international community over the US-British invasion of Iraq, coupled with concern that the onslaught began before adequate preparations had been made for a possible humanitarian crisis.
A crisis that so far hasn't materialized.
The chief of the US forces in Afghanistan, Lt-Gen Dan McNeill, said he was "frustrated" that the West had "not made a more bold step" to rebuild Afghanistan, adding that this could be an important lesson for Iraq. The US search for al-Qa'ida and the Taliban would have been easier if the aid had flowed faster, he said.
I'm sure the French are right there with all sorts of aid. They wouldn't fail, now, would they?
His remarks echo the worries of many in Afghanistan's capital city of Kabul, ranging from international aid workers to officials in the unstable transitional government of President Hamid Karzai. Fears abound that the war in Iraq, and its aftermath, will mean that international support falls away.
What will make international support fall away will be the imposition of an Islamist system on the country, rather than paying any attention to fostering individual liberties. Since that seems to be what's going on in fact, I can't see rebuilding Afghanistan so it can be Iran as being at the top of our list of priorities anymore. They've had their chance, they're well along in the process of blowing it.
Although the US has repeatedly portrayed post-war Afghanistan as a success story, frustration has been steadily growing on the ground over the slow pace of reconstruction, which in many cases has scarcely begun. General McNeill — who commands 10,500 troops in Afghanistan, of whom 8,500 are American — said that foreign aid had helped avert a humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, but some countries had not fulfilled subsequent aid promises. Speaking at Bagram air base outside Kabul, he said: "What is needed now is an overstep by the international community towards reconstruction. Clearly there is a lesson to be learnt for those who have responsibility for other conflicts and post-conflict situations."
The lesson is, keep a close eye on the Islamists, because they're going to try and take over as soon as you've taken the boot from their collective neck.
The rebuilding of Afghanistan, after a quarter of a century of conflict, has been plagued by squabbles between the US military and international aid agencies, by continuing violence, and by the new government's lack of security control over most of the country. In most of Afghanistan, fundamental components of the infrastructure — health services, power supplies, communications, education, security services and a road network — are either rudimentary or missing altogether.
All true, but the country is slowly pulling itself together.
Funds for reconstruction have been been a problem from the early stages. A year ago, the World Bank estimated that $10.2bn (£6.5bn) would be needed over the following five years, but international pledges were for about half that sum. According to a recent report by Care International, the per capita spending of aid money in Afghanistan last year was well under half that of post-conflict Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda and East Timor. Despite his criticisms, Lt-Gen McNeill said that the US military's mission was "going very well". In the run-up to the start of the Iraq invasion, there had been feverish media reports that the net was closing in on Osama bin Laden. But the general said he had "no compelling evidence" either way to suggest that Osama bin Laden was dead or alive. He spoke as his forces were involved in their largest operation for more than a year, hunting through villages and mountains of south-eastern Afghanistan. Their mission has grown beyond a man-hunt for Bin Laden, al-Qa'ida and Taliban elements to encompass other armed elements — such as those led by the warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. It has been complicated by growing opposition to the US military presence, coupled with attacks aimed at destabilising the Karzai government and spoiling efforts to build an Afghan national army.
That would be the afore-mentioned Hek.
Along with our good friends the Pakistanis...
There was more evidence of this yesterday. Police officials yesterday said that three Afghan soldiers were killed and four kidnapped in pre-dawn attacks on security checkpoints near Spin Boldak in eastern Afghanistan.
Hek again. Perhaps someone should send him a cell phone and instructions on when to turn it on.
Posted by:Steve White

#6  Humanitarinism Inc. bitching about their money? Jeez, I've NEVER heard that before. As they say on the Big Dig up here, "Don't kill the job."
Posted by: tu3031   2003-03-23 22:07:20  

#5  This shows that, whilst we ought not to impede "charitable" NGOs in any way (beyond telling their field workers, "It's really not safe out there; go at your own risk"), neither ought we to use them or depend on them to distribute aid.

As for the political situation in Afghanistan, allowing its creation was a grave error on the part of the U.S.; Afghan are simply not well-indoctrinated enough to accept a highly centralized regime. A loose federation formally recognizing the warlords and tribal chieftains (similar to medieval England) would have been better. Hopefully, we will not repeat this same error in Iraq.
Posted by: John   2003-03-23 14:15:11  

#4  Part of the problem with the NGO aid groups is an ongoing one. They understandably do not want to move around and work under the flags of non-Moslem nations (especially the US) for fear of being accused of being an arm of those governments, while the various military groups are fearful that the aid groups may get into trouble (even killed) and the military will be blamed for not protecting them.
Posted by: John Anderson   2003-03-23 12:48:42  

#3  LOL @ El Id

Posted by: g wiz   2003-03-23 08:30:54  

#2  It's pretty sad that this sort of piece can be taken for journalism. Surely any investigation about what's happening in Afghanistan should involve going to Afghanistan and finding out, not rely on second hand statements, probably taken out of context.

For example the sentence: "Frustration has been steadily growing on the ground over the slow pace of reconstruction". Frustration by whom? Aid organisations? Afghanis?
Posted by: A   2003-03-23 05:20:52  

#1  It's the Independent.They'll be writing like this in twenty years time:"Afghanistan Still Not Like Beverly Hills,What Went Wrong?"
Posted by: El Id   2003-03-23 03:27:28  

00:00