Turning to a new chapter in Afghanistan

THE Obama administration believes a "new chapter" is about to begin in Afghanistan; one that achieves the unwavering goal of defeating al-Qaida with a strategy that will "dismantle, disrupt and ultimately destroy" that organization and weaken its host, the Taliban.

President Obama has asked the newly elected Hamid Karzai government to take concrete action against corruption and build up Afghan security forces.

Obviously the United States has made important investments in Afghanistan, militarily as well as financially; directly and through donor countries. The goal has been to secure U.S. and European national interests and avoid another terrorist event similar to 9/11, London or Madrid.

An Afghan native and an Afghan scholar, we both believe that the current Afghan problems are tribal imbalance and the interference of Afghanistan's regional neighbors. If these two main political hurdles were to be genuinely refocused, Afghanistan would eventually be cured into stability.

Equally in the view of many average Afghans (an extremely independent and proud people who have fought for decades defending their country against one invader after another), the vote-rigged election of Karzai has tarnished his credibility and may even weaken the national government's capacity to govern.

Hence, public support for the leadership in Kabul will drastically diminish, and may permanently hinder the government's ability to: deliver basic goods and services to Afghans; eradicate embedded corruption affixed to many, including Karzai's loyalists and family members. This will ultimately result in slashing the central government's already weakened tentacles and further detaching it from the rest of the country permanently.

The result will be a further escalation of public resentment toward the U.S. and NATO, and at the end of the day, a repeat of earlier Soviet- and British-era occupation disasters.

So, if there is no credible partner or ally on the ground, then why grant Gen. Stanley McChrystal's full request of 40,000 troops?

Without the support of a majority of Afghans, fighting this war is an almost futile effort where success is clearly against the odds.

Furthermore, the goal of a Western-style democracy in Afghanistan is an illusionary Western view that has exhausted vast resources to implement. Democratic elections aren't a source of legitimacy in Afghanistan and Afghan politics. The Western definition of democracy does not, and will never, apply in Afghanistan.

In fact, the centuries-old selection of head of state through grand assembly of elders (Loya-Jirgah) has been diverted into a futile Western-style democratic election, which has recently caused chaos and ethnic tension in the country.

In fact, if any of the Afghan presidential contenders had won the election, the current problems would still endure spiraling chaos.

The type of democracy that Afghanistan practices best resembles a pure Greek-style democracy at the village level, which the country has been using for centuries. In the first place, Afghanistan is primarily 75 to 80 percent rural, and the average Afghan in the hinterlands does not have a clear idea of what is going on.

So as long as the West does not fully grasp what Afghan-style democracy is, it will always fail in its attempt to make it a democratic partner. Thus, it is also true when critics say that the U.S. is clueless regarding effective solutions for Afghanistan.

History, after all, teaches the Afghans that Westerners may come and go, but tribal militias stay forever. Therefore, if we cannot win the real political fight in Afghanistan at any acceptable cost, then there are no other avenues left to win the war, militarily or otherwise. That is why we are offering 24 nonmilitary solutions (please see our Web site at www.nwscinc.org).