The New York Times reported on Sunday that the NATO forces in the town of Marja no longer seek to eradicate the poppy fields, as they are trying to build support among the villagers rather than destroy more livelihoods. While the new burst of conflict-sensitivity is welcome, the real conundrum remains. Eradicating the poppy plantations has hurt the poorest in Afghanistan, worsened corruption, and encouraged the peasants to join the Taliban, but not eradicating poppy strengthens the insurgents, who benefit from the narco-trafficking by taxing peasants and collecting protection fees. Experts fear that the insurgents are getting involved in the production and trafficking of opium as well, which provides them even a stronger incentive to continue fighting compared to mere ideology. As the conflict is fueled by the several billion-dollar opium trade, it is clear that lasting peace cannot be built before the narcotics industry is curbed.

While the NATO-ISAF approach to combat poppy growing is now more gradual, there are other links in the smuggling chain that should be cut. The easiest target is the bottom link, the peasants; much more difficult is to punish the people with power and wealth. The poor legal institutions and a lack of political will ensure that many influential people involved in the trade never get prosecuted or even removed from their office. A lack of state security makes borders so porous that only two percent of opium is seized when leaving the country. In contrast, 20 percent of Colombia’s cocaine is seized at its border.

The Western military does not want to harm its reputation any more by angering the villagers, but the flourishing narco-trade should not be ignored. Instead of focusing on the voiceless peasants, the counter-narcotic forces can boost their efforts to destroy heroin laboratories, improve border security, and target traffickers and drug lords. While it remains a true challenge in one of the world’s most corrupt countries, it is also one of the most important ones, as the conflict in Afghanistan is quickly turning into another narco war with the insurgents and drug traffickers uniting.

All of that being said, there has been rising discomfort that the new government doesn’t appear to be much better in the treatment of women. Women have complained about being consistently being left out of the decision-making process and feel their voices are being shouted over. Even though women are no longer subject to many of the harsh (some say Draconian) Taliban laws, they are still not being given the same opportunities to help shape the country.

Television, which the Taliban banned, has now been restored. Now the Afghani public is facing a problem in which women are being sexualized, in a true reversal. The Kabul government is having problems limiting the rising female flesh being seen in programming.

It is quite interesting that women have gone from being invisible to much more sexualized in less than a decade. What makes it more difficult is that the government is still very weak and unable to stop this trend. Limited access in public discourse is very much a problem while a new civil society is being created.

Hopefully, Afghani women will be able to find voices in their society and finally become full member and participants. As an old saying goes, “Women hold up half the sky.”

The news just seems to uncover bad after good — according to this
MSNBC article, the man chosen “to be the fresh face of good Afghan governance” has a criminal record. A CRIMINAL RECORD! Is there no one in the ENTIRE country available who doesn’t have a rap sheet? How is this possible? How can the best option be a criminal? The crime: a 1998 conviction for stabbing his own son. And this is the person handpicked to show Afghanis that corruption, cronyism and government dysfunction is on the outs.

I guess it just goes to show that Afghanistan is simply even more complicated than most people can possibly imagine. Allowing former convicts back into society is one thing; however, I don’t believe that during the rebuilding of a country this is acceptable in any way, shape or form. Don’t the Afghanis deserve better after over three decades of war and violence? Have they not had enough by now?

Initially, the Marines and NATO troops met little to no resistance; what remains to be seen is the Taliban strategy. Are they on the run, or is this a strategic move to lure troops into a more difficult/dangerous place to fight?

This fight is just beginning, and no doubt will have many twists and turns along the way. But this is part of President Obama’s plan to finally secure Afghanistan and start the process of giving the country back to its people.

Personally, I’m not sure how this will all work out, for obvious reasons. Military maneuvers do not necessarily create political solutions. There are still questions about how Afghanis feel about our presence and new offensive. Plus, logistically there are numerous issues in creating a new society.

None of this touches on the major problems of corruption and drug trafficking, which are still weighing very heavily on Afghan society. Marines, stealth bombers and heavy artillery aren’t made to solve these types of problems. Hopefully, they can provide some “breathing space” needed to push the government forward and force it to make much needed changes.

To all those fighting for this cause, good luck and Godspeed. With any luck and some very talented people leading the charge, this could be the beginning of a new era.

For additional information on Afghanistan:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35369975/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35387923/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/

http://www.newsweek.com/ID/232825

According to the UN’s Office of Drugs and Crime, Afghanistan spends US$2.5 BILLION each year on bribery and corruption. That amounts to approximately 23% of Afghanistan’s GDP. That’s right — nearly one quarter of the money spent in Afghanistan goes to “greasing the wheels” and paying off corrupt officials. As has been reported previously, some of these government officials are incredibly high up, including President Karzai’s own brother.

This makes bribery and corruption the second largest portion of the Afghani economy, after the opium poppy cash crop. Nearly US$3 billion (according to the UN, US$2.8 billion) are spent each year in the opium poppy industry.

It is extremely sad to think that nearly 50% of the Afghani economy is either related to the opium trade or bribery/corruption. How can a country effectively run itself when so much money is going into such illicit sectors? Government officials who are personally enriching themselves and failing to provide services simply alienate the general public and create a spiral where people stop paying into the system, thus forcing more officials to resort to bribery. It also hinders needed capital from creating a real economy with opportunities so that people won’t need to turn to opium in order to make ends meet.

How can this cycle be broken so that the Afghani population can be finally live in peace and prosperity?

See Dan Logue’s other posts on the situation in Afghanistan.

“The treatment of Muslims in American airports”

The United States of America has adopted stricter security measures in its airports and border passageways, following the uncovering of the failed attempt to detonate a civilian plane over Detroit by a Nigerian young man who was said to have received training in an Al-Qa’idah camp in Yemen. These measures are undoubtedly a sovereign American decision but they are targeting particularly Arab and Muslim citizens, which means that the accusations of “terrorism” have now become limited to those people solely, in a clear reflection of segregation. The American administration drew up a list of terrorist states featuring fourteen countries, thirteen of which are Muslim countries and include Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Algeria, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Pakistan, Nigeria, Somalia, Iraq and Lebanon.

As for the only non-Arab and non-Muslim country, it was Cuba. The targeting of Arabs and Muslims with thorough searches at American airports is not new. However, the tightening of these measures following the failed detonation attempt will entail further humiliation, investigations, body searches and computer and cell-phone checking, which will render trips to America an unbearable nightmare. Moreover, the fact that an Arab or Muslim citizen holds European nationality does not mean anything, and does not spare the latter from going through the same measures if coming from the states featured on the American lists, whose citizens are believed to be more prone to carry out terrorist attacks.

Therefore, Britons and French [people] of Muslim origins are often forced to get entry visas into the United States in a [form of] clear segregation in comparison with their compatriots of white European origins. The paradox, however, is that this racist segregation is also implemented on Americans of Arab or Islamic origins, since immigration and customs officers often decorate their boarding passes with (xxxx) written in red in order to subject them to additional searching and investigation. Many stories are being related by those traveling to the United States, talking about the harsh treatment they are receiving, [such as] being ousted from the plane, or prevented from boarding it to begin with if the travele’s name is featured on the list of banned or monitored [persons] (which includes around one million names).

In this context, Libya’s current envoy to the United Nations, and former foreign minister, Mr. Abdelrahman Shalgam, was subjected to humiliating treatment at New York airport before boarding the plane, which prompted his government to protest and decide to prevent the entry of Americans into its territories. However, the apology issued by the American administration and its secretary of state for this shameful action helped contain the crisis, even if temporarily. However, the most painful example is that in which the American government sent back a French national of Algerian origins from the airport of the capital, Washington, after he was searched in a humiliating way, just because he was not white and his eyes were not blue.

The Algerian government was almost the only one to protest the American decision to subject its citizens to additional security monitoring in airports, believing it was unjustifiable discrimination… We had hoped to see all the other Arab and Islamic states on the American terrorism lists protesting in a collective way and agreeing to adopt similar measures when dealing with the American nationals who reach their airports, by lengthily interrogating them, fiercely searching them and arresting them for long hours, seeing how the Americans are also perpetrating acts of terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are in favor of the protection of innocent American citizens, but also in favor of the protection of Arab and Muslim citizens from humiliation… at the hands of American investigators who despise all that is Arab and Muslim and treat us like convicted terrorists and not like businessmen, students, diplomats or journalists.

Now that Karzai is still the Afghani President and his victory has been paved by fraud, it remains to be seen just what the United States can do about it. He has been “our SOB” since the U.S.-led invasion of 2001 and it will be very difficult to decouple from him. Although, decoupling may just be what the U.S. needs to do. One of Karzai’s brothers, Ahmed Wali Karzai, has known ties to the opium trade AND on CIA’s payroll. That’s right — the U.S. CIA has been bankrolling a known drug kingpin. This is just the most recent corruption in the tangled web that is Afghani politics (and intrigue).

This comes as President Obama must make a very important decision on troop levels in the country and figure out an actual strategy for the U.S. military going forward. Do you stay or increase troops and tacitly accept Karzai as president (and all his corrupt cronies), or do you bring the troops home and pray for the best? Neither option is good and will most likely create some type of instability.

Afghanistan has been a quagmire for over 30 years; ask any of the former Soviet leaders from the late 1970s and early 1980s. Afghani fighters are seasoned and willing to go as long as it takes — and that is a very telling message. If the US isn’t willing to go all out and truly reconstruct the country, then staying may simply be a long and drawn out slog. Hopefully Obama makes a plan soon and puts it into motion. It’s time to put up or shut up in Afghanistan. There are only so many things that American troops can do there, protecting a corrupt, ineffective, drug connected government really should not be one of them.

Joel Simon of the Committee to Protect Journalists had an interesting comment about Rohde on CPJ’s blog:

Rohde…felt the need, both in his article and in a Q and A with readers hosted on the New York Times Web site, to defend his decision to undertake a risky interview with a Taliban commander as the final piece of his research into a book on Afghanistan.

Such decisions are, of course, subject to scrutiny and debate. At the same time, there is simply no way for a reporter to cover critical issues in dangerous places without occasionally running into serious trouble. The question is not only what journalists can do to reduce the risk, but how media organizations expect the public to respond when things go wrong.

This reminds me a bit of the public outcry over journalist Stephen Farrell’s kidnapping earlier this year, which resulted in the death of his translator and an unknown British soldier. He was not only berated  for putting the lives of those two individuals at risk, but was also characterized as a selfish glory-seeker out for personal fame. I don’t know Farrell personally, so I can’t speak for the characterization (though it seems a bit unfair) but the intense criticism by the public over a kidnapped foreign journalist seems to follow the lines of a “blame the victim” mentality. Yes, journalists should exercise caution when reporting in sensitive areas and on sensitive subjects, but there’s really no solid justification for kidnapping one, either, is there?

Afghanistan, on the other hand, has received billions of dollars in aid and Karzai has received large amounts of military support as well. This does not bode well going forward in state-building. It weakens the American argument that democracy and elections build states. Afghanistan has had at least two national elections since the American invasion of late 2001, and it has been regarded as one of the most corrupt countries in the world today. Bribery and kickbacks run rampant, and that is in addition to the fact that the Karzai government fails to truly rule much more than the capital, Kabul.

To complicate matters, Americans are slowly losing faith in the outcome and increasingly questioning the actual mission there. President Obama has stated a willingness to commit more troops to Afghanistan. These new fraud allegations make an already difficult mission even more so in that it creates the appearance that the US is continually supporting corrupt leaders that support American interests.

No election is perfect and discrepancies will always surface, but it is important to remember that such systematic efforts to create desired outcomes are the antithesis of what democracy is all about. The U.S. has weathered the Iranian election relatively well in that it has maintained a low profile. How the U.S. proceeds in Afghanistan will be much more telling of just how much is invested in Afghanistan’s development itself and how much is simply in having Karzai remain in power. History tells us all an interesting story, hopefully the US has learned and from it and takes a longer term view this time.

Here are a few highlights:

• The Pennies for Peace program of Mortenson’s Central Asia Institute is a grassroots campaign started by school kids to donate pennies to build schools, especially schools for girls, in Pakistan and Afghanistan. It’s estimated that there are enough pennies lying around the U.S. to eradicate global illiteracy, which would take $6 billion a year for 15 years.

• Mortenson discussed the direct effects of female literacy on decreasing fertility rate and used Bangladesh as an example of a success story. In Bangladesh, there was a national literacy campaign which tripled female literacy, and now the birth rate has decreased to 3.5 live births per woman.

• In terms of cultural norms in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Mortenson pointed out that when a woman is married, she severs maternal ties and goes to live with her husband’s family. By learning to read, she can teach her mother how to read. Then, the married woman and her mother will have a means of communication by letter writing.

• Another interesting point is that for a man to go on Jihad, he needs his mother’s permission. Not to have his mother’s permission/blessing is an enormous sin. Women who are educated are less likely to allow their sons to go on Jihad.

• The final point of the lecture was about Obama’s surge in infantry in Afghanistan this summer. Mortenson argued that Afghanis want brainpower, not firepower. Generals have said there’s no military solution to Afghanistan, so Mortenson suggested that perhaps listening and talking to Afghanis before deploying troops would be best.

• Mortenson also pointed to good news that very few people knew (it doesn’t make the NY Times): in 2000, there were 800,000 boys in school in Afghanistan. In 2008, there were 7.2 million Afghan kids in school, 2 million of whom were girls. This is the biggest increase in child enrollment anywhere ever!

One of the themes from his discussion was the idea that you can’t solve poverty from a think tank in Washington D.C. You need community participation, involvement and support.