It seems likely that if the Pashtuns in Pakistan are pushing for their own state, that the Pashtuns in Afghanistan will hope for the same. Rather than creating unity, the effects of failed intervention in the interests of Western nations may result in a fracturing of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Ways Forward
Given the complication and sheer destruction which has left competing
powers as virtually independent operators, and people's lives in
devastation, it is hard to see what will help - particularly over the
short term. It seems that Obama is willing to continue a primarily
military (or militaristic) path in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Obama has
expanded the Bush administration's practices of covert troop increases
in the region using "rotations" and outsourcing to corporate
mercenaries to expand military presence. We seem to be in the same
situation in Afghanistan as we were in Iraq: "As Afghan military and
police stand up, we will stand down." However, our presence in Iraq is
not substantively decreasing (especially when one counts
"contractors"), and both formal troops and "contractors" are increasing
in Afghanistan. Obama has also expanded the use of drones. One could
even argue that the $1.5 billion in aid to Pakistan is in effect hiring
the Pakistani army as contract forces for U.S. interests. What does
"aid" mean in this context?
But the people want peace, to be able to support their families, to have hope for their futures. A "grassroots" experienced U.S. President might apply some of that insight to the turbulence in the region. Assistance in developing internal and external markets in Afghanistan and Pakistan would go a long way towards giving the people options they currently do not have. Assisting community and tribal leaders in building infrastructure and security would go towards balancing the power of the Taliban and whatever al Qaida organization exists in the region.
The poppies of Afghanistan seem to be an endless source of fund raising and international heroin markets. It would seem to be a no-brainer to use those poppies in legitimate ways - namely for the medical market. Why does Tasmania Australia have 40% of the medical opium market? India allows production of medical opium poppies, and they might resist legalization in Afghanistan. Regardless, why can't Afghanistan be a legal supplier of opium for medical uses?
Afghanistan does have natural resources - particularly oil, natural gas and coal - which is part of the reason for ongoing U.S. "interest" in the area. (See also Assessment of Undiscovered Petroleum Resources of Northern Afghanistan, 2006) However, the real energy interests in Afghanistan have been the pipeline to ensure the West's oil supply. It seems that "safeguard" should be profitable for the people of Afghanistan.
Realistically, many of the people of Afghanistan may not want to join the "modern world" on the "modern world's" terms. They have local economies and ways of life that have sustained and enriched them for thousands of years. Stability would go a long way towards allowing local economies to function effectively once again.
What seems very clear is that there is not a military solution to the instability of the region. However, a military presence in that region serves a variety o0f purposes for the United States and the "West." Whose interest will prevail? Those of the people, or those of the the competing powers?(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
