Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
February 7, 2008
Green Afghanistan

A late 2007 BBC/ABC/ARD poll in Afghanistan shows a quite big support for Karzai and temporary foreign troop stationing. But, as ABC notes, the general support is trending lower and:

Among Afghans who report shelling, bombing or civilian deaths in their area caused by U.S. or NATO forces, approval of U.S. efforts overall drops sharply, to 29 percent. Specifically in the Southwest, among people who report no civilian deaths or injuries caused by coalition forces, 64 percent say people in their area support these forces. Among those who report such casualties, that support is 30 points lower.

In Kandahar, the Taliban’s hometown, just 18 percent see a better life for their children; it’s a still-low 37 percent in next-door Helmand. That soars, by contrast, to three-quarters in Balkh and two-thirds in Kunduz, two Northern provinces.

The other big point:

Lack of jobs, electricity and medical care and poor roads, bridges and
other infrastructure are other broad and persistent concerns. Nearly
half the population is illiterate; six in 10 Afghans have household
incomes under $100 a month.

There is the hen and egg problem of violence. Does Taliban presense necessiates more ‘kinetic’ foreign troop presence, or does foreign troop ‘kinetic’ activity increase the support for and number of Taliban.

Karzai says more foreign troops are not the answer and forced eradication of opium, another U.S. ‘recommendation’, would be a major problem.

At some point last year Associated Press tallied more civilians killed by foreign troops than by Taliban. In total, the Taliban seem not to be the big problem unless ‘the west’ makes them the big problem.

The general support for the Taliban is low (14%) but growing. The major problems the poll found,  electricity, jobs and clean water, can be solved if enough resources are invested there.

But while the foreign countries engaged in Afghanistan spend billions on their military there (Germany 500+ million Euros), international development programs count in millions (Germany 100 million Euros). That relation is a shame. Additionally many aid-dollars are skimmed off by international contractors and via conditional aid. (BTW: I couldn’t find U.S. numbers for military costs vs. civil aid – any ideas?)

Here are my recommendations on what to do in Afghanistan:

  1. Stop fighting ghosts and creating new ones. The locals can fight or integrate the Taliban much better than anyone else.
  2. Launch a $25 billion, 10 year program ‘Green Afghanistan‘. This money is to be a gift: Not ‘debt relief’, not ‘development credit’, not conditioned on ‘buy only from originator’, not for technical ‘license fees’. This money has to be a gift.

Mayor program points of ‘Green Afghanistan‘:


Electricity
: Variants of modern energy mills in the 1, 10
and 100 kilowatt class optimized for low-tech production and little
maintainance need. With modern stateless (no maintainance) technology
hundreds of those community mills can be interconnected locally to form
a self sustaining net. Sometimes there will be no wind, but better
intermitted electricity than none at all. Add solar when local
production of solar panels is feasible.


Build 100 factories to produce such energy mills locally.

Use as little import parts/materials as possible. Needed imports, the
machinery and transport costs will be payed by the aid program for
maybe 5-10 years. Attach basic engineering schools to each factory.
After growing experience and the supporting industries, these products
can be major Afghan exports ten years from now.


Water
: Use windmills/watertowers/solar for pumping. Build
small(!) dam projects. Build standardized low tech, biological sewer
treatment systems.


Wood
: Afghanistan is seriously deforested.
Build a countrywide reforestation program with hundreds of tree
nurseries and schools for locals to learn to create and tend to the
reforestated areas. Concentrate on fighting timber rather than opium
smuggling.

Ahh, opium: Best solution, buy it for cheap at the local
markets (80% of the export price is margin for the dealers). Use for
regular medicine whatever is feasible and discard the rest. Do not
enforce eradication. Don’t fight smuggling. Offer alternatives. For the
last point – do NOT import food but in serious emergencies. When food
prices go up, farmers will turn away from growing poppies.

Other important points:

Only local labor and companies to be allowed below the level of
engineering. Why are Chinese day laborers and U.S. companies building
Afghan roads when unemployment is the Afghan number one problem?

Stop building those big roads between the major foreign troop
garrisons. Local roads to local markets are much more important for the
economy than super highways.

Let the local sheiks and tribal elder councils run the projects. They
will skim off some of the money – so what. Recruit only locals for
police/security forces – pay them well.

A note to imperialists:

There are much more profits to be made by skimming off a well grown
economy, than a dirt poor one. Give some money to Afghanistan, let it
grow for a while and you will reap in good profits. In between – shun
your hedge fund managers and google long term profitability.

Comments

Long term is so last century.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Feb 7 2008 16:21 utc | 1

Unless Halliburton can land some no-bid, cost-plus contracts, it’s not gonna fly…

Posted by: ralphieboy | Feb 7 2008 16:30 utc | 2

Great post, Bernhard! 🙂

Posted by: Anonymous | Feb 7 2008 17:00 utc | 3

I would add a large fund to allow academic study and technical training abroad. Best if it were in non-involved countries.

Posted by: biklett | Feb 7 2008 17:22 utc | 4

Please run for something b so I can vote for You.
🙂

Posted by: beq | Feb 7 2008 17:35 utc | 5

Brilliant, b. You’ve made my day.
Let’s get this proposal into the air – circulate it to all the blogs, candidates, news outlets. People need to talk about it, see that there are good alternatives, talk – and vote – it into reality. Candidate X: Do you support Green Afghanistan and what will your administration do to achieve these goals? Relentlessly.

Posted by: Hamburger | Feb 7 2008 17:50 utc | 6

I’ll say! Bravo indeed!
A Sustainable Aid program. Great thinking, B.

Posted by: Jake | Feb 7 2008 18:00 utc | 7

In looking back, the only thing George Bush wasn’t lying about, was when he said “we shouldn’t be in the business of nation building”. Clearly, he has kept his promise.

Posted by: anna missed | Feb 7 2008 18:31 utc | 8

Great post! (the “anon” message up there with the smiley-grin was from me, btw) – for a start, I’ve cross-linked and quoted it on EuroTrib and StrategyTalk. Should be good for a few extra reads?
P.S. I luv that reforestation proposal!

Posted by: parvati_roma | Feb 7 2008 21:04 utc | 9

Ooops – second link doesn’t seem to work – try this: http://www.strategytalk.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=60880#60880

Posted by: parvati_roma | Feb 7 2008 21:20 utc | 10

Brilliant thinking outside, unassailable logic, feasible. I am going to send this around …

Posted by: Owl | Feb 7 2008 23:21 utc | 11

Terrific ideas.This should be textbook for development from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe.

Posted by: Bob S. | Feb 8 2008 14:45 utc | 12

Thanks for all the positive responses here.
To add a few thoughts – the “Green Afghanistan” is of course only part of a wider plan, that includes some security issues. If there are daily bombings, it will be hard to implement the plan if the reactions to such bombings is harsh.
The problem is that “the west”, just like the Sowjets, easily gets trapped into overreaction to violent provocations.
The Talibs, with little support by the civilians, stick a few needles here and there – some RPG on a patrol, some sharp shooting etc. Typical reaction (often more by the anglophile than by other “western” groups) is to hit back hard – storm houses, bomb areas etc. This inevitably pushes the civilians into the Talib’s arms (see the stats presented above). It is a trap and the U.S. falls into it everytime and others tend to do so too.
Don’t fall for it. You may lose a few people and be angry. But if you hit back you will lose more people and be more angry. Offer deals to the talibs, bribe them and be stoic in helping the civilians. Difficult, but much more likely to be successful than other tactics.
Another thought: – social engineering –
Yesterday’s ATOL had a piece by Philip Smucker that describes such typical attempts by a U.S. officer.Afghan peace comes at the point of a gun

The leading tribes of Kunar province are mostly poor Pashtuns with limited interest in the insurgency that grips the region. These simple and devout folk may be the last best hope for Afghanistan.
In a newly-built conference center and administration building in the Kunar governor’s compound, hundreds of district elders and women have met in recent weeks to devise local development frameworks supported by the United Nations Development Program and the US government.
The scenes of Afghan men and women sitting in a circle venting their frustration at the lack of public services are a sign of progress, maybe more so if they produce results.
“We’ve had an astounding turnout so far,” says Coughenour, sitting in a circle as a earnest district elder explains a large drawing of what is known as a “problem tree”. Men and women brainstorm and scribble their own ideas on scrap paper to define the “root causes” of their government’s incompetence and inaccessibility.
“One of their biggest complaints is a lack of access to good services,” says the captain. “But one of the major surprises from this effort has been the unprecedented participation of women and other under-represented groups, especially the disabled. We’ve been able to bring many of those groups in and facilitated access for them at the table.”

Kumbaya…
See the problem?
People want and need services. It is the most important issue, but the captain is most proud about having brought women and the disabled to the table.
Sorry, I am all for women’s lib. But that isn’t the way and it isn’t the mission. If the Captain believes he can change a deeply religious, conservative, tribal society’s attitude towards women by “bringing them to the table” he is illusional.
Kilowatts of electricity are MUCH MORE IMPORTANT for longterm freedom of women than to have them ‘sit at the table.’
Look back on our societies. Most women were occupied 24/7 with doing household stuff, wash, cook, garden, children, fetch firewood and water etc. – they didn’t had time for women’s lib. (The Pankhurst girls (suffragette leaders) came from households that could afford servants.)
School attention rates for girls in 3rd world countries depend to a great deal on the need of families to have them work in the household.
With electricity comes easy cooking, washing machines, tab water etc. With it comes the time that is needed to care for (self-)education and other stuff.
Easy access to energy was the groundstone on which our societies evolved. It is the base for the social revolution that freed women in our societies.
So the captain is all proud but missed an important lecture on development.
Social changes follow economic changes. Economic changes follow technological changes. Development has to start at the lowest level of that pyramid.

so far my 2c – currently no time to develop that further, but I am sure some here can critic the above and/or add to it.

Posted by: b | Feb 8 2008 15:59 utc | 13

b @13,
You lost me there. I think there are many who don’t want to and shouldn’t have to wait for Mr. Kilowatt to get out of their ‘deeply religious, conservative, tribal society.’ The goal of relieving poverty can only do so much without real change in the attitudes towards individual freedom. You’ll just end up with richer warlords and tribal chiefs who will still decide who gets what.
I’m not saying I know the answer, but it seems that protecting women and men that want to change their situations through education, micro-loans, home-grown initiatives and self-reorganization will achieve more than well-funded technocratic schemes. It won’t be done by US officers, though.

Posted by: biklett | Feb 8 2008 17:57 utc | 14

b,
Try starting in Haiti, a country that used to supply 40% of Europe’s sugar in the late 1700’s. Teach the citizens to grow sugar cane and extract ethanol and commit to either buying from them the raw sugar or processed ethanol. Work with the government, such as it is, to replant the forests. The jobs and increased standard of living could provide a significant partner and provide a model for countries around the world, for example, force Israel to provide some of our aid to surrounding entities, Gaza, etc. to teach them how to fish, er, build solar factories, buying electricity from them and helping them market their goods around the world.
Just hire no one from the Bush Admin. because the only thing they seem good at is blowing things up and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Posted by: IntelVet | Feb 8 2008 18:30 utc | 15

I’m with b on this. First you need reliable social institutions. Traditional tribal institutions should be the foundation, because everybody understands and trusts its ability to resolve disputes. I’m not sure about the structure the Islamic Courts government in Somalia put together, but it seemed to have an amazing ability to both disarm the warlord militias and to re-fabricate functional institutions. Whatever they did, they managed to find enough consensus between the various factions to develop a self sustaining stability. The NATO forces in Afghanistan should be working toward the same thing. The last thing they should be doing is imposing “liberal democratic reforms” because it only fragments, polarizes, and radicalizes the population as a defense mechanism. People thrust into a crises are unlikely to exchange their cultural identity for security from those causing the crisis. The rubric of democratic reforms is essentially a “liberal” costume that dresses up colonialism and exploitation as being something else. Not to mention that it NEVER actually works.
So, after NATO succeeds in re-consolidating Islamist political institutions based on sharia and tribal traditions, they should then reinforce it through an influx of Western funds and technology that flow directly through the Afghan authorities distributed according to agreed upon traditional patronage structures. In such a way that shores up stability long term self-sufficiency, and security. And the beginnings of institutions capable of sustaining, if they so choose, liberal social reforms. Because if you look historically (as b#13 indicates), liberal social reforms are both a function and a result of the demands and needs of post industrial revolution urban life, that necessarily must be grounded in political institutions with sufficient capacity to replace the needs met formally by family and tribal institutions. Trying to impose post industrial liberal reforms on a society that has neither industry, or the social institutions that are constructed to support it, is a tragic ruse with failure built into it.

Posted by: anna missed | Feb 8 2008 19:57 utc | 16

@biklett – The goal of relieving poverty can only do so much without real change in the attitudes towards individual freedom.
I believe that relieving poverty it is a pre-condition to freedom (whatever that is).
The chain of development in the “classic case” English Industrial Revolution followed the chain – new energy (coal) -> new technology -> automated spinning weaving -> social change -> more education …
There are other more recent examples in development but all have to certain extend that chain involved.
“It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”
—Karl Marx, Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

Wiki: Historical materialism

@IntelVet
Sugar cane was part of the problem that impoverished Haiti in the first place. Sugar cane exhaust the soil it is growing on. Up to 40% of Haiti was deforsted because of that. (In Brasil the rainforest is endangered BECAUSE of sugar cane production. The rest of Haiti’s trees (only 2% is still woodland) were cut down because people needed energy (charcoal).
In total the whole biofuel stuff will come to haunt us. We use food to drive cars and people get hungry and starve.
I don’t know much about Haiti’s political problems, though it seems that a rich class there (and in Miami) demands and always get U.S. and French intervention when someone with social ambitions gets to rule.

Posted by: b | Feb 8 2008 20:31 utc | 17

‘Green Afghanistan’ is like that joke: A guy asks his tax adviser,
“If I get a class-action settlement that’s only 10% of my overall
investment, can I deduct the remaining 90% as unrecoverable loss?
The tax advisor looks at the guy and says, “And, your point is?”
Afghanistan needs Bactrian camels to get rid of the goats that are
denuding the hillsides, rendered barren by two decades of El Nino.
Turkestan found in their own desertification restoration programs
that Bactrian camels survive better, and do less damage to forage.
But Afghanistan land holdings are generally too small for camels,
so there you go. Yes, there’s a tremendous need for reforestation,
reorchardification and revinification. Afghan pome fruits are the
original progenitors of most of what we call “fruit” today. Sadly,
during the Soviet war, then the US war, Pakistan paid a bounty for
root stock of Afghan fruits, and so the laid waste to the resource.
So what’re ya’ gonna do? No relief or reconstruction agency in the
world will work in a war zone. None. US Defense and State want the
country as a client-state, an eldercare perpetual bleed, a war that
pays good dividends to Defense contractors kicking $’s back to Fed.
The horrible reality is the American Dream was destroyed in 1987
by Sir Ronald Reagan in his vain Anti-Communist, credit tightening,
proto-neo-con delusional state, when he let Arms for Hostages.con
become S&L.con, then Star Wars.con, until Def-grifting got airborne.
Defense is now the largest global corporation, US-R-NEO-SOVIET LLC.
So it doesn’t matter that Afghanistan needs a railroad, truckroad
and pipeline super-corridor, because it just ain’t gonna happen.
Instead, the central highway blasts right through the center of
every town, with no traffic control whatsoever, intersections
swarming like a nest of killer bees, trucks alongside donkey
carts, jitneys dueling with mopeds, and everywhere pedestrians.
Less than a decade ago, the highway was just a gravel track.
The myopic US Def-State response has been to connect the dots,
base to base, militia barrack to militia barrack, ambassador
compound to ambassador compound. After dark, at any moment,
roadblocks are set up by renegade militia, shaking down the
newer vehicles for passage, menacing with AK-47’s leveled.
If the renegades don’t get you, the Marines will. Strykers
swinging big 50-cal’s will shoot anything that gets close on
the highway, a mini-bus full of students, a beater car full
of mothers and children, everyone knows, don’t tailgate DoD!
So here’s the prognosis:
A shattered ecology rapidly desertifying, more mouths to feed.
An occupied client-state, perpetual security-care, because US
tax money never stops coming, as long as the client is broken.
A opium bonanza, doubling the ante up, guaranteeing occupation.
Maybe a little visual aid is useful. Link to: lukepowell.com
The only “green” in Afghanistan is, sadly, the bales of US greenbacks.
When you return from your AF v-trip, let’s turn off that $ spigot!

Posted by: Peris Troika | Feb 9 2008 4:49 utc | 18

b,
I was led to believe that the deforestation was mostly about the use of wood for fuel. In fact, quite a bit of the denuded land (most of Haiti) seems unlikely to support much in the way of cane growth as it seems pretty steep.
I share your feelings about biofuel and would wholeheartedly reject the use of corn, etc. Switchgrass and to a lesser extent, sugar cane seem pretty efficient, though. Would rotating crops help?
Agreed about the ruling classes, especially the ones in Miami. Kinda like the joke about why the US has no attempted overthrows, they don’t have an American embassy on their soil.

Posted by: IntelVet | Feb 9 2008 13:36 utc | 19

Burj Dubai (Arabic: برج دبي‎ “Dubai Tower”) is a super-skyscraper currently under construction in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. When it is completed in late 2008, it is predicted to be the tallest man-made structure in the world. Scheduled for occupancy in September 2009, the building is part of a 2 km² (0.8 sq mi) development called ‘Downtown Dubai’ and is located at the “First Interchange” (aka “Defence Roundabout”) along Sheikh Zayed Road at Doha Street.
The total budget for the Burj Dubai project is about $4.1 billion US and for the entire new ‘Downtown Dubai’, $20 billion US.
The Three Gorges Dam (pinyin: Chángjiāng Sānxiá Dà Bà) is a Chinese hydroelectric river dam that spans the Yangtze River in Sandouping, Yichang, Hubei, China. The total electric generating capacity of the dam will reach 22,500 megawatts, at which point it will be the largest hydro-electric power station in the world . This is the biggest project that has been undertaken in China since the Great Wall and the Grand Canal. Several generators are yet to be installed; the dam is not expected to become fully operational until about 2011.
When finished, the Three Gorges Dam project will have cost no more than 180 billion yuan, ($25B), 10% less than the initial estimated budget of 203.9 billion yuan, and for the entire Three Gorges regional redevelopment plan, $35.5 billion US..
Recapping, the largest two civil construction projects in the 60,000-year history of mankind will cost less than $55B, or $5.5B per year average outlays. Dubai and Three Gorges Dam are so vast, they can be seen from LEO (low-earth orbit).
That $55B is less than ONE-TENTH of what US:UK has poured into Iraq (and claimed they spent in Afghanistan, that’s a flat lie), with nothing to show for it.
Iraqanalysis.org/info/125
Until we end this greatest plain-view fraud in the history of mankind,
chatting up Green Afghanistan is like plucking buttercups on the Hindenburg.

Posted by: Petey Michelson | Feb 9 2008 18:20 utc | 20

I thank you for your thought fullness. Honestly every since (US left Kandahar) things have been changing for the worst here. Security wise. This year was just a little better suicide bombing wise but had record Kidnapping this year. We need 100% commitment from the international community. Employment and All basic Services are needed imediatly. Afghanistan is lacking all Basic Services.

Posted by: Abaz Wazidiari | Feb 9 2008 19:26 utc | 21

@Abaz – 21 – can you tell us more?
You seem to know the place and have a view of the situation. If you write something up I’ll publish it here. Send to MoonofA _at_ aol.com _at_ = @

Posted by: b | Feb 9 2008 19:54 utc | 22

Just saw an interesting discussion on public German TV.
The show is a regular political round for some 40 years. International journalists talking about one issue. Today had journalists from UK, US, Turkey, Germany and Netherlands. The discussion was about German troops in Afghansitan and US pressure to send more.
The round was led by a German jorunalist. She was absolutly pro-war and her questions always intended to lead to pro-war answers.
After 45 minutes a 15 minutes phone-in with viewer questions. There were ten such questions. The questions (they don’t get ‘managed’ on this German show) came from people of all ages and areas.
All were absolutly against German engagement in Afghanistan and some seriously attacked the moderator and some of the guests for their pro-war stand. The response from the round was very weak. After 45 minutes of congratulating each other they were suddenly confronted with peoples real opinion. Refreshing …
The last phone – in even talked of “Merkel preparing the Germans to attack Iran for the sake of Israel” – good.

Posted by: b | Feb 10 2008 12:12 utc | 23

Mansoor Dadullah, who was shunned by the Taliban chief Mullah Omar and the target of the aborted British attempt to make him an ally has been killed.

QUETTA, Pakistan (AP) — Pakistani security forces killed a top figure in the Taliban militia fighting U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan and captured four other militants Monday, a military official said.
Mansoor Dadullah, brother of slain Taliban military commander Mullah Dadullah, was among five militants caught after a shootout near a seminary in southwestern Baluchistan province around 10 a.m., a local intelligence official told The Associated Press.
A senior military official said Dadullah died of his wounds while being flown to a hospital with the other four injured men.

Posted by: b | Feb 11 2008 11:00 utc | 24