Afghanistan: Bad policy was good politics | TheHill - The Hill | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Politics

Afghanistan: Bad policy was good politics | TheHill – The Hill

Published

 on


The Taliban are once again in control of Afghanistan. The U.S. has little to show for nearly 20 years of military involvement, trillions of dollars spent and over 2000 American lives lost.

The U.S. gave the Afghan government all the resources it needed to defeat the Taliban. The tragedy is that the U.S.’s willingness to give so much incentivized ousted Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and his predecessor, Hamid Karzai, to do so little. For them good politics meant bad policy. Insecurity and dependence on the U.S. gave them ample cash with which to buy political support. For Afghan leaders it was better to wager that no U.S. President would being willing to pull the plug on their watch. That gamble paid handsomely for 20 years and many in Washington argue that the cycle of dependence should have continued. 

The U.S. pumped over $116 billions of aid into Afghanistan since 2002. The $88 billion spent to train and equip the Afghan army that failed to stabilize the security situation. These numbers clearly support President BidenJoe BidenHenri downgraded to tropical depression as it dumps rain on northeast Britain to urge G7 leaders to consider adopting sanctions against Taliban: report Five lawmakers to watch ahead of key House budget vote MORE’s recent statement, : “We gave them every tool they could need. … We gave them every chance to determine their own future. What we could not provide them was the will to fight for that future.” 

The sad reality is that, in providing the means to make Afghanistan succeed, the U.S. took away all incentive to produce good policy. Rather than security and prosperity, the U.S. wealth allowed corruption to flourish and political elites to grow rich. Transparency International ranked Afghanistan as 165th worst of 180 nations in terms of corruption. With so much money flowing in and the international community providing so many services and so few checks on how our money was spent, the Ghani government could buy political loyalty through graft and corruption.  

Fixing Afghanistan’s security situation would have vastly improved the life of the average Afghan citizen, but it would have been a path to political ruin for its president. If the Ghani government had decisively defeated the Taliban, then the U.S. would have withdrawn its presence — and, with it, the money that made it so easy to buy domestic support at home. 

That’s what the U.S. gradually did in Egypt following the Camp David Agreement and in Pakistan after Osama Bin Laden was killed. Without foreign governments to pay their bills, the Afghan government would have had to breach the gap between tax revenue (8 percent of GDP) and government spending (24 percent of GDP). Balancing the books would mean cutting the bloated spending that bought the support of political cronies.

Ghani made himself dependent on the U.S. and that gave him leverage. If the U.S. tried to get Afghanistan to stand on its own two feet, then the Afghan government could be expected to allow the Taliban to get stronger. The U.S. response would then be more support. The U.S. put itself in a no-win situation where its partner could, but never would, deliver what it sought.

The U.S. went through the same dance with Pakistan in the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. The U.S. paid billions and Pakistan pretended to search but was careful never to actually find him. Bin Laden was of course eventually found by U.S. forces. He was living in a compound less than a mile from a military academy.

The rapidity with which the Afghan government collapsed should come as no surprise. In addition to military withdrawal the U.S. had sharply reduced aid: from $4.7 billions in 2019 to only $1.1 billion in 2020 and less than $200 million in 2021. With Ghani no longer a reliable source of graft, supporters had no reason to back him. Army commanders were then more interested in looking for their next meal ticket than fighting those likely to be in charge in the near future.

A similar desertion took place a decade ago in Egypt. With U.S. aid on the decline, other revenues dwindling and Mubarak ailing, staying loyal looked like a poor gamble. When protestors took to the streets the army chose to let the Arab Spring succeed. Afghan military commanders are no doubt hoping their futures will turn out as well as those of their compatriots in Egypt.  

Through its willingness to pump vast resources into Afghanistan, the U.S. put itself in an unwinnable situation. The Afghan government had no incentive to reform or defeat the Taliban. Such good policies would have been bad politics. Ghani lasted seven years, significantly longer than most political terms in office, and he left with a vast fortune. Allegedly the helicopter was not large enough to take all the cash!

For nearly 20 years, U.S. leaders maintained the fiction that victory was just around the corner rather than let the collapse occur on their watch. Biden called it correctly, “there is no chance that one year — one more year, five more years, or 20 more years of U.S. military boots on the ground would’ve made any difference.”

Policies such as U.S. support for Afghanistan or paying Pakistan to pretend to look for Bin Laden will continue to fail because U.S. policy is formulated in terms of what is best for a nation in trouble. We need to discard the rose-tinted glasses and recognize that giving assistance provides leaders with an incentive to perpetuate problems, not fix them.

Suppose instead the U.S. escrowed funds to be delivered only upon policy success. Afghan leaders might have focused more on security and less on graft. Likewise, Pakistani leaders might have handed over Bin Laden. Many leaders might still be reluctant to pursue good policies, but at least the U.S. won’t be rewarding them for bad behavior.

Alastair Smith, Ph.D., is the Bernhardt Denmark chair of International Politics are New York University and author of “The Dictator’s Handbook.”

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Politics

Youri Chassin quits CAQ to sit as Independent, second member to leave this month

Published

 on

 

Quebec legislature member Youri Chassin has announced he’s leaving the Coalition Avenir Québec government to sit as an Independent.

He announced the decision shortly after writing an open letter criticizing Premier François Legault’s government for abandoning its principles of smaller government.

In the letter published in Le Journal de Montréal and Le Journal de Québec, Chassin accused the party of falling back on what he called the old formula of throwing money at problems instead of looking to do things differently.

Chassin says public services are more fragile than ever, despite rising spending that pushed the province to a record $11-billion deficit projected in the last budget.

He is the second CAQ member to leave the party in a little more than one week, after economy and energy minister Pierre Fitzgibbon announced Sept. 4 he would leave because he lost motivation to do his job.

Chassin says he has no intention of joining another party and will instead sit as an Independent until the end of his term.

He has represented the Saint-Jérôme riding since the CAQ rose to power in 2018, but has not served in cabinet.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 12, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

‘I’m not going to listen to you’: Singh responds to Poilievre’s vote challenge

Published

 on

 

MONTREAL – NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says he will not be taking advice from Pierre Poilievre after the Conservative leader challenged him to bring down government.

“I say directly to Pierre Poilievre: I’m not going to listen to you,” said Singh on Wednesday, accusing Poilievre of wanting to take away dental-care coverage from Canadians, among other things.

“I’m not going to listen to your advice. You want to destroy people’s lives, I want to build up a brighter future.”

Earlier in the day, Poilievre challenged Singh to commit to voting non-confidence in the government, saying his party will force a vote in the House of Commons “at the earliest possibly opportunity.”

“I’m asking Jagmeet Singh and the NDP to commit unequivocally before Monday’s byelections: will they vote non-confidence to bring down the costly coalition and trigger a carbon tax election, or will Jagmeet Singh sell out Canadians again?” Poilievre said.

“It’s put up or shut up time for the NDP.”

While Singh rejected the idea he would ever listen to Poilievre, he did not say how the NDP would vote on a non-confidence motion.

“I’ve said on any vote, we’re going to look at the vote and we’ll make our decision. I’m not going to say our decision ahead of time,” he said.

Singh’s top adviser said on Tuesday the NDP leader is not particularly eager to trigger an election, even as the Conservatives challenge him to do just that.

Anne McGrath, Singh’s principal secretary, says there will be more volatility in Parliament and the odds of an early election have risen.

“I don’t think he is anxious to launch one, or chomping at the bit to have one, but it can happen,” she said in an interview.

New Democrat MPs are in a second day of meetings in Montreal as they nail down a plan for how to navigate the minority Parliament this fall.

The caucus retreat comes one week after Singh announced the party has left the supply-and-confidence agreement with the governing Liberals.

It’s also taking place in the very city where New Democrats are hoping to pick up a seat on Monday, when voters go to the polls in Montreal’s LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. A second byelection is being held that day in the Winnipeg riding of Elmwood—Transcona, where the NDP is hoping to hold onto a seat the Conservatives are also vying for.

While New Democrats are seeking to distance themselves from the Liberals, they don’t appear ready to trigger a general election.

Singh signalled on Tuesday that he will have more to say Wednesday about the party’s strategy for the upcoming sitting.

He is hoping to convince Canadians that his party can defeat the federal Conservatives, who have been riding high in the polls over the last year.

Singh has attacked Poilievre as someone who would bring back Harper-style cuts to programs that Canadians rely on, including the national dental-care program that was part of the supply-and-confidence agreement.

The Canadian Press has asked Poilievre’s office whether the Conservative leader intends to keep the program in place, if he forms government after the next election.

With the return of Parliament just days away, the NDP is also keeping in mind how other parties will look to capitalize on the new makeup of the House of Commons.

The Bloc Québécois has already indicated that it’s written up a list of demands for the Liberals in exchange for support on votes.

The next federal election must take place by October 2025 at the latest.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Social media comments blocked: Montreal mayor says she won’t accept vulgar slurs

Published

 on

 

Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante is defending her decision to turn off comments on her social media accounts — with an announcement on social media.

She posted screenshots to X this morning of vulgar names she’s been called on the platform, and says comments on her posts for months have been dominated by insults, to the point that she decided to block them.

Montreal’s Opposition leader and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have criticized Plante for limiting freedom of expression by restricting comments on her X and Instagram accounts.

They say elected officials who use social media should be willing to hear from constituents on those platforms.

However, Plante says some people may believe there is a fundamental right to call someone offensive names and to normalize violence online, but she disagrees.

Her statement on X is closed to comments.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version