| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| The US-Afghan Aid Disconnect |
| 2008-12-26 |
| Nearly every observer of Afghanistan agrees that stability in that country demands a multipronged approach involving the military, diplomatic efforts and economic assistance. Having spent nearly the past five years as the senior career officer responsible for U.S. economic assistance to Afghanistan, I agree with those in the military who have said that 80 percent of the struggle for Afghanistan is about reconstruction and sustainable economic development and only 20 percent about military operations. In the face of a heightened Taliban insurgency, the U.S. military has changed its tactics. But if civilian U.S. agencies do not change the ways they deliver economic assistance, they jeopardize their chances for success and risk alienating the Afghan people. The principal provider of U.S. economic assistance, the U.S. Agency for International Development, is severely constrained in Afghanistan by security rules that tolerate no risk for our Foreign Service officers. They are rarely allowed outside the fortress-like U.S. Embassy in Kabul. When they get out, to attend a meeting or visit the site of a project financed by USAID, they are often surrounded by heavily armed security personnel who make it virtually impossible to interact with the Afghan people they are helping. The "no risk" approach is harming America's image. After the 2005 earthquake in northern Pakistan, the people in the affected region changed their attitude about America when they got to know the aid workers, who were there day after day. But when Afghans see civilian American aid workers coming, surrounded by security contractor "shooters," they stay away. The situation is no better with most of the provincial reconstruction teams, which depend on NATO forces for security. On a visit to Farah province in western Afghanistan earlier this year, the headmaster of an agriculture high school close to the U.S.-led provincial reconstruction team told an expert who had just arrived from the U.S. Department of Agriculture that he was not welcome if heavy military security had to accompany him. No one wants greater access to the Afghan people and USAID projects more than the agency's dedicated Foreign Service officers do. The fact that they get out so rarely drives down morale inside the embassy and makes it harder to recruit aid workers. I am convinced that they would accept more (and reasonable) risk with better training and equipment. But regular requests to Washington to reassess the security rules that govern our economic assistance have fallen mostly on deaf ears. Meanwhile, USAID officers ask how they can connect with a country they mostly cannot see. It's true, of course, that a more balanced approach to security, one that recognizes the importance of regularly interacting with Afghans, would also increase the risk that more U.S. Foreign Service officers would be injured or killed. And if we start losing Foreign Service officers, the argument goes, Congress will lose its resolve and reduce the economic assistance budget for Afghanistan or eliminate it. Or, as a military colleague expressed his worry to me, the few aid organizations working in the dangerous parts of the country could withdraw. But the number of U.S. soldiers being killed or wounded has again surged, and both our new president-elect and many in Congress are seeking even more soldiers for Afghanistan. Although aid workers across the country face almost daily attacks, their resolve is strong. The new team at the State Department and USAID should engage a team of outside experts to conduct an objective assessment of the security rules and their impact on our economic assistance program in Afghanistan. The review should give due weight to the importance of interacting with the Afghan people to hear their ideas, get to know them and gain their trust. It should rigorously test the theories about what would happen if an increasing number of Foreign Service officers were killed and injured as a result. And it should look at other donor countries' approach to security in Afghanistan. Some have the balance between security and access about right, particularly in parts of the country where security is more permissive. The U.S. military is changing its tactics in Afghanistan, focusing more on counterinsurgency and arguing for more troops on the ground. Civilian U.S. agencies must reassess their tactics, too, and accept the reasonable risks that go along with more effective economic assistance. The writer was acting assistant administrator for Asia at the U.S. Agency for International Development from 2006 to 2008 and earlier served as a USAID mission director in Pakistan. |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #2 It confuses means and ends. It's not about Afghanistan. It's about denying Afghanistan to militant islam, as it was about denying Afghanistan to the Soviet Union. Ironically, the only solution I can see to retaining a 'united' Afghanistan is a Saddam-style strongman. Otherwise partition into ethnic states is unavoidable. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2008-12-26 18:30 |
| #1 Uh, um, dunno. As I regard the goal of "sustainable development" in most parts of A'stan chimerical ..... and completely reject the familiar 80%-fluffy bunnies + prosperity/20% killing bad guys formula relied upon here .... and still think that the challenge in A'stan is for us to identify and then secure the absolute minimum sort of security and political arrangements that prevent use of the territory as sanctuary or base by AQ ..... I'm extremely unexcited. Also, there's no need for a group of outside experts to decide anything - geez, senior career people, and political appointees, are PAID FOR THAT. Base closure was outsourced to provide cover and smoke for cowards in Congress; the Iraq Study Group was an astonishingly stupid exercise by its very nature, and produced predictably worthless "results". Get a clue, get a backbone, and work things out between career gubmint folks and the geniuses just elected. But first, toss away 90% of the framework used here ..... |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2008-12-26 17:28 |