As we watch the Iraqi state we propped up break down, it begs the question: Can the U.S. successfully keep the Afghan government from collapsing despite the presence of the Taliban, corrupt government officials, and Afghanistan's history as a decentralized country? The obvious answer is no.
The Afghan presidential elections were rife with issues. After an audit conducted by 14 countries, roughly 850,000 votes were discarded due to claims of corruption, with the two leading candidates each being guilty of the fraud. Luckily, the U.S., via the wheeling and dealing of Secretary of State John Kerry, has helped settle the issue between the two by having them share government powers. He did this by creating a new chief executive position for the runner up, similar to a prime minister, for Abdullah Abdullah, while naming Ashraf Ghani the new president of Afghanistan.
It seems that there is no way these two men can cooperate to build a stable state. The agreement was announced by Hamid Karzai, the previous president, while Ghani and Abdullah tensely stood by in the presidential office, further raising doubts that these two opposing figures can manage to work together to keep the weak Afghan state together.
Mohammed Amin Farhang, the former minister of economy and commerce under Karzai, said, "The two gentlemen have the ability to move the country in the right direction, if they learn from their past mistakes. But if they haven’t learned from past mistakes, they will take the country into a crisis like Iraq.”
He added, “If they start to clash with each other, the army will split into two parts.”
This dangerous rift is further aggravated by regional leaders who remain unwilling to accept the patchwork government, such as Attah Mohammed Noor, governor of the Balkh province and fervent Abdullah Abdullah supporter.
Noor said, “We do not want a disaster, but we will defend the legal rights of our people. We will have a major civil rebellion. ... We will occupy authorities buildings and establishments. ... We will boycott the method, and we will not understand the upcoming government due to the fact it will have no legitimacy.”
This results in what appears to be a destined repeat of the Soviet puppet government of the '80s, which crumbled due to an ineffective and underfunded government without united control of the military.
My colleague, Jordan, believes that with U.S. assistance, the Afghan government will have the support it needs, whereas I see it as such a likely failure that continued American expenditures in the current form are unjustified. The U.S. is pegged to give billions of dollars a year in aid on top of keeping a costly military presence while supporting the growth of the Afghan armed forces, on top of the countless billions already spent—much of which has been lost due to corruption.
Despite our own economic troubles, if we want any hope of the Afghan government succeeding, then we will likely have to foot the bill to keep up this polarized house of cards, as well as the unnecessary continued risk to those in our military.
With the recent security agreement brokered by the new union government and the U.S., there will be an extended presence of 9,800 American troops on Afghan soil into 2015—which could possibly add to the already 2,300-plus American military fatalities in Afghanistan.
My colleague might think my outlook a tad pessimistic or critical, but when one looks at the history of the region, along with all of the factors at play, it’s simply a realistic view of an unfavorable situation. When it comes to American lives and tax dollars, I try not to rosy up what is truly a grim picture with lofty hopes. His optimistic outlook pales when confronting the amount that the U.S. has to expend to keep up this likely failure.
Reach the columnist abbooth1@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter @AndrewBuckBooth
Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
