By Ethan B. Kapstein

Best Defense directorate of military-economic affairs

Will Afghanistan collapse after the departure of American troops in 2013? That grim outcome appears all too likely. But the reason why Afghanistan may be heading toward anarchy is not simply due to the Afghan National Army's lack of military preparedness to fight an insurgency without foreign support. Rather, some of the most challenging problems that the government must face once the U.S. leaves will be economic.

Today, the United States and its allies provide the government of Afghanistan with the vast majority of its operating budget. American taxpayers have not only built up schools, hospitals, government ministries, and the Afghan National Army and police force; they have also paid the salaries of those who man these institutions. Further, U.S. military and foreign assistance operations in Afghanistan support many thousands of soldiers, foreign aid workers, and contractors, who pump millions of dollars into the local economy.

What will happen when the last Americans depart? If history is any guide, "foreign assistance follows the flag," meaning that aid spending will flee in the absence of a strong military presence. First, Americans will inevitably lose interest in Afghanistan and redirect spending to the next crisis zone; today, for example, the calamity in Syria is dominating the airwaves. Second, without American troops around to provide a modicum of security, foreign aid workers will have no choice but to leave the country; they won't be able to work in safety (and it shouldn't be forgotten that several hundred aid workers have already been killed during the war). As a result of the American withdrawal, both the motivation for aid spending and any possibility of monitoring aid effectiveness will quickly disappear.

An abject lesson in how economics can shape a war zone is provided by Vietnam. During the early 1970s, there were some glimmers of hope in South Vietnam following the North's severe military defeat during the 1968 Tet offensive. The United States, however, had already grown tired of the war, and the Nixon administration embarked upon a path of Vietnamization. As America's military and economic commitment to Vietnam declined, the weak Saigon government had no choice but to raise taxes and impose austerity measures. These policies fueled popular opinion against the regime, helping smooth the way for the North's successful invasion in 1975.

In preparing for its eventual departure from Afghanistan, there is much the United States could have done on the economic front but has tragically failed to implement. Incredibly, after more than ten years of war, the U.S. has no free trade agreement with Kabul, inadvertently promoting cross-border flows with Iran and Pakistan instead. Worse, these flows consist largely of needed imports, since the U.S. has promoted a strong Afghan currency that makes it near impossible to produce goods competitively within the country. The lack of an export-oriented industry, in turn, means that Afghanistan lacks a strong and forward-looking entrepreneurial class that could have served as a foundation for an anti-Taliban society; this is an even greater shame when one recognizes the tremendous craftsmanship that Afghan society is capable of in such sectors as woodworking and glassmaking.

The U.S. has also failed after more than a decade's presence to help Afghanistan create a credible statistics agency or a system of "national accounts" that would track how the government's money is being spent. This lack of transparency, in turn, enables corrupt practices to flourish. A cynic might think that America's failure to develop more robust Afghan economic data has been one of commission rather than omission.

When the history of America's involvement in Afghanistan is written, there will be much ink spilled over military strategy and tactics. Analysts will debate whether the U.S. should have been more aggressive in Pakistan or risked higher numbers of civilian casualties when taking the fight to the Taliban. Less attention, sadly, will be paid to the economic policies made in Washington and Kabul that were also instrumental in bringing about the demise of the Afghan regime.

Ethan B. Kapstein teaches global strategy at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, and is a nonresident senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. A retired naval officer, he has served as an academic advisor to the Counterinsurgency Advisory and Assistance Team in Kabul. The opinions expressed in this piece are strictly his own and do not reflect the views of any organization with which he is or has been associated.

Wikimedia

 

DILNIR

4:36 PM ET

February 16, 2012

An Abject (Object) Lesson Indeed

Soliders, contractors and foreigners in general pump money into the Afghan economy... Is this a joke?

No free trade agreement with the US. For what? Opium? Lapis lazuli? Mind you, it'd be a great thing for the US to NOT have a trade deficit.

And Vietnam... again.

 

TYRTAIOS

5:20 PM ET

February 16, 2012

Ok, ok, I admit it. . .

let the truth come out: I lost Viet-Nam for America single handedly.

However, I do have a question as to whether lapis is used as a trade currency, and if its mining is controlled by one faction or another. . .do you know. . .does anyone?

 

RBB

6:01 PM ET

February 16, 2012

Lapis

I've never heard of lapis or other gemstones being employed as currency.

The Afghan economy is currency based even in the more remote locations. I've been to some pretty poor villages, and barter is not that common.

Most (but not all) gemstone mining occurs in the northeast (Panjshir, Badakhshan, and Nuristan) -- control of mines is pretty local, and factionally divided. But there are a lot of other mining concerns in different regions -- gems, gold, marble, chromium, etc. Productive mineral deposits that can be exploited through small scale, artisinal techniques are widespread. Like all resources, they are generally a source of intense local competition, and this conflict is frequently exploited by insurgent groups.

"Will Afghanistan collapse after the departure of American troops in 2013?"

U.S. troops will still be Afghanistan well after 2013.

 

SCOTTP

9:36 PM ET

February 16, 2012

Excellent Article

I do not think the amount of money pumped into the Afghan Economy is a joke. In fact, World Bank estimates that 97 percent of Afghanistan’s GDP is from military spending, other governmental agencies, and NGOs. When military forces withdraw, we should expect the Afghan Economy to enter into a depression. If the Afghan Government is unable to address this economic crisis, then insurgent forces will have a clear opening. MAJ Scott Polasek

 

TEXASAGGIE

9:52 PM ET

February 16, 2012

Gemstones?

yea I'm not too sure on that, but I was reading that merchants travel to one area and sell made items to small villages for livestock or other goods. Then it goes back into cash when he sells the cattle or other goods for profit in a larger city.

As far as warlordistan goes, I agree with the Major.

 

_B_

4:39 AM ET

February 17, 2012

Afghanistan is not California

A lot of this easy money has gone into stuff where it will pay dividends when the money is cut off, like roads, irrigation, kids/dowries and business/personal infrastructure (tools for mechanics, etc.) The Afghans know much better than the average American where their next meal is coming from, and generally don't invest their surpluses into McMansions and granite countertops. Therefore, I think that any post-US depression will look much worse on paper than on the ground.

 

CARL

5:12 AM ET

February 17, 2012

_B_: Very interesting

_B_:

Very interesting assessment. It is at odds with the conventional wisdom which is generally a good thing.

 

MCHAUN

7:57 PM ET

February 17, 2012

Afghan Collapse

The Bush/CIA/Mossad/FBI/NeoCon/GOP/Jew Media/Military/NRA/Hoover Institution/NPR/Bloomberg News/MI5-MI6 Kabal seems to be keeping it securely undercover, but the Chinese are extracting important and valuable minerals from Afghanistan while slaughtering very few Afghanis in the process.

The Govt wants to put a Tax on Dope, but the CIA, FBI, DEA, Blackwater, NYPD, LAPD, Etc are all strongly opposed.

Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com

 

_B_

9:29 PM ET

February 17, 2012

The conventional wisdom

is the product of a Western social class whose ideology is basically that without their benign paternal interventions, the rest of the world would walk around starving, with soiled diapers, and that the only humane thing to do is to give massive resources to this social class to manage for the benefit of the rest of humanity. This is the view of the whole world, not just Afghanistan, which is propagated by the universities, NGOs, New York Times, US military, etc. But if you go outside this bubble, it becomes immediately obvious that the people who are the nominal beneficiaries of this process in fact have their own ways of extracting and creating value, and don't need it. The REAL beneficiaries of this ideology are its selfless administrators.

 

POPSIQQ

12:51 PM ET

February 18, 2012

Shhh!

Hush mouth! The wrath of the IDF bloggers will smite you hip and thigh.

And 'dope' - the understated export? Don't even mention it. Hush it on up now, hear?

 

GEO FRICK FRACK

5:00 PM ET

February 16, 2012

Experts...

...have come up short of desription, explanation, prediction and prescription for the past 10-plus years. The state of things in Iraq and Afghanistan is the result of policy experts.

Why would anyone believe what they have to say in 2012? The Iraqis have a free hand now that the US...err Coalition...is gone. People might be surprised to see what happens once the US and it allies bug out of Afganistan. 1990's Redux is a possible outcome, but not the only possible outcome.

 

MCHAUN

8:08 PM ET

February 17, 2012

Afghanistan Collapse

The reason we sent 2 Carrier Battle groups through the Straits of Hormuz was to provide air support in Afghanistan.

I suppose we intend leaving them behind too, along with the Drone/Predator, Helicopter Gun Ships, Armor, anti- everything else weapons when we pull out??

All the High Tech Intel, surveilance and Killing Machinery with which our most incompetent Military in history, failed miserably at securing Afghanistan??

Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com

 

JJBRYAN22

5:38 PM ET

February 16, 2012

Afghanistan without U.S. Support

Afghanistan will undoubtedly fail across the board once U.S. and other coaltion forces depart the area. The difficulties in Afghanistan have existed for centuries and a 13 year campaign funded exclusively by the U.S. and supported minimally by numerous countries isn't enough to provide enough impact to turn Afghanistan into a functioning country with a stabile government, adequate economy or any infrastructure from which to build from. Countries are built in centuries, not years or decades. Afghanistan is centuries from becoming a contibuting member the world we know.

Once U.S. aid and resources stop flowing into Afghanistan progress will completely stop. Infighting between Afghans will commence. The corruption that exists while we are there will only get worse once we are gone. The battle for existing resources will be ugly. The military units that the U.S. has funded, armed, and trained will rely on their training and will do a decent job at protecting Kabul for a small amount of time. Eventually resources will dry up and corrupt leaders will fracture the effectiveness of agencies like the Afghan Police, Border Patrol and Armies giving way back to how Afghanistan was before we went in there in 2001.

Fast forward to today, NATO continues to express their commitment to Afghanistan once the Afghans take the lead. NATO stated in October 2011 that they will live up to the Enduring Partnership with the Afghan people once the U.S. has departed. This will be impossible. Without the U.S. military footprint in place, the country of Afghanistan is far less secure for the other coalition countries to stay there and conduct operations. There will be a giant struggle for power everywhere in the country. Kabul might hold off insurgent groups initially, but crime and fighting will pick up in the capital. I can't see ISAF committing enough troop support to effectively protect Kabul, much less the rest of the country. This is just another reason that Afghanistan will collapse once the U.S. leaves. Afghanistan can't do it alone.

Pakistan and Afghanistan has always and will always hate each other and will never recognize the border. There will always be fighting that will be counter-productive to the nation building that Afghanistan needs to focus on.

The majority of the military leadership of Afghanistan does not have the education to carry on as effective leaders. Lack of military schooling by the most senior Afghan military leaders makes it difficult to lead an effective outfit. Senior military leaders don't retire from the Afghan army, they work until they die. There is no pension, so they are literally, old and tired and just filling a slot. I have sat in the National Military Command Center for weeks on end in Kabul and watched a room full of O-6 and above who have no idea as to how to operate the computer at the desk they are sitting at. Senior Afghan leaders will revert back to what they know and in no way build upon the lessons learned from the U.S. mentorship program. It is an uphill battle that needs to be tackled from so many different sides. How about the country focuses on a literacy rate above 25%?

The only issue I have with how Afghanistan was dealt with, was how long it was handled as the "other" war by the powers that be. In a decade's time, the U.S. could have made much greater strides from the tactical level up to the strategic level in much faster fashion if a greater troop strength, financial backing, and stronger leadership were put forth from the beginning as opposed to predominance of it going to Iraq.

By and large, the American people do not understand why we are in Afghanistan and are looking forward to our withdrawal and I can't blame them.

 

INTERESTINGARMY

6:34 PM ET

February 16, 2012

Afghanistan WILL fail

Its sad but true. In my time there we were unable to motivate the ANA to go out on REAL patrols, engage their enemies, integrate with US Soldiers, set up ANY sort of logistics system etc. For an Army who will without a doubt face a challenge from the Taliban when we exit they are ill prepared.

The people do not seem to have any sense of national identity or nationalism. They can not read and are spread out over a vast country where modern forms of communication and electricity lack.

90% of their economy is foreign aid and even through the millions of waste that seems to fall into the wrong hands USAID hands out. The young people have no form of jobs or drive for education.

Even through this all I'm sure you will still see gun ho commanders having move to contact patrols to get their CIB's since they can't seem to do any of the COIN thing right!

 

KUNINO

6:46 PM ET

February 16, 2012

No news here

It's no secret that much of the struggle for liberty and against terror in Afghanistan has been a bribe-driven enterprise for most of the past decade, and it's worth recalling that Mr Karzai became president of that nation because other, better-known and respected candidates for the job walked out on the original campaign for the supposed arrival of US-certified democracy there. His rivals were widely thought to have been bribed to stay home, and live.

Mr Kapstein gives us a view of Afghanistan rather like a kid playing with Lego blocks. The kid's bored, the blocks are abandoned, there will be no momma coming along to tidy up the mess. Much of the kid's energy has been spent on smashing down or disassembling the weird structures created during play, although noting like that enters Mr Kapstein's view of the region. He says nothing bleaker than US inspectors general have been announcing for years.

How about another startling report soon, suggesting that much and likely most of the billions sent to Pakistan in the past decade were bribes, too, and possibly, most of them passed onward into personal bank accounts in other haven states? I'm prepared to be shocked.

 

RVN SF VET

10:40 PM ET

February 16, 2012

OUR MILITARY ARE NOT ECONOMISTS

Too much of the US effort has been left to our military. Our top military commanders have expected their subordinates to worry about matters outside both their purview and competence. Had State and AID assumed the burden of their rightful roles; we could be blaming them now.

Anything which interfered with the flow of graft and corruption would have been rejected. Just remember - we have been paying Taliban "security companies" to protect supply convoys on specific roads. In the US, when you pay criminals to leave you alone it's call a protection racket.

When you give the local government you installed full autonomy, you lose control over any progress that might be made. It happened in RVN, although it wasn't this bad. On SWJ, I read the types of data tracked by military units. It's ridiculous. Deluded by by their misinterpretation of COIN, military commanders are tasked to be concerned over matters over which they have been given no control.

If the author wanted these policies implemented, then we should have deployed battalions of MBAs and economists. Go to a blog frequented by State and AID officers.

 

GEO FRICK FRACK

2:35 AM ET

February 17, 2012

you can't help people...

...if you want it more than they do. Didn't work in Iraq, and it isn't working in AFG. Military, State, AID lead does not make a difference. The U.S. leaves and AFG joins the ranks of Somalia, DROC, Haiti, and the lesser known failed state of the Solomon Islands. Big deal. Should the Marines and the Army still be on Guadalcanal nation building?

Pretty tenuous to claim AFG deserves continued intervention because of Pakistan or Pakistan's nukes or Pakistan-India issues. That's just lame justifications for groups and people who are turning a buck, or riding high on power, or looking for a graceful exit that does not look like defeat. How can AFG ever develop politically, socially and economically if western states are pushing for things that aren't attainable by Afghans?

Anyone who insists that AFG will be an incubator for global terror overlooks everything that's changed since 9/11, plus the facts that show 9/11 happened not so much because of AFG, but because of systemic failures in U.S. intelligence and counter-terrorism efforts.

Let the Afghans sort out their issues with the help of Pakistan, Iran, India and it's other neighbors. Send the Western Do-Gooders home with a thank you.

 

_B_

5:11 AM ET

February 17, 2012

Afghans are not stoopit

When you have a different set of CA/USAID/State/NGO guys show up every eight months with an agenda and a suitcase of cash, you don't say "your idea is stupid and so are you." You say "That's a brilliant idea-the people of Afghanistan will be so grateful! BTW, I can help you out with that." Then take the cash, build their stupid project (or not,) pay your taxes to the Talibs, then spend the rest on your family and future.

If you think this is somehow different from what happens in the US and A, you need to think again. This is exactly how the stimulus worked, it's exactly how No Child Left Behind is working, it's the mechanism behind the housing boom, etc. The difference is that the Afghans are not stupid enough to sink the profits into Lexuses and sending their daughters to Vassar for a double major in Film and Women's Studies, so when the money waterfall ceases, they'll have something to show for it.

 

RBB

12:07 AM ET

February 17, 2012

Where are you getting your statistics?

Where does the World Bank say that 97% of GDP is military spending? I've seen this quotes in articles, but never with a citation from anything produced by the World Bank.

Considering Afghanistan's GDP is >30% Agricultural sector (and that excludes opium), a 97% figure is totally non-sensical.

Methinks someone is massaging statistics.

 

SCOTTP

2:09 AM ET

February 17, 2012

http://www.nationaljournal.co

http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/report-says-full-withdrawal-could-trigger-afghan-economic-depression-20110608

Good point, like all stats I am sure this one is massaged. The bottom line thought is it does not matter if it 50% or 97%, when we leave the economy is going south. The scale at which money is being injected into the Afghan Economy far outweighs what is produced in all their markets.

 

RALPH HITCHENS

2:23 PM ET

February 17, 2012

Not Quite Vietnam & is the Taliban invincible?

A major factor in Vietnam's demise was omitted -- a US domestic political scancal of unparalleled proportions, Watergate, which weakened & drove from office a determined President and eviscerated Congressional support, leading to the War Powers Act & a drastic cut in military aid to Saigon. The North Vietnamese prudently waited until Nixon was gone before launching their final, victorious campaign.

But the major question in Afghanistan is whether the Taliban will be able to muster the same strength now as it did back in the early 1990s, when it overcame the Soviet puppet regime. I'm not entirely sure they can overcome the odds this time. But of course I could be wrong.

 

JAYDEE001

5:09 PM ET

February 17, 2012

This restates the obvious

The collapse of civil society in Afghanistan will simply take them back to where they were when the Taliban last took control of the countryside. The best hope for Karzai and his government might be the current round of negotiations with (some of) the Taliban leadership and a broader agreement to share power with the Taliban.

The best we can hope for after ten long and expensive years there is that they work something out and maintain no safe home for al Qaeda. As for Pakistan, that always was more of a problem. The Pakis have always wanted a regime in Afghanistan that was no friend to india, and therefore no threat to them. They were willing to let the US wipe out al Qaeda as long as it did not threaten their allies in Pastunstan and as long as we were willing to fund a good bit of their military establishment. That obviously did not include turning over Mullah Omar or tipping us off to where Osama bin Laden was.

Building a stable civil government that could command the respect - let alone loyalty - of all the various tribal groups in Afghanistan would have been a very long shot, and would have taken a much greater effort than we made for the first eight years we were there. The unpopular and corrupt government that exists now is the best we can get now. It would have cost far more in blood and treasure than we ever would have been willing to expend.

It is long past our time to go. If Afghanistan is ever to be a stable government that leads it people out of its 13th century tribalism into the modern world, the people of that sad country will have to want it.

 

GOOGOOYOU

5:16 PM ET

February 17, 2012

The basic assumption fallacy

The basic assumption here is that Afghanistan is somehow currently viable, which it is not. Afghanistan will collapse, not because of economics, but because the regime has no credibility or control of its capital let alone its hinterland. Transparency in economics is by no means necessary to sustain a regime. Someone making the assessment that regimes must have economic transparency to remain a viable country, must not know anything about most of the countries in the world. In fact, even in countries like the U.S., the U.S. remains viable despite its lack of economic transparency. The U.S. just makes tons of confusing laws to legitimate "corruption". How do you define transparency anyways? Unregulated and non-transparent hedge funds? Unregulated and non-transparent Fed system which controls monetary policy? Non-transparent and unregulated investment firms and insurance firms which created the derivative markets which led to the economic mess in the U.S.?

Afghanistan was already a failed state even before the U.S. invaded. Afghanistan is a failed state, even with occupation forces, since there is no sustainable economic base, the govt cannot control its capital, hinterland, and borders, even with the occupation forces.

 

ALANCHRISTOPHER

6:32 PM ET

February 17, 2012

Afghanistan

The war has wasted US and NATO troops, equipment, munitions, fuels, and man hours. It will revert to civil war if the US and NATO leave, so everyone should stay as long as possible to fight the insurgency and avert civil war.

 

POPSIQQ

12:46 PM ET

February 18, 2012

Why Would Afghanistan Collapse this Time?

The Afghans are far more flexible to living through bad situations,they've done it very often in the recent past. The 'wrinkle' this time is that they've been trained, recently, to do things the American way. Ans somebody erroneously thinks the 'lesson' has been learned. When America pulls out - even leaving the new praetorians behind -,the Afghans will do what they do best, get along without America.

Will there be a rush to evacuate a new generation of Afghani friends and allies? Why not? Like the Montagnards of LA and the Iraqis of Michigan, the Iranis of New York, the Miami Cubans and a few hundred other nascent freedom-fighting neo-Americans waiting the opportunirty to go back to liberate their homelands America will provide the traditional refuge. But only to 'pals' - those who lhave learned,and profited from, the American Way.

If America succeeds in 'securing' anything from Afghanistan, it will be the supply of dope.

 

58SCOUT

1:08 PM ET

February 18, 2012

stone age

With the exception of maybe Kandahar and Kabul the rest of this country is literally in the stone age. Anyone who has flown over the vast country side can attest to the small mud hut dwellings with zero infrastructure. Iraq at least had something to build upon, and that is sitting precariously on a razors edge. Most of these people will go back to whoever is willing to give up the cash. Which is either the incredibly corrupt Afghan government or the incredibly ruthless Taliban. The people of Afghanistan will not fail but I think that our efforts have been for not.
Whatever our end state, please someone tell me, will fail. You can not change 2000 year old way of life by simply occupying the country for a decade and throwing cash at the problem. Unfortunately we westerners view the country of Afghanistan as a single unit, while the Afghans see it as literally hundreds of tribes. They don't give two #$%^& about the government in Kabul if they can't count on them for the basics. Hell we don't even trust our own government, why should they trust the one we put in place for them. I guess the bottom line is we have to ask ourselves; not what the new government will do but, what will the average Afghan man do? My guess, based on 2000 years of history, he's gonna take care of his family, and the current government won't be the one he goes to for help.

 

_B_

3:47 AM ET

February 19, 2012

You're totally right, except

You're totally right, except for the Stone Age thing. The average Afghan uses and understands plenty of modern technology, from cell phones to internal combustion engines. In fact, if you were to ask the average American and Afghan how a piece of tech they use on a daily basis works (say, a car,) the latter would probably be able to give you a better answer. Try to get an average American to rebuild a gearbox or to produce anything outside of his narrow range of work. Good luck. The American demographic where you'll have a higher than average success rate, the backwoods hicks, have more than a chance resemblance to the Afghans.

The Afghans are basically organized around resilient communities with a high degree of self sufficiency and plug-and-play interactions with the outside world (commerce, governance, etc.) A survivalist's wet dream. So, you're right, they'll take care of business, guys on the left side of the economic bell curve will continue sucking, but their world won't collapse.

 

58SCOUT

6:04 PM ET

February 19, 2012

agreed

i meant to point to the fact that country as a unit is in the stone age not the individuals, although some are. with zero infrastructure the average man is going to do what needs to be done. obviously they have lived off the land successfully for eons and have learned to do things to survive that most americans would never dream of. unfortunately that does not include building a central government or improving anything other than their own way of life.

 

_B_

6:41 PM ET

February 19, 2012

There are upsides to this

There are upsides to this approach. For instance, they don't have to deal with the standard situation in America where you are constantly dependent on faceless civil servants working for the central government who have zero accountability to you. They exist within a framework of social ties and obligations, as opposed to being these little interchangeable atoms. They don't dump their kids in day-care and their parents in nursing homes while going to work in a corporate office to pay off a mortgage and college debts they owe to another corporation. So when the centralized governmental infrastructure collapses or gets replaced, it's not the disaster that it would be for us.

The real downside is the collapse of the irrigation projects which everybody IS dependent on, but we kind of set that one up: it is illegal to charge for water in Afghanistan, so there's no real incentive for private irrigation infrastructure development.

 

BERTRAMDICKSON

5:20 PM ET

March 15, 2012

The majority of the military

The majority of the military leadership of Afghanistan does not have the education to carry on as effective leaders. Lack of military schooling by the most senior Afghan military leaders makes it difficult to lead an effective outfit. Senior military leaders don't retire from the Afghan army, they work until they die. There is no pension, so they are literally, old and tired and just homerenovation filling a slot. I have sat in the National Military Command Center for weeks on end in Kabul and watched a room full of O-6 and above who have no idea as to how to operate the computer at the desk they are sitting at.

 

Thomas E. Ricks covered the U.S. military for the Washington Post from 2000 through 2008.

Read More