Afghanistan is still a basket case. Can anything be done?

Great Debates
1

Three years after the U.S. and Northern Alliance overthrew the Taliban, Afghanistan apparently is still a social and economic basket case whose economy depends largely on the illegal cultivation of opium poppies and the heroin trade. See http://www.rense.com/general54/bask.htm. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/:

I (mostly) supported the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan at the time, and I have no love lost for the Taliban regime. If they were going to harbor bin Laden after 9/11, tney were making themselves a legitimate target and they knew it. And of course, given its history of dysfunctional regimes and nearly incessant civil war since 1973, it would be unrealistic to expect it to be a thriving country.

OTOH, I can’t help but think we Americans bear some responsbility for this situation. If Bush had not insisted on following up the Afghan war with another, even more expensive war in Iraq, we might have had the resources available – both in money and in troop strength – to suppress the warlords, police the countryside, stamp out opium farming (something the Taliban at least tried to do, with some success), and do some effective nation-building in Afghanistan. Many public figures – and many Dopers – have justified our continuing military presence in Iraq on the theory that “if you break it, you own it.” Does that apply with any less force to Afghanistan? What, at this point, can or should we do for this poor, battered country?

2

Hey, it’s only been three years. You were expecting miracles? Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries on the planet. It has almost no infrastructure. What did you expect by now?

But things ARE improving in Afghanistan. GDP growth is projected to be more than 10% this year, and will continue at 7-8% per year through at least 2008. GDP has already grown almost 40% since the war. Unfortunately, a good percentage of this is in the Opium trade, which is a problem.

Anyway, these things take time. No matter what anyone does, Afghanistan will still be a basket-case in five years. We can hope that it’s a basket case with a per-capita income at least on par with other 3rd world nations. Right now, it’s desperately poor. That’s what 20 years of war and occupation will do to a country.

3

Yep things are up. Heroin sales are up so much they might just balance their budget.

4

Afghanistan will never amount to much. It has one big thing that it can sell to the rest of the world: opium (from the CIA World Factbook: “The replacement of the opium trade - which may account for one-third of GDP - is one of several potential spoilers for the economy over the long term.”). So, that means there’s really only one way to make money and be a big man there. As it involves possession of a finite resource, land, to make it, this pretty much automatically guarantees a rigid class system (in their case, manifesting itself as warlordism) and no opportunity for most people.
Change will only happen by introducing other opportunities. Absent a very strong commitment from someone, that’s going to be very tough to manage.

5

Errmm . . . but what about Afghan hounds? Afghan rugs? Tourism and mountain climbing?

All kidding aside, Afghanistan is often characterized as “the crossroads of the world.” Historically, that has meant it gets invaded a lot – not because any conqueror is much interested in it for its own sake, but because it’s terrain that has to be crossed in order to get to some place more valuable, like Russia or Iran or India. It is at least conceivable that the country’s “crossroads” status could be transformed into a good and valuable thing – if the countries surrounding it ever become stable, free and prosperous.

6

Sam Stone: No matter what anyone does, Afghanistan will still be a basket-case in five years.

This, I think, is a troubling line of argument. You seem to imply that the invaders of a poor and troubled country don’t have any significant responsibility for what’s happening in it. Hey, as long as it was already a poor country, it was gonna be poor anyway, so not our problem, right?

This is especially disturbing given the earlier assurances that we would focus on lifting Afghanistan out of its “basket case” status:

So, we invade a poor country, we assure them that it’s important to us to help them get out of poverty, and then a few years down the road when somebody notices that they’re still in poverty, we respond “Hey, it’s a basket case, they’re a desperately poor country, what did you expect, miracles?”

I know it’s important to be realistic about expectations of the future, but I wish we would remember that before making optimistic assurances to other countries that they’re really very important to us and we’re committed to helping them. When we follow that up with cynical pessimism about their continuing poverty years later, it has a bad effect, IMO. It makes us look somewhat callous at best, and hypocritical at worst.

7

Would a pensive, bit-lipped, ‘Afghanistan, we feel your pain’ be any better?

It’s not like Afghanistan had some great civilization that we are now haplessly trying to rebuild. The place is like the Land of the Lost. The basic infrastructure doesn’t exist to turn the place into a modern nation, and more to the point, that infrastrucure didn’t exist. We are building the first modern highways. We are laying the first modern power grid. We are building a modern telco system.

Besides, until you get a generation or two of educated Afghanistanis in place, what the hell are they going to do? It’s not like you can just start building modern factories in that place and expect to get a usable workforce magically appearing from a populace that is, uhmm, ‘inclined towards traditional ways and methods’.

The building process is happening, but it’s going to be long work. How long did it take to rebuild, say, Germany after WW2? And don’t forget, Germany already had a modern society in place before the war; It was largely a matter of just rebuilding what they had. Afghanistan is starting from scratch in many respects, and judging from that, we are doing a pretty good job over there, as long as one keeps reasonable expectations.

8

Brutus: Would a pensive, bit-lipped, ‘Afghanistan, we feel your pain’ be any better?

Slightly. It might at least be less likely to convince the Afghanis that we never really gave a shit about the conditions in their sorry-ass country in the first place.

But no, what I seriously think would be better would be a less schizophrenic approach to our expectations of poor countries. No fair assuring them that their betterment is very important to us and then responding to all complaints with finger-pointing: “They’re poor! They’re backward! They’re the Land of the Lost! What do you want, we can’t work miracles!”

Brutus: Besides, until you get a generation or two of educated Afghanistanis in place, what the hell are they going to do?

Ironically, education in Afghanistan didn’t seriously start improving till the Soviet takeover, and it declined again when the anti-Soviet mujahideen and Taliban took power.

I’m not arguing in favor of the Soviets, who were certainly no altruists themselves, but it shows the problems with working to destroy something for our own advantage—as we did when we supported the jihad of Afghani Muslim fundamentalists against the Soviet puppets in the 1980’s—without paying sufficient attention to the need for building it up again afterwards.

Brutus: * […] we are doing a pretty good job over there, as long as one keeps reasonable expectations.*

Now this, I’d say, is the interesting part of the discussion. What exactly are we doing, and how is the situation in Afghanistan changing? Are things really getting steadily better, or are we trading some improvements in the more-or-less secured center for increasing instability and poverty in the hinterlands? What ought our “reasonable expectations” to be, and how are we meeting them?

9

Well, the things that would probably help the most would be three things: roads, schools, and clinics. This story sums it up well:

So there you have it: roads, schools, and clinics. Put those in place and you’ll vastly improve the lives of the average Afghani.

10

My MIL’s co-worker is on leave from serving in Afganistan, he’s a reservist who’s been activated for about a year or so. I don’t have the details as I have not spoken to the man, but he says much good work is going on there and it’s just a shame the media can’t report on it. I suppose he is referring to the construction plans for infrastructure and what not. And, I’m not arguing with him, I just worry about all the opium and warlords I keep hearing about. And I’m glad I’m not over there.

11

Kimstu said:

That is not what I said. You’re putting words in my mouth. What I meant was that Afghanistan was an absolute basket case, so even though we are spending billions on reconstruction and aid, it will still be a basket case for years. That’s not a shirking of responsibility, it’s an acknowledgement of reality. There has been massive reconstruction going on throughout Afghanistan. Schools have been built, roads laid, hospitals built, etc. But it’s simply a massive job, and in the end it’s so large that foreign aid alone can’t lift that country out of despair - they are going to have to grow their own economy like everyone else does. We’ll do what we can, but the process is slow.

Here’s an example of what’s going on right now - Afghanistan is a bleemin’ ammo dump. 20 years of wars and occupation have left it riddled with unexploded munitions and land mines. The coalition military is spending a large amount of time and effort moving around the country removing this hardware or detonating it. A routine day for the military will include some farmer coming in to tell them of an old bomb in his field, and specialists go out and destroy it. The country is slowly being cleared of munitions. It’s funny - this used to be a major cause among lefties - Princess Di used to lobby for this, and Greenpeace and other organizations were all over it. But now that the job is actually being done by the U.S. military, the left just stands there and sneers, or goes on to the next issue and forgets it ever cared.

Anyway, if the Afghanistan economy grows near 10% a year, it will double in seven years. But doubling a GDP that amounts to only a couple of hundred dollars per capita means it still won’t be up to the 3rd world average. But doubling the economy in seven years would still be a hell of an achievement, and it would mean at least that Afghanistan has enough of its own resources to begin its own reconstruction efforts.

In 20 years, Afghanistan may be a nice country of modest means and reasonably comfortable lifestyles. In the meantime, the people who opposed the war or supported the war but oppose the administration will still find plenty to bitch about.

12

I expect you’re right about that, Sam, since I don’t expect a sudden conversion to good sense on the part of the Admin. I doubt that’s what you meant, but cannot deny you are right: there will be plenty to bitch about. Stupidity and ham-fisted self-righteousness are even more difficult to cure than powerty and backwardness.

No doubt there will be progress, especially since Afghanistan is not so tainted by our fingerprints, nations that scorn our foolish adventure in Iraq feel differently as regards Afghanistan. No doubt as well that progress will be slow and marked by much suffering on the part of those so recently blessed by our intervention. Those whose children have recently died of privation will not sing our praises anytime soon, but they are helpless and without consequence, and we need not fear them unless we fear that their prayers will move a vengenful Allah to action, and if Allah does not hate us already, He never shall.

Of course, we might have a great deal more money to lavish on Afghanistan were it not for the fact that we are so recently distracted protecting ourselves from Saddam’s Invisible Pink Unicorns. We might have a great deal more money to lavish on ourselves, for that matter. You know, a hundred billion here, hundred billion there, sooner or later you’re talking some real money. And lives, of course, we count our own, we estimate theirs.

13

That’s a fascinating question. Answering it, of course, requires a comprehensive understanding of the region’s history, the development of its economy, the exploitation of local religious belief by warlords, and a host of other issues. Let’s start by going in-depth into the…

Oh, look at the puppy!

14

A colleague of mine was in Afghanistan last year and from what he’s said, Sam Stone and Brutus have the right of it. As per DaddyTimesTwo, we don’t hear a lot about what goes on there because it’s not interesting news. It’s going to be a long haul - 50 years or more.

15

:confused: Why can’t the media report on it?

16

Nice puppy Cervaise. :slight_smile:

Afghanistan is still a basket case…key word there is ‘still’. It always has been (at least thats how it seems historically from what little I know about the nation…perhaps there was a time before Alexander when it prospered as a trade route for the east/west caravans), and it still is. The invasion by the US et al didn’t change anything really…except that Afghanistan isn’t an international pariah anymore, under sanction, etc…oh, and the US and others have poured quite a bit of money into the region. I’m unsure how anyone could realistically expect Afghanistan, a nation torn by war for decades, under the nominal rule of a totalitarian theocracy while being divided among powerful warlord factions, with no industrial, natural resources to speak of or tech base, little widespread education, etc to be any different today than it is. Is the US supposed to have a magic wand to make all that go away? Is ‘democracy’ a silver bullet now?? Its going to take decades…if ever…for Afghanistan to be even marginally prosperous. Well, unless opium products become legal worldwide of course. :slight_smile:

So, I guess I answered the ‘can anything be done?’ bit too…at least in my own opinion. Since this is a less than veiled attack on the US (and Bush of course) for not making Afghanistan into an industrial giant full of happy middle class citizens in 3 whole years, I’ll say that the OP would have a point…if they were talking about Iraq…and if a BIT more time than simply 3 years had gone by (how long before Germany, who WAS an industrial giant, recovered after WWII…or Japan for that matter?)…Iraq, who has a LOT more potential for prosperity than Afghanistan EVER will. If several years down the road Iraq still languishes in poverty then the US and especially the Bush administration will rightfully be blamed for it. But Afghanistan? Come on.

-XT

17

Oh, and BTW, I agree with you BG…its more than possible that if the US hadn’t gone into Iraq and instead concentrated on Afghanistan then the situation today PROBABLY would be more stable…at least there would most likely be fewer ‘warlords’ out there in the country side wreaking havoc. It STILL wouldn’t be anymore prosperous (IMHO) though.

-XT

18

But it did, x. The Taliban was an oppressive regime, but at least it provided an effective national government. The government they have now is powerless except in the immediate neighborhood of Kabul; the rest of the country is divided into warlords’ fiefs. That is a change, and in many ways not an improvement.

19

BG, the impression I had from the reports of violence in Afghanistan prior to 9/11 was that even the Taliban had minimal control over territory outside of Kabul. They controlled borders, and the capital, IIRC. And referring to the Taliban as a monolithic group is, I think, a simplification - the Taliban was an alliance of various fundamentalist, and usually isolationist, Islamic tribal groups who had wound up more or less in control of Kabul after the Soviet withdrawl.

Even before 9/11 there had been regular reports of artillery duels in and around Kabul as various tribal warlords would attempt to shift the balance of power in their favor.

I don’t expect miracles from the Afghan occupation - and I agree with the other posters who’ve said that Afghanistan has historical reasons predating the US led invasion, the Taliban, and even the Soviet invasion that limit how quickly the area can be industrialized. For now, the most important things that can be done in Afghanistan seem to me to be threefold:

[ul]
[li]Establish the rule of law. Without this, any other change is build on water. With this there’s still a huge amount of social inertia to overcome, but something permanent could be built. But this is the bedrock. And the relatively peaceful elections last year are beginning to establish this. It’s not universal through the country, yet. It’s not perfect. There’s a lot of work yet to be done, but it’s a beginning.[/li][li]Establish a reliable transportation network. This is what will make it possible for Afghans to begin to believe in being part of a nation - the communication between the whole country. Communication leads, almost inevitably to trade, and trade to building wealth. And with wealth, especially wealth based on something other than the opium trade, the people of Afghanistan will see the rewards of a rule of law - which means it’s harder for warlords to upset it… a self-sustaining reaction. Additionally, it means that no single small area need to deal with local disasters alone - the whole country will be able to aid. And will provide the medical support that most of the country is living without. IIRC in 1990 Afghanistan had something like a 10 or 20 % infant mortality rate. Just think how much of that could likely be reduced with access to aspirin. Or sulfa drugs. Or chloramphenicol. [/li][li]Educate. Educate. Educate. I hope on this MB I don’t have to go into why that’s a good idea. :wink: [/li][/ul]

And AFAIK the work in Afghanistan is progressing: Modern roads are being put in; so are schools and clinics. And what I’ve heard from military blogs, is that most of the general population loves having UN troopers show up. If for no other reason than the unit’s medic represents more medical technology, pharmacology, and skill than they’ve seen in the past 100 years.

I never thought that the idea of invading Iraq was a good one. And I never thought that invading Afghanistan was anything but a good idea. But it IS a generational obligation, no question about it. And frankly it’s one we’ve had (and largely ignored) since 1980, when the decision was made, in light of the cold war, to support any and all peoples who would resist the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

20

I have a serious question that is not (believe it or not in this forum) politically motivated: How can Afghanistan ever not be a “basket case”?

They have very few valuble natural resources; no water (probably the single most important natural resource), little arable land (12.3%), the few trees they have are being cut down or lost to desertification . . . etc.

I just don’t see how that landlocked, dry, mountainous chunk of land could ever be a prosperous nation.

Serious question: What’s the best we could hope for in Afghanistan?

Facts taken from CIA World Factbook here.