Well said Marc

Does anyone really prefer that? Well, yes, some do. The same people who, while screaming "NOW!" on health-care insurance reform, are at the same time screaming that we need to escalate "WHAT'S THE RUSH?!" in Afghanistan.

I couldn't agree more. It's hard to have too much deliberation. On the other hand, sitting around and letting problems build up 'while screaming "NOW!" on health-care insurance reform' doesn't strike me as actual deliberation.

Most of Obama's advisors are military people? Since when?

I can agree too:

Exit strategy (standing up Afghans so we can stand down)
Corruption
Political legitimacy
Negotiated deals with groups outside Kabul

Will sending more soldiers to Afghanistan help any of these issues and how much? Those are the questions that deserve a debate, not is COIN the right strategy and how many Americans does it need to work.

CAPTCHA: voltage Greenspan - could electro-shock therapy cure him of being a Randian?

It seems to me the bigger problem is they adopted a very centralized, top-down approach in a country that couldn't possibly be effectively governed by its people in that fashion.

The reason the country is far more vulnerable to rigging is large parts of it are outside of central control and the populace is extremely poor, poorly educated, and subject to violent abuse. A proportionally representative parliament and an executive subject to a no-confidence vote won't change that. In some respects in increases the possibilities for instability.

I think a presidential model actually makes some sense in the historical context of Afghanistan where it was effectively and peacefully ruled by a king for long stretches of time. The key is the the King ruled a fairly small central government and locals frequently had significant control over their own affairs.

Moving to that sort of model, with a smaller central government and more assertive local governments seems like the most reasonable approach to me.

What we call "corruption" is more or less how the tribes have done business for eons. This is not a "young democracy" or any other such nonsense. The Karzai government has a tentative grasp on Kabul and almost nothing else, which makes it no different from every other centralized governing body that has sat in power there.

Iraq and Afghanistan are not comparable. Afghanistan's population is spread out over vast distances, and their culture is very different. It has been tribal for a long time, and it will remain that way. I'm afraid any scheme (parliamentary or otherwise) designed to encourage participation in a central government is doomed to failure.

As is our mission there. Bush blew his one chance at getting not only bin Laden, but most of what was then the braintrust behind al Qaida. Instead, that war grew from capturing/killing those at the top of the 9/11 AQ-driven mission to yet another disastrous attempt at nation-building. We are apparently dead-set on not learning a thing about this, yet again. The only question at this point is how much more money and blood we're willing to waste on this. The answer seems to be "more still."

I don't personally believe that, Iraq is the correct paradigm to follow for Afghanistan. The Iraqi' Army's task is to control the geography of Iraq as well as fight the remains of terrorism, while the Afghan Army has to control a territory 1.5 times bigger than Iraq and far less hospitable in terms of physical geography, fight terrorism, and go into a full-fledged war against a well organised fighting force.

On the political level also, I'm sure that President Obama discerns between, a country which had always a strong central government since its inception; at times authoritarian and at other times dictatorial, like Iraq, and a country which actually never had a central government authority to control the country; like Afghanistan. Therefore, re-building a nation, is a totally different task to creating one from scratch.

As for corruption, well, it is practiced in the developed world as well as not so developed world, however, when it comes to Afghanistan, I was merely wondering if President Obama is willing to upgrade the current corruption, in order to tip the balance in favour of US and NATO military efforts.

khairi janbek.paris/france

Well Mr./Ms.bb 1) I don't know how US commanders must know that it will take 4-5 years to train the Afghan Army up to the required standard, when there isn't even one statement regarding a deadline for ending the training of such an army. If you have any information about how they they must know, it will be interesting for me to expand my horizons if you please. 2) Controlling the cities is not enough in the case of Afghanistan, because unlike the Iraqi Army, the Afghan Army is supposed to go the countryside and the mountains, not just the cities to fight the war against Taliban. Otherwise, the whole purpose of training them would be a self-defeating exercise, if NATO and US troops carry on fighting the war against Taliban for them. 3) Modernising efforts are one thing, but exerting central government authority is something else. You must have come across in your readings that, since the days of the monarchy in Afghanistan, there was no semblence of central authority over the country. 4) Just a correction, I ws neither making a reference to the ability of the US/NATO in nation-building or otherwise. I was saying as I believe, Iraq is the wrong paradigm for Afghanistan because, nation-rebuilding like in Iraq, is totally diffrent process to building a nation from scratch like in Afghanistan.

khairi janbek.paris/france

A presidential model need not be centralized and top-down.

I think you're mixing apples and oranges a bit. You've really got three issues here:
1. Voting rules- proportional or majority
2. Separation of powers- An constitutional independent executive vs. a chief legislator.
3. Unitary vs. federal government- Whether various governmental functions are reserved to the central authority or to local subdivisions.

Choosing a presidential executive on question 2 does not require you to chose majority rule on question 1 or unitary government on question 3.

Historically, at least, the US, for example, has always had a president, and always had majority voting, but reserved significant rights and independence to the States.

--------------

Now, as to the Iraqi experience, I second the motion of devolving significant powers to regional authorities, and I think that's a good model to follow in Afghanistan (while keeping in mind the particulars of their situation).

That does not, however, necessitate a parliamentary central government. In the Iraqi case, I think it might have made sense for a couple reasons. First, simply the experience of Saddam as president probably made repeating that system a non-starting. Second, the three predominant ethnic groups create a relatively obvious set of voting blocks that could, in theory, create a stable set of voting interests there. A majority rule system with an independent executive, on the other hand, would be manifestly problematic from that perspective.

Conditions in Afghanistan are different, however. The third question has the same answer in Iraq, but I'm not sure the first two do. With respect to the parliamentary vs. Presidential federal governance, the Afghans had almost the opposite experience as the Iraqis. They had relatively stable rule under a king - an independent executive and nationally unifying figure combined with a devolved, federal power structure. This is what we might expect from a "nation" of tribes. On the other hand, the parliamentary model led to frequent destabilization in a land of splintered loyalties in Afghanistan's more recent history. The minority subgroups in Afghanistan, as compared to Iraq, are more varied, have fewer common connections and greater language differences. Generally speaking, these sorts of things can lead to instability in even well functioning parliamentary and proportional voting systems.

Hence, my overriding preference would be for an independent executive that, properly structured, could act as a unifying figure to a disparate nation, but presiding over a relatively small federal government that leaves most affairs to the regions.

1) The fact that the US Army had issued time lines on various occasions for the training of the Iraqi Army, and none regarding the Afghan Army, indicates to say the least, that they are not taking Iraq as a paradigm in their planning operations in Afghanistan.

2) One has no clue about the deliberations in the White House, but if indeed those deliberating are sensible; as they are expected to be, highest on their agenda should be, what if pushing the Taliban to the mountains doesn't work.

3) Indeed, Taliban did impose its authoriy over almsot 80% of Afghanistan, but least on its mind was nation or nation-building. It went into war against the Tajiks, Uzbeks and the Hazara. In Afghan term, their rule was year zero, and they destroyed whatever was attempted before which was unsuccessful in the first place.

4) In my opinion, a western model to rule Afghanistan is really just a triumphalist illusion. Afghanisatn can only be ruled through a re-invigurated "Loya Jirga" which includes all the ethnic and religious representatives of all the constituent segments of Afghanistan, to elect a president from its own ranks and act itself as the parliament for the country. Then we can talk about the process of nation-building which remains till now a pipe dream.

khairi janbek.paris/france