Troops in Aghanistan

The Financial Times is calling upon Afghan President Hamid Karzaito move beyond “good speeches” and to change his government’s corrupt ways and for the international contingency to decentralize the Afghan government.  The editorial argues that while this is not a perfect solution,  “Afghanistan is still largely a feudal society hostile to any form of central government.”  Foreign Policy reports that former presidential candidate Ashraf Ghani has rejected any participation or power-sharing with the Karzai government.

In regards to the U.S. military commitment, The Hill reports that “additional troop deployments to Afghanistan likely would happen at a slower pace than the surge in Iraq because of the lack of infrastructure in Afghanistan,” according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.  Daily Kos has published a post arguing that corruption in Afghanistan is both endemic and tacitly supported by the U.S. occupation.  Given America’s tattered reputation for fighting domestic corruption, the article argues that any Afghan surge would be a “snare and a delusion.”

In the National Interest Online, Jerry Silverman argues against the domino theory that losing in Afghanistan would lead to further “loss” in South Asian.  Instead, he believes the region is stable enough to handle a U.S. withdrawal and that the greater threats to U.S. intersts ”are likely to be attempts by erstwhile regional allies to leverage American military involvement in support of their own parochial interests.”  Lastly, Paul Pillar writes that the Afghan war is not making Americans safer, with the original threat of al-Qaeda being replaced by the broader violent jihadist movement coalesced against the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.

In a related story, Reuters is reporting on a State Department effort to ramp up the number of U.S. civilians working in Afghanistan through a simulation training complex operating in Indiana.