Conditions improving in Kandahar

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"The city still bears battle scars and many Kandaharis do not seem unduly phased by the current political tensions.

Large swathes of the city were destroyed in the factional fighting of the 1990s but reconstruction is now under way.

Refugees have been returning from Pakistan and elsewhere, houses have been rebuilt and new shops and businesses are opening. The roads are jammed with bikes, motorbikes and cars. "

Do you have any reason to think that things are good in Kandahar, but bad in other cities? Is there some reason Kandahar is not representative? Cites, please.

How about the fact that 85% of the population doesn't live in the "major" cities at all, but in thousands of rural villages scattered all over.

Kandahar is strategically important, since it sits in the major agricultural plain of the country (Ghazny being in the other, smaller one), but it is largely indefensible except by a force with significant airpower and airmobility, hence the large amount of destruction in the pre-Taliban infighting. That means the US and allied forces can control and defend it, but the Afghani national forces are years away from that ability.

The real trick is going to be making significant progress and achieving a real sense of national authority in the mountain villages.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


How about the fact that 85% of the population doesn't live in the "major" cities at all, but in thousands of rural villages scattered all over.


From USAID:

"Rural Roads Repaired: Road rehabilitation work clears drainage ditches, creates a "crown" shape to ensure drainage, compacts the roadbed, fills potholes, and ensures cross drainage. Road rehabilitation provides access to deliver humanitarian supplies and to transport products to markets for the over 70% of Afghans employed in the agricultural sector. Accompanying these 7,629 kilometers of road rehabilitation have been 615 road-related infrastructure projects, including reconstruction of retaining walls and culverts."


Sorry i couldnt get this from a more objective source like the BBC. Its not newsworthy enough.

[lord of the mark]

USAID on education:

" USAID has printed and distributed millions of textbooks in Dari and Pashtu for the 2002 and 2003 school years, contributing to tremendous growth in school enrollment, from approximately 1 million children in 2001 to 3 million in 2002 to an estimated 4.5 million in 2003."

wonder how many of the 3 million were in the cities?

[lord of the mark]

water projects

"Potable Water Infrastructure Rebuilt: Includes cleaning and rehabilitating springs, digging wells and installing pumps, building water catchment structures, and repairing water distribution systems. Majority of projects are for villages, small towns, and clusters of houses; total excludes major projects in Kandahar and Kunduz, which improved water quality, availability, and reliability of their water distribution systems for 700,000 people. 3,637 projects "

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The idea is to keep the Taliban from returning to power (for our won security) and to make the lives of the afghan people significantly better off than they were before we went in both to advance the above goal, to show the muslim world this isnt a war against Islam, and (IMO) out of obligation to the Afghan people from their role in the end of the cold war.

Turn it into a stable democracy? This is a country with one of the lowest literacy rates in the world, one of the lowest per capital GDP's in the world, and hardly any natural resources. And its land locked. Their prospects for stable democracy anytime soon are pretty low (much lower than in Iraq, by the way)

Given the misarable state of Afghan lives (not only due to the Taliban, but the Northenr Allience and a terribly unhepfull weather) better is, well, not hard. It would be nice if it could be returned to even 1983 levels. I don;t know how much better of the Afghan people were with the whole war to oust the Soviets. Even an autocratic regime like those still in Central Asia would have been better than 20 years of war and chaos. BUt anyhow...

Don;t you think somoene should have told the admin. about that second part before they went shotting their mouths off? It was them who made leaving Afghanistan a stable democracy the goal after getting Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Given the misarable state of Afghan lives (not only due to the Taliban, but the Northenr Allience and a terribly unhepfull weather) better is, well, not hard. It would be nice if it could be returned to even 1983 levels. I don;t know how much better of the Afghan people were with the whole war to oust the Soviets. Even an autocratic regime like those still in Central Asia would have been better than 20 years of war and chaos. BUt anyhow...

Don;t you think somoene should have told the admin. about that second part before they went shotting their mouths off? It was them who made leaving Afghanistan a stable democracy the goal after getting Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

I think a reasonable target would be 1974, jsut before the Daud coup.

Suppose they said making Afghan a demo was a goal. there are goals and there are goals. Surely its NOT our goal to leave Afghan a moderate authoritarian regime, with some degree of constitutionality, like it was pre-1974. But if thats what we get, its ok. Democracy in this case is a "stretch goal" .

[HershOstropoler]

Democracy in this case is a sales pitch.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Democracy in this case is a sales pitch.

No sales pitch was needed for afghanistan. We were attacked from there, and UNSC firmly and overwhelminingly supported our right to go in. Without regard to what created over there. However it was and IS the UN goal - and the US goal - to create a democracy.

Lets start over. I posted a link showing improvement in Kandahar, Afghans second largest city. Considering how often i read that things are ok in Kabul, but going to hell everywhere else there, I thought this was interesting. Somebody said well what about the rural areas, since the country is mainly rural - the cities were generally stable under the Soviets - so we could still be in a soviet style quagmire. I pointed out that under the Soviets all rural areas around the country were in a state of rebellion - now its only the ones in the southeast. GEpap pointed out that the rural areas that are stable are mainly under the control of warlords. I asked why that mattered and he replied that warlord rule would impair democracy.

Now democracy is important, and I hope afghanistan gets there. But the fact that warlords control much of the country, limiting democracy, DOES NOT mean we are in a quagmire, or will fail in our essential goals in that country.

Is that clearer.

[Lord Merciless]

Some people are just so partisan that they hate any developments that may only benefit their opposing parties indirectly, even if these developments would greatly benefit themselves and their communities.

As for democracy in Afghanistan, it's a long term goal and will certainly not be realized in a few years. So far I have not seen our government breaking that commitment.

[HershOstropoler]

"No sales pitch was needed for afghanistan."

Not for going there, but for decorating the continuing mission. It's always nice to drag the democracy label around something.

"I asked why that mattered and he replied that warlord rule would impair democracy."

Or that a warlord could change sides if he sees better deals with a resurgent Taliban. Or ignore terrorist camps if he sees that as the better option. Or Pakistan may look for some control again. Iow, as long as the warlords are around, we are stuck there.

As for progress, I'm underwhelmed. The central army is small, and foreign reconstruction aid is low.

[Dom Pedro II]

Now democracy is important, and I hope afghanistan gets there. But the fact that warlords control much of the country, limiting democracy, DOES NOT mean we are in a quagmire, or will fail in our essential goals in that country.

I find something rather chilling in that statement.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
USAID on education:

" USAID has printed and distributed millions of textbooks in Dari and Pashtu for the 2002 and 2003 school years, contributing to tremendous growth in school enrollment, from approximately 1 million children in 2001 to 3 million in 2002 to an estimated 4.5 million in 2003."

wonder how many of the 3 million were in the cities?

Population as of July 2003 is estimated around 12 million under 14. How that breaks down vis-a-vis school age, I don't know.
I've done USAID work. They can do good stuff, but USAID contracts tend to be like almost all government procurement, in that they focus on numbers and easily measureable quantities, not necessarily on more accurate and subjective standards. Nothing wrong with that since they're a government contracting agency, but it's not the whole picture.

[Ramo]

Kandahar is one of the very few places that the US has a real presence in (albeit far less than in Kabul), so it seems pretty naturally that conditions would improve there. That's probably why Karzai was able to kick Sherzai out of the governership of Kandahar and get his boy in (whereas he previously failed at similar tasks). Of course, our troops never venture out of Kabul and Kandahar so Karzai still doesn't have much authority elsewhere.

Khan, as governor of Herat, has had to give up his post as western military commander.

Khan nonetheless rules the West with an iron fist (ironically making his fascistoid territory one of the safest areas in Afghanistan - as long as you don't say anything bad about him), and this won't do much to dislodge him from power. Military force could do it, but as long as the US continues to see his alliance against the Taleban as more important than the liberty of the Afghani people nothing will happen.