If it turns out that tackling corruption/trafficking in Afg is a requirement to a stable state with a viable govt (and I don't know that it is), well I'd expect to see the USS Death Star brought to bear on that problem sometime in 2150.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Says Kilo, amusingly, in the comments:
I want to dispute the parenthetical aside, though: I think tackling those things is a requirement for the simple reason that corruption is a major driver of the insurgency. It constrains the ability of the government to deliver the sort of justice that Afghans yearn for -- hell, more than justice, it may just be predictability. As a number of people have said lately, at least with the Taliban, you knew what you were getting; it sucked, but it was predictable.
You may have a stable state with a viable government (and that might even be the Taliban), but it seems to me that without some sort of security from the government, you're still gonna end up dealing with disaffected populations. And in a place where it's nearly impossible to extend the writ of government and the rule of law very far beyond the major population centers, and where there's a fighting tradition, a lot of those disaffected populations are going to be armed and violent. So then we're back where we started with an insurgency. (Only this time, maybe we don't have to counter it.)