What’s wrong in Afghanistan?

The recent turmoil surrounding the re-election of President Karzai underscores that the government of Afghanistan has not attained the transparency and stability to win the basic fight against corruption, let alone drug trafficking and other threats to the peace, without help. The U.S. administration has been supporting and encouraging Afghan efforts to implement various UN Conventions and achieve a measure of control of “cross border” issues, but the substantive problems that tainted the recent election mean that there is neither a viable Afghan mandate for internal governance nor a sustainable security for the population – how can officials who lack the confidence of the citizenry possibly deal with the problems on the Pakistani border?

Perhaps part of the problem with getting past the necessary short-term goal — stabilizing the country enough to work toward a resolution to their governance issues and establish a durable peace — would be more easily accomplished if the U.S. manages to return to a position of world authority by the simple, tried-and-true expedient of leading by example – a strategy which fell by the wayside in our angry, fervent rush to react to those who planned and perpetrated the September 2001 attacks.

In a perfect world each U.S. President would start with a clean slate, the time to more than just sketch out their own vision, and the direct power to accomplish the goals and priorities they articulated during their campaign.  In the real world, Barack Obama had two short months to assemble his initial team following the election and assimilate the domestic and international situation from a new perspective prior to exerting the gentle powers of persuasion and diplomacy which are the principal tools granted the President under the U.S. Constitution.

Obama needs to lead the Congress to a mutually acceptable definition of sustainable security in our ever more dangerous world – this will be the true test of his tenure in the Oval Office.  Inspiring an impressive electoral majority is not, and will not be, in and of itself enough to overcome the entrenched, self-interested powers that are every bit as present in Washington D.C. as they are throughout Afghanistan.

The President has made impressive strides on the platform he laid down as he accepted his party’s nomination in August of 2008. Yet until a substantial majority in Congress can get beyond the habit of partisan posturing to work, instead, on integrating the sundry foreign and domestic initiatives before them into a unified vision of what national security means in the 21st century, until those elected to Congress accept their charter to work for the common good of the people, the whole of their labor will remain scandalously less than the sum of the parts.

Our hasty, arguably under-planned expedition into Afghanistan, in the minds of many became an under-resourced “economy of force” operation — a forgotten, undermanned front  as we changed our focus from catching bin Laden to invading Iraq.  Now as the military experts seek an increase in force, it’s increasingly clear that the resolution of the problems facing Afghans and their neighbors are dependent on more than supporting the country’s fledgling democracy until they develop a capable, trust-worthy government.

As with the United States, the long-term success of Afghanistan depends on those in positions of power and leadership acting in concert to define and attain sustainable security that allows the citizenry to focus on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.