Skip to footer

Four steps to success in Afghanistan

The two old men shivered in the frigid December Afghan night, their hands rattling in the handcuffs that bound them. I pondered what to do. Polish soldiers had caught them an hour earlier as they dug in the ground along a newly paved road. The Polish suspected the men had been planting IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices.) The men swore they were merely irrigating their fields of winter wheat. As had happened countless times during my tour as an embedded combat adviser with the US Army in Ghazni Province, the fate of these men rested in my hands.

Were they elderly illiterate farmers or Taliban soldiers? Or both?

In the end, I asked members of the Afghan National Police to detain them for the evening and investigate the matter themselves in the morning. The Afghans agreed and took the men away in a police car. The next morning I learned the police had immediately let the men go, after they promised to turn themselves in the next day. But they never did. And as much as I wanted to go find the men myself and haul them to face a judge, I couldn’t: Afghanistan must be governed by Afghans if American forces are ever to leave it in peace.

Countless soldiers have faced a similar quandary in Afghanistan – and many more will do so in the future, now that the United States has committed itself to the country for another 10 years. I believe the most important policy we could adopt in Afghanistan is one that helps the Afghans effectively govern their country on their own.

To have any hope for success, the US and Afghanistan must accomplish these four goals.

1. Reform and decentralize Afghan government

Rahmat Gul/AP
Former Taliban sit next to weapons during a ceremony with the Afghan government in Jalalabad, east of Kabul, Afghanistan on July 18. About 14 former Taliban militants from Jalalabad province handed over their weapons as part of a peace-reconciliation program. Op-Ed contributor Matt Zeller offers four goals the US and Afghanistan must reach in order for US forces to leave the country in a state or peace.

The Afghans should reform their government, devolving power away from a central state (and a presidency) that has kept too much of it. The governance system established at the Bonn Conference, in December 2001, has not served Afghanistan well. The Kabul government fails to meet the basic needs of its citizens because most government officials are not responsible to the constituents they serve, but to the system of patronage that keeps them in power.

Most Afghans do not directly elect their provincial governors or local (district-level) leaders: These officials are appointed by the presidency and serve at the president’s pleasure. As a result, they have an incentive to embrace the endemic corruption that plagues all levels of the Afghan state, enriching themselves and their superiors as they work to advance to, or hang on to, positions of power.

1 of 4
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.