Afghanistan: Foolishly Spending Billions for “Nation-Building” 

U.S in Afghanistan: foolishly spending billions for “nation-building”

David Brooks, influential columnist for the NYTimes, wrote an article early last week on the foolishness of spending $19 billion to promote “nation-building” in Afghanistan. Note: this is in addition to pouring out hundreds of billions for military hardware and 100,000 U.S. soldiers.

His article, like many he writes, is on the one hand insightful and on the other hand an example of the blindness of the New York Times and of the top elites of the United States for whom the Times is part of their daily breakfast.

I first comment on his insight and then take up the blindness.

True enough, writes Brooks, the $19 billion has provided things like basic health services for two-thirds of the people (up from 9 percent a decade ago) and has enabled 7 million Afghan boys and girls to attend school, whereas less than a million attended under the Taliban (and only boys). He points out that this has failed to bring about the hoped for stabilization and security. It has not quelled the violence.

Brooks then writes something that turns a good argument on its head. He writes: “Violence doesn’t stem from poverty. It stems from grudges, tribal dynamics, and religious fanaticism – none of which can be ameliorated by building new roads.”

There are five things about this that raise my ire:

First, he clearly implies that it’s the fault of the Afghan people; they’re the source of the violence, they’re to blame .

Second, it’s way too simplistic about the relationship of poverty and violence – being poor always exacerbates actual and potential unrest.

Third, being poor (which in Afghanistan, just as in the U.S., is a result of being kept poor while others are fabulously and corruptly rich) is a supreme question of justice which Brooks ignores.

Fourth, he sets aside a big reality. The same Uncle Sam who presents good works to the people is one-and-the-same military juggernaut that dominates the country, bombs civilians, and creates a puppet government for them. The good works are shadowed and soiled by the connection.

And five, closely related to number four, he misses entirely the crucial underlying reason for the failure of what is ridiculously called “nation-building”.  The reason is the colonialist approach to “doing good” to others. The assumption by the U.S. governing elite, mirrored in Brooks’ words, is that we are the big rich uncle who has come to Afghanistan to help them see the light –indeed, to get them to see the light.  “We will confer freedom upon you.”

That stance of “supreme benefactor” grates on the recipient. It arouses resentment and anger. It feeds directly into the strong reactions of those among the people who want to kick us out. Home grown patriots find a continuing source of support among the people at large who want their country to be their country. All of this goes to help the efforts of the old authoritarians (the Taliban) to regain power.

Add to these points the terrible fact that over 3 million people from Afghanistan are refugees. They, together with Iraq’s 1 million, six hundred and eighty thousand refugees constitute one-third of the world’s refugees.

The United States government should get out militarily and only after that has been accomplished might it make sense to do good works.

John Rensenbrink

Comments