« apple's evolution | Main | young, dumb, and in charge »

August 12, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Perhaps the question provides the answer. There are two separate issues interwined in Afghanistan- the threat to the national interest of the US and other countries, and, the problem of bringing good governance. Attempting to solve the former does not automatically mean you have to solve the latter (however desirable it seem to try - and for one example, bring some sort of better life to women in that country).
I've absolutely no idea though, even if the US and allies were to start dealing with the country from a purely self-interested POV, what could be done differently. It's not as if there's any kind of friendly autocrat there powerful enough - yet- to be given money and arms and left to it.


The AfPak phase of the mission will wind down when Afghanistan crosses the threshold into something approximating self-sustaining growth, when the government in Kabul is able to effectively police its own borders, and when movement across the Durand Line no longer poses a threat to the integrity of the Pakistani state.

What is so difficult to grasp about that?

The comments to this entry are closed.

brain food

american politics

british politics


my other places