Quote

Argument

Afghanistan Needs a Weaker President

Decentralizing power can be key to long-term peace.

By Shabnam Nasimi, Jason Criss Howk

| April 12, 2021, 2:39 PM

 

As the Afghan and U.S. governments negotiate peace with the Taliban, Afghanistan is wrestling with an old issue; how much power should be in the hands of the national government versus provincial and city leaders? This is not a uniquely Afghan question, but it’s a particularly acute one in a country that has disintegrated into violence many times in recent decades. There are no easy answers to adjustments like this, but a civil conversation should take place among Afghan citizens, politicians, and officials about how best to share powers to ensure peace and security for Afghans.

Afghanistan is among the most highly centralized states in the world with an extremely strong presidency that has left little room for formal local structures to fill the vacuum. Yet, the center’s power, given the country’s remote provinces and poor infrastructure and institutions, has also been insufficient to control the country. Decentralization of current presidential powers should not be about breaking the country apart or causing partition. Instead, it should be a quest for practical solutions to endless violence. Putting too much power in one person’s hands can lead to injustices and inequalities in even the most stable nations. Decentralization, on the other hand, could produce more support for the national government and greater trust in provincial and local systems, allowing the Afghan people to take control of their own political destiny.

Since 1973, the Afghan state has been a kingdom, a republic, a people’s democratic republic, again a republic, an Islamic state, an Islamic emirate, an interim administration, a transitional Islamic state, and an Islamic republic, averaging a change of regime more frequently than once every six years. Nothing seems to have brought peace and stability—but all of these systems have shared an obsession with centralizing national power. Maybe it’s time to try something new.

The dilemma for both Afghanistan and for the international community is to transform the current situation into a more equitable merit-based system of administration that can best ensure no ethnic group will be able to dominate. The Soviet Union in the 1980s and the United States after the 2001 Afghan Bonn Conference both assumed that building a strong state would counter Islamist extremism and a robust central authority could take control of the country. This approach ended up making the situation worse because it ignored the importance of Afghanistan’s ethnonational sensitivities.

At present, the varied ethnic and tribal groups inside Afghanistan often see the country’s leaders as fundamentally alien. Even the smallest decisions by the government in the current system can lead to claims of abuse of power at the expense of individual groups.

The proponents of the unitary state worry the country’s unity and integrity could be at risk if any power was pushed down to the people. They argue the nation is too fragmented, state institutions are weak, and insecurity problems demand a strong, centralized government.

But the centralized system has already failed to deliver the services nearly 40 million people need. Maybe giving more power to citizens and more responsibility to local leaders can improve that—and at a minimum, it can make them more accountable to their constituents.

The 2004 Afghan Constitution invests the president with more powers than former Afghan kings had. Among them is the power to appoint all government officials, political and professional, from the cabinet to district levels. That includes provincial governors, some of the most powerful people in the country.

This extreme power opens any president up to charges of nepotism and ethnic favoritism. Democracy suffers when parties out of power feel only the president’s friends are getting rewarded and makes it easier for anti-government forces to charge the government with corruption.

Placing the responsibility of policing cities more firmly in the hands of the mayors is another way Afghans can decentralize responsibly. Right now, the ministry of interior affairs has an outsized responsibility to maintain security in areas it can hardly be expected to understand fully. No single person can control the kidnappings, petty crime, car thefts, and murders from a distant seat in Kabul. Handing more responsibility to city mayors across the country could improve security and accountability.

Although there is a provision in the Afghan Constitution requiring mayors to be elected, it has never been put into practice. Appointments to these posts are filled by Afghanistan’s interior ministry, subject to presidential approval. A mayor is currently only accountable to the president, and this can generate corruption and allow officials to be selected through personal connections and bribery rather than merit. Beyond security, the municipalities have very limited authority. They have no control over electricity, water, and the police. If mayors are elected by the people, they would be more accountable to the public and likely perform better.

Yet the danger in this may be that when cities can’t control their own security because of incompetence or corruption, it is difficult for the national government to intervene in a way that doesn’t interfere with the mayor’s sovereignty.

In the end, this might be a shift worth making as this gets citizens to take more ownership in their local security. Right now, citizens can simply blame the far-away government in Kabul for their security problems. If, instead, they could petition the mayor to take stronger and more proactive measures, mayors would (and should) react more quickly and forcefully.

A political system that empowers Afghanistan’s diverse communities is the greatest remedy to extremism because it establishes insurmountable barriers to groups like the Taliban who seek control of the country.

To be sure, there are possible costs for turning over power to the citizens to elect their provincial and local leaders. Corruption and kingmaking at lower levels of government are also possible. Taking away the power of the president to remove corrupt or abusive governors quickly could further weaken democracy in Afghanistan.

But the chance to decrease some or much of the ethnic strife by some simple adjustments to the democratic process could be a prelude to overall peace and security in Afghanistan. By holding more provincial and local elections and sharing more power with citizens, Afghans may be able to build a sense of nationalism that includes an appreciation of the country’s ethnicities, cultures, languages, and heritage.

These ideas could be of value to peace negotiations led by delegates and leaders across Afghanistan. The Afghan people have developed a stronger sense of nationalism since overthrowing the internationally unrecognized Taliban regime in 2001. Making a handful of adjustments now to empower citizens to have more ownership of their security situation and get more voters to support local and national governance could be a wise move. Afghans deeply believe in freedom. Liberty for the nation and at the individual level can be further engrained by some modest power decentralization.

 

Shabnam Nasimi is a British Afghan political and social activist and the executive director of Conservative Friends of Afghanistan. Twitter: @NasimiShabnam

Jason Criss Howk is a researcher who works with the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/12/afghanistan-president-decentralization-government-us-policy-taliban/

 

28 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

4 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Yeah, I'm not sure I agree either, but it's an interesting perspective to consider. In reality, I think they're f***ed either way.

Just now, EaglesRocker97 said:

Yeah, I'm not sure I agree either, but it's an interesting perspective to consider.

I don't spend everyday in Afghanistan but the author probably doesn't either. However, I do read a lot, and used to work closely with the military. The urban areas are more progressive (for Afghanistan) and do like freedom (for Afghanistan). The rural areas are more antiquated, and want to go back to the old ways where young people and women had no rights, and no one had any freedom unless the old a-holes in charge said they could do something. Kind of like us. How the urban areas go, so does the whole of the country. So important for the government not to cave to the influence of the old guard in the outskirts. Kind of like us. 

12 minutes ago, Gannan said:

I don't spend everyday in Afghanistan but the author probably doesn't either. However, I do read a lot, and used to work closely with the military. The urban areas are more progressive (for Afghanistan) and do like freedom (for Afghanistan). The rural areas are more antiquated, and want to go back to the old ways where young people and women had no rights, and no one had any freedom unless the old a-holes in charge said they could do something. Kind of like us. How the urban areas go, so does the whole of the country. So important for the government not to cave to the influence of the old guard in the outskirts. Kind of like us. 

 

It does sound a lot like us when you think about it. Humans are certainly more similar than they are different. I think something to consider here (because its somewhat alien to us) is that tribalism is so deep-rooted in Afghanistan's cultural history that any effective solution will have to in some way defer to some degree of structural similarity to what its people understand and value. There's obviously a significant need for a strong central authority, but there must also be room to talk about how power can be diffused in a way that discourages totalitarianism and that gives people at the least the perception of having a measure of control over their lives and strong connections to their leadership.

Joe Biden Set To Approve First Arms Sale to Taiwan Amid China Threat

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-set-approve-first-arms-sale-taiwan-amid-china-threat-1584931

2 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

Joe Biden Set To Approve First Arms Sale to Taiwan Amid China Threat

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-set-approve-first-arms-sale-taiwan-amid-china-threat-1584931

This guy has giant brass ones. What a breath of fresh air compared to the feckless cowardly foreign policy we had to endure for the last 4 years.

Italian ‘king of absentees’ allegedly skipped work for 15 years

Hospital employee in Calabrian city of Catanzaro continued to be paid monthly salary to total of around £464,000

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/21/italian-king-of-absentees-allegedly-skipped-work-for-15-years

My father worked for a place in Colorado, back in the 90s, that was developing optical drives for aircraft. This one employee was never around, but his coat was there, stuff around, cup of coffee. My dad called him, "Jim, the guy who isn't there."

Turns out the guy accepted another job and milked the first place for a couple of months before they caught on, people worked staggered hours, and he would come in at night and move things around.

 

This is going to rile Erdogan.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/21/politics/biden-armenia-genocide-turkey/index.html

1 hour ago, Talkingbirds said:

This is going to rile Erdogan.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/21/politics/biden-armenia-genocide-turkey/index.html

Good. He's a huge POS

1 minute ago, Toastrel said:

Good. He's a huge POS

Agree, but Turkey is still important to US Middle East interests.

4 minutes ago, Talkingbirds said:

Agree, but Turkey is still important to US Middle East interests.

We have to stop playing nice with these dewsh bags. If your allies say, refuse to let you use their airspace when you are invading a country, they are not much of an ally.

3 hours ago, Talkingbirds said:

This is going to rile Erdogan.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/21/politics/biden-armenia-genocide-turkey/index.html

Finally a president with some balls.

14 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Finally a president with some balls.

Oh just wait, Biden will be writing love letters to dictators and becoming pen pals wi....

 

Hmm

Returning to an earlier topic: The sheer idiocy of Trump in regards to Iran is that we are currently in a dramatically worse position, both in terms of security and geopolitical leverage. If you thought the JCPOA was a bad deal, whatever replaces will undoubtedly be less effective, in terms of both the accelerated development of Iran's nuclear program since the the abrogation, as well as the loss of diplomatic leverage and standing. We are significantly worse off in the Middle East now than we were in 2016 as a direct result of Trump's dimwitted foreign policy. I mention Trump not to distract from Biden but to give the proper context for what he has to work with. Biden will be lucky to simply deter Iranian nuclear advancement; there's certainly no path back to a highly restrictive enrichment program backed by general UN inspections. You can't put that genie back in the bottle.

We'll have to lighten some of the economic pressure on Iran, if that's what's necessary to achieve some kind of pact, however, symbolic it might be. Regardless, we must give into the realism that any 21st century industrialized nation must have access to the most powerfully efficient energy source nature can provide, especially as the increasing scarcity of fossil fuels increases the cost of extraction and refinement to levels that significantly impact the delivery and affordability of power plants and factories. Fission technology is the primary criteria for the independence of any sovereign dominion in current era, because everything relating to commercial power to societal development and military power depends on it. When you think about it, it should be pretty simple to realize that Iran's desire for nuclear power is at least as much about economics as it is national security. The two are bound together. Further economic isolation will obviously only increase their hostility and instability.

Personally, I think a nuclear-capable Iran is well past the point of inevitability by now, so we may as well be ready to deal. Once they actually possess nuclear weapons and subsequently develop an effective delivery capability, we'll be forced to engage Iran with much less authority because it will have effectively achieved the great-power status that it has perpetually craved since the days of the Persian Empire. We'd be smart to send conciliatory messages through our emissaries to an Iranian consulate expressing regret and pledging to negotiate in good faith. In concert with our European allies, there should be a sustained pressure campaign to cajole and entice Iran to re-join the agreement under the original nonproliferation protocol. This is nearly certain to fail, but it could improve the outcome of any future agreement.

Not sure it belongs here since we don't know what's going on yet, but a staffer was sickened with Havana syndrome symptoms on the White House lawn in November. 

For reference, Havana syndrome is a series of acute symptoms seemingly targeting inner ear and neurological systems to cause dizziness, ringing, loss of balance, headaches, and in some cases, nosebleeds and permanent hearing loss. Cause is unknown, but the name stems from an incident a few years ago with several US diplomats in Cuba with the prevailing theory being some sort of directed energy weapon (e.g. Like a microwave ray gun type deal I guess.) 

Now I'm not one to give credence to anything this far-fetched if it isn't well substantiated by at least some circumstantial evidence, and leaping to a conclusion that Russia or China is so bold as to do this right under our nose is a reach, but this one has my attention and bears keeping an eye on.

23 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

For reference, Havana syndrome is a series of acute symptoms seemingly targeting inner ear and neurological systems to cause dizziness, ringing, loss of balance, headaches, and in some cases, nosebleeds and permanent hearing loss. Cause is unknown, but the name stems from an incident a few years ago with several US diplomats in Cuba with the prevailing theory being some sort of directed energy weapon (e.g. Like a microwave ray gun type deal I guess.)

I've heard about these things before. Scary sh**.

These extremists are too fractured and divided to take the fight to America anymore, and besides, why would they even bother at a time when they can clearly see that we are perfectly capable of destroying ourselves? We must turn our eyes to the enemy within (Looking at you, Trumpbots...)

 

Quote

Opinion: Ten years later, Islamist terrorism isn’t the threat it used to be

 

Opinion by

Fareed Zakaria

Columnist

April 29, 2021 at 5:44 p.m. EDT

This weekend marks the 10th anniversary of the operation, code-named Neptune Spear, that killed Osama bin Laden. It’s an opportunity to reflect on the state of Islamist terrorism and radical Islam more generally. And the initial diagnosis is clear: The movement is in bad shape.

Total deaths caused by terrorism around the world have plummeted by 59 percent since their peak in 2014. In the West, the current threat is less from Islamist violence than far-right terrorism, which has surged by 250 percent in the same period, and now makes up 46 percent of attacks and 82 percent of deaths.

Most Islamist terrorism today tends to be local — the Taliban in Afghanistan, Boko Haram in Nigeria, al-Shabab in the Horn of Africa. That’s a major reversal from the glory days of al-Qaeda, when its leaders insisted that the focus must be not on the "near enemy” (the local regimes) but rather the "far enemy” (the United States and the West more broadly). Al-Qaeda has disintegrated into a bunch of militias in disparate places with no central command or ideology. The Islamic State is doing slightly better, with more funds, but it, too, searches for unstable or ungoverned places, such as Mozambique, where it can operate. This focus on local conflicts erodes any global appeal. Muslims around the world do not identify with local causes in Mozambique or Somalia.

Militant Islam, which began to flourish in the 1970s, rooted its appeal in failure — the failure of the dictatorships and monarchies of the Arab world to develop their societies. Islamists urged Muslims to give up on Western-style modernization, which had led only to poverty and tyranny, and to embrace instead the idea of political Islam — the road to an Islamic state. People such as bin Laden and his associate Ayman al-Zawahiri turned political Islam into militant Islam because they argued it was the only way to topple the dictatorships of the Arab world and beyond. They urged terrorism against those regimes but most importantly, against the superpower that supported them — the United States.

In an essay in the journal Religions, Nader Hashemi points out that the allure of political Islam was always that of an untested opposition movement, a mystical alternative to the shoddy reality that existed on the ground in the Muslim world. But over the past few decades, Islamist parties have entered the political process in Iraq, Sudan, Tunisia, Egypt, Gaza, Jordan and other places. "One general theme stands,” writes Hashemi. "The popular prestige of political Islam has been tarnished by its experience with state power.”

Millions of Muslims have now seen political Islam in action — and they don’t like it. They fled the Islamic State caliphate in droves. They protested against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. They watched Shiite parties in Iraq turn into corrupt patronage operations. And in Iran, they continue to be deeply disenchanted by that country’s theocratic government. The oxygen that fed political Islam — disgust with the current regimes and blind faith in the promise of religious leaders — has been severely depleted.

What remains now are local problems, local discontents that are really not part of some great global movement. It’s true in the West as well. There has been a spate of Islamist attacks in France, but these were all carried out by individuals not previously known to the police and not part of any known jihadi groups. They were self-radicalized, with their own personal discomforts leading them to a radical ideology.

In this sense, Islamist attacks in Europe have something in common with far-right attacks in the United States. Alienated individuals, radicalizing online, find ideologies that weaponize their fears and furies. America has many more alienated White men these days than Muslims, hence the changing composition of the terrorism on its soil.

The lessons to draw about Islam, Islamist terrorism and the prospects for democracy in Islamic countries are complicated and varied. 2021 is also the 10th anniversary of the Arab Spring, when millions of Arabs tried to peacefully protest for democracy and human rights, a movement that sprouted up again over the past few years in Algeria, Sudan, Lebanon and Iraq. Though these efforts have had limited success, they show powerfully that Arabs and Muslims want freedom and democracy far more than they do a caliphate.

For America, there is one big lesson: Stay calm. In the months after 9/11, we panicked, sacrificing liberties at home and waging war abroad, terrified that we were going to be defeated by this new enemy. This is part of a worrying American tradition of exaggerating the threats we face, from the Soviet Union to Saddam Hussein. As we scour the world for new foes, let’s learn to right-size our adversaries and find a way to run fast but not run scared.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/ten-years-later-islamist-terrorism-isnt-the-threat-it-used-to-be/2021/04/29/deb88256-a91c-11eb-bca5-048b2759a489_story.html

 

Let's ask Samuel Paty what he thinks about it after showing a Islamic cartoon. 

F that stone age terrorist religion. 

2 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

Let's ask Samuel Paty what he thinks about it after showing a Islamic cartoon. 

F that stone age terrorist religion. 

 

That doesn't really have anything to do with the post, but OK. I hate all religions. F Islam and all the rest, but travailing the globe trying to "eliminate Islamic extremism" is a fool's errand. Our most immediate threats are at home, and it's not even close.

9 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

That doesn't really have anything to do with the post, but OK. I hate all religions. F Islam and all the rest, but travailing the globe trying to "eliminate Islamic extremism" is a fool's errand. Our most immediate threats are at home, and it's not even close.

But you can't say that for sure because we have no idea what SpecOps is doing right now. Maybe we don't need the grunts anymore, but they are definitely forward deployment doing what they are trained to do, be killers. 

20 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

But you can't say that for sure because we have no idea what SpecOps is doing right now.

I think this is part of the point. Special Ops, covert/cyber warfare is what we need to focus on in terms of the Islamist threat. That's legitimate in my eyes, but invasion forces and bombings not only do more harm than good, they're well beyond the level of response needed at this time. The threat at home from far-right extremism is much greater and more immediate.

1 minute ago, mr_hunt said:

Got to love fighting over dirt, thanks religion 

 

On 5/3/2021 at 10:20 AM, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

That doesn't really have anything to do with the post, but OK. I hate all religions. F Islam and all the rest, but travailing the globe trying to "eliminate Islamic extremism" is a fool's errand. Our most immediate threats are at home, and it's not even close.

our greatest domestic threat is the left wing