Interview with A Ghani, Newshour.
A Ghani is in Washington. The suspicion must be that he is here to talk with policymakers and members of the executive on a way forward from a governance point of view in Afghanistan, while the debate over the military point of view is ongoing.
He has said that he is not interested in power. I do believe him. I believe his true intentions are in improving governance in A by putting up a framework that will be given credibility both by the interior of A - power and people, and by international partners - europe and usa.
He is a formar World Bank officer, and a former member of the Karzai gov until he resigned over disagreements over corruption and governance 5 years ago. He ran for the presidential office this election and finished a distance 4th.
He lined up a series of laws that could be enacted to end the area of massive corruption that has been the rule of the country since the UN framework fell through 3 years after the occupation. It involved the regulation of customs, the yearly auditory supervision of official personal treasury, and additional measures.
----
The way forward.
Currently, a review is coming in the next week for the votes in the last election. A surprise could happen and Abdullah, the runner up, could make a come back. Whatever happens, the new government will have to make radical changes on the way it operates - something Karzai has chosen against one way or another. Corruption will have to be stamped on because it diminishes the central government by giving off power to gov officials having their own agenda, regional gov representatives, and perhaps most importantly, independant leaders. The last category includes what are refered as Talibans.
I do believe Karzai must go once we have a new political strategy. A new face is needed and Ghani could be a very good man to work not as that new face, but as a behind the scene implementer and enforcer of the new rules.
The military strategy - just like in Iraq during the surge period, cannot succeed without a change in the structure of power. This must come from political initiatives working from both ends - the central and the local political units.
Thins are much different in A than they were at the Iraqui Surge day 1. There is no *active* civil war. There is no Sunni faction loosing his spot of influence on the governance of the country. Yet there is a very strong nationalistic dimension in the conflict in A: the pashtuns. The lack of information on the ramificaiton of this is the reason why I do not see clearly the way forward for A yet, like i did for Iraq in the Summer and Fall of 2007.
-----
How to cure such a widespread, deep, perhaps necessary corruption? There are some ironic but very frequent occurences, where western companies helping western elements have to pay off "taliban" forces to get their goods accross.
Power is forcibly decentralized.
