So How’s That Coalition Thing Working Out in Afghanistan?
Peter Van Buren, We Meant Well (blog), Jan 13 2017
Short Answer: It’s been 15+ years of coalition and the Taliban are still there, the Afghan government in Kabul is even more corrupt, and most of Afghanistan is as economically decrepit as ever. A report, “Lessons From the Coalition,” emerged from a conference co-hosted by the Pindostani Institute of Peace (yes, we have one, it is part of the State Dept and doesn’t do much but organize events in Faschingstein.) The conference brought together representatives from eleven major donor nations, the EU, UN, World Bank, and NATO to share common experiences and lessons from the Afghan reconstruction effort. Here’s what they concluded:
- The confluence of conflicting goals and divided actors led to a situation in which countries were often pursuing disparate and sometimes ill-defined missions in Afghanistan. In fact, many nations were unclear as to what they were trying to achieve in Afghanistan.
- Many countries were primarily motivated by their alliance commitments to Pindostan rather than specific strategic goals related to Afghanistan, and were often more focused on what was happening in Faschingstein than in Kabul.
- Conference participants were critical of instances when military forces undertook development work, indicating their efforts often ended up costing more and being less effective than those of their civilian counterparts.
- Inability to understand the local context led to projects that unintentionally benefited corrupt officials, threatened local governance, led to escalating violence, sabotage of the project itself, and wasted resources.
- Development projects did not buy security. Participants believed that when development projects occurred in insecure places, the projects either benefited the insurgency or insurgents increased violence to counteract any potential gains.
- One participant referred to the regular turnover of personnel as an “annual lobotomy.”
- Conditions placed on funds were often not credible, as donors were ultimately unwilling to withhold funds that were essential to preventing the collapse of the Afghan government. Afghan officials were aware of these limitations and were able to call donors’ bluffs. When faced with a donor’s conditions, Afghan officials could often obtain funding from another donor.
But, hey, I’m sure they all meant well in their efforts. Hell, someone should write a book about that so no one repeats the same mistakes in the next war.