Afghan reconstruction or Darwinian experiment

The spirit of Charles Darwin has been an inspiration for me; I hold maximum respect for his scientific achievements and social courage. How many people are going to come out today in any society and who could say something so radical as Darwin did; many, that is right. Many people would do that; because we as the human species, in Darwin words, have become so negative and pessimistic that we would challenge anything and everything. But here is the thing, who would stick to their word and fight for what they stand for. Very few people and they will back down when pressured.
Darwin was about experimenting and evolving and I think we need to learn from him at this critical point in Afghan history. I was just reading an audit on the over US$ 8 billion USAID has spent in Afghanistan and there is so much; this came to my attention after I tried to figure out what the fuss was about. Some were so angry as though the whole amount had come from their pocket. Even if they are taxpayers they put the trust in to a system and shouldn’t lose faith so quickly. For the sake of keeping ourselves and the society sane and in maintaining the Darwinian spirit of experimentalism. Afghanistan is an experiment. Six audits of the U.S. Agency for International Development's multibillion-dollar Afghanistan reconstruction effort found only one program working largely as it was supposed to. Nobody knew if it was going to work, it is mere chance. Afghanistan is uncertain and mysterious as human nature was during Darwin period; the only way to find out is through experiment. A US$ 219 contract to improve government institutions produced a lack of evidence of results after the agency and the contractor spend an inordinate amount of time attempting to define the program’s activities and priorities.
Another $102 million contract to promote agriculture led to defective buildings, the spraying of pesticides without studying their impact and the failure to implement a major commercial farm program. Isn’t that experiment?
i asked three different people what they thought about the outcomes of USAID audits; an Afghan, an American and a USAID employee. It might sound like a job but it is not. The Afghan said ‘USAID is just a front for the CIA and has been for 30 years in Afghanistan. So all that money went nowhere except in to the hands of people that don't have to account for it like Dick Cheney. The warlords, Taliban and other criminal allies of Americans.’
The American who lives in America said ‘Contractors get millions trying to convert a bunch of 12th century, poppy growing, mysoginists who don't want to have anything to do with Western culture except the money derived from its taste for Heroin addiction.’
And the aid worker was not certain and hesitantly said ‘money spent in Afghanistan since 2002 has produced "remarkably powerful impacts," in health, education, agriculture and other sectors.’
I am not worried at all about the money but rather the attitude it produces among peoples, ghettoising minds and communities.
I think people need to calm down and get on with their lives. So we can take all the suspicion, stubbornness and anger away from Afghan issues; which is the key for the evolution of Afghanistan in to a stable place.

bringing taliban onboard

Obama declared in an interview that the United States was not winning the war in Afghanistan and opened the door to a reconciliation process in which the American military would reach out to moderate elements of the Taliban, much as it did with Sunni militias in Iraq. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/us/politics/08obama.html?scp=5&sq=taliban&st=cse

The Afghan government has not gained the confidence of the Afghan people. corruption, lack of administrative capacity and bad leadership has resulted in fading away whatever trust existed in the first place. the government and US is losing because they don't have the public on their side, not because there is a strong pro taliban Pakistan infiltrating into Afghanistan, or local taliban are gaining momentum in the south. for policy makers it is very important to know that afghans don't like taliban and don't want to see them return, the majority. Afghans don't want Taliban. what about under current circumstances; do Afghans want the Taliban to return because the government is failing and it is the only way to stop bloodshed. i don't know the answer to that but if Obama says 'YES' then there are two points to ponder about. first, it is admitting that Taliban can do a better job than americans and Afghan government. second, a shameful set back to democracy. Iraq is what it is but Afghanistan is winnable and it shouldn't be lost. this war is no longer fought to make the western world safe from terrorism, it is a war for realising democratic values. democracy set back in afghanistan would hinder any future intervention in any sort of tyranny because the west will lose moral grounds.

Plight of an Afghan Christian

Many people in Afghanistan have turned to the faith of Jesus Christ in recent years. A few of them have done so openly, though most have kept their conversion secret. The new converts have either been influenced by travelling and settling in Christian countries of the west or by the audacity of Christian missionaries who have travelled to Afghanistan.
The converts number in thousands and congregate in secret churches in Afghanistan or in the blossoming Afghan church which has been set up in England. They all decided to turn away from the faith of their ancestors – some in search of food; others in search of a better world and yet others in pursuit of a better faith. Accepting never-ending fear of rejection and animosity as a consequence of conversion, they have been born again in the Christian faith.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/mar/05/afghanistan-christianity?commentpage=2&commentposted=1

shamsi made a choice which has put him in danger if he return to afghanistan. thousands other had fled from fighting in southern and eastern afghanistan, something they didn't choose to have nor they had any control over. hundreds if not thousands of afghans are inside afghanistan trying to fight and improve corrupt state and impaired cultural values. they are being persecuted for their political beleives on daily basis. the choice they make are for greater good than the choice shamsi had made yet many have been refused asylum in the UK. it is hard to distinguish between genuin refugees and economic immigrant at this age. UK can't accomodate everyone fleeing their country under different names. UNDP human development index shows that some over 85% of young afghans want to immigrate to the west because they see a better life for themselves there. but they need to stay and fix thier own country.as for shamsi he opted out of his ancestor religion because he found a better one. if he really likes the new one then he better move on and enjoy christianity.there is enough problem in afghanistan, and UK too, created by religion we don't need another one added by Shamsi. religion has no answer to the problem of humanity. there is a similarity between shamsi and a suicide bomber and a difference too. they both get themselves killed, that is if shamsi was in afghanistan. there is one difference too. a suicide bomber deceives himself into 72 virgins and heaven; Shamsi deceives others with his asylum claims.
as for Mr. Reza who is allegedly a journalist. please improve your journalistic skills.'Many people in Afghanistan have turned to the faith of Jesus Christ in recent years. A few of them have done so openly, though most have kept their conversion secret.'
how do you know that. there is a lot of information packed in the first sentence without any proof. what is your source. perhaps you should consider adding i think....to the begining of each sentence but that again is bad journalism.
'The new converts .... or by the audacity of Christian missionaries who have travelled to Afghanistan.'a less loaded sentence would be ' or by what they see as audacity of chritian missionaries who have travelled to Afghanistan'. but there is a problem wtih that sentence too. it is not true. what audacity are you talking about. i was investigating the missionaries and i was recommended to several misssionary organisation but all refused that they have any christian motives.

Despotism over Liberty, even the choice of successful Afghans

I am bugged by the thought of why is it that ‘modern Afghans’ are not backing the government and international community whose values of government system has made it possible for them to tremendously improve their life in comparison to Their situation under the Taliban.

I have come to realise that bright Afghans who do not have a social mind set orbiting solely around religion, with an interest of individual nature and hobbies are against democratic values. They do not possess any prerequisites for radicalisation such as social isolation, political grievances affecting their daily life, marginalisation, oppression and the rest of it. They are quite happy and not religious. They have an open mind about alcohol and sex as part of routine lifestyle, they know places in Kabul where they can purchase and drink. This group of Afghans I call the modern Afghan. This group theoretically should make up the core of Karzai government supporters. This is exactly the key allies that the international community and Nato should have on their side. If they are not on their side, then who is? I am wondering, why they are not, while stuck in this traffic jam. This group has much in common with the ordinary man of the west: a shared lifestyle, putting family first, secular views of daily life, sought education and career dedicated. But they differ in what is known as morality and political views.  Ordinary man of the west, I consider those who are not partisan political such as members of religious, ultra right or left wing groups. The man who is family dedicated and seeks happiness for the loved ones. The ordinary man of the west, by and large, condemns violence against the innocents while the modern Afghan man condones terror and civilian targeting as a way of addressing the grievances of the group which, he considers, had been marginalised and betrayed. The ordinary man of the west sees terror as a serious threat to their safety, while the modern Afghan sees it as a part of life in what he can’t have a say.

Modern Afghan’s silence against ‘the evils’ has got to do with his inability to bond with the values of democracy, the current socio-political trend promoted by international community and Afghan government. The modern Afghan man is the closest Afghan replica, similar to the moralisation of democratic values by the ordinary western man. On the other hand and generally speaking, the modern Afghan man has political views and morality codes which do not go with his lifestyle. The modern Afghan condemned the Danish Cartoons and rallied to take action against Denmark. They launched a campaign which boycotted Danish products. The modern Afghan is anti-Semitic in what they see jews as human elements of Israeli state. Unaware of the fact that not all Israelis are Jews and there are Jews outside Israel too. An international colleague with last names as Sigal, Izaaks,  Hickman or Sichel;  are seen as another foreigner. The modern Afghan has not been disgusted by the action of Taliban rather they have become more sympathetic. Almost half of the modern Afghans I know have been involved in numerous incidents where they were close to be hurt. The target was some foreigners or government installation but the pedestrians took the toll; people going about their lives on the street. Witnessing this didn’t change their mind about Taliban tactics. The modern Afghan do not necessarily support Taliban but it is that they have a fluctuating ground in relation to what is happening around them on daily basis. They see that the dead pedestrians could be them and that Taliban puts their life in grieve danger but it is something behind their action.

Among the modern Afghan is Elias. A successful entrepreneur owning some several radio stations and other businesses. The radio station he owns is nothing less than a historical phenomena. The international intervention and the creation of a democratic space has made it possible for citizens to own media outlets; radio has always been a state monopoly. The radio stations are sustained by the market forces and development fundings available from international sources. Yet, Elias lacks any commitment to the current regime or the values of the system which has made it possible to own and profit from the radio stations. Elias has lived under the Taliban and he knows they wouldn’t even let him express his views about the dress he wears or his beard and hair let alone critic the social order.

Do you think Taliban would let you conduct your life, business and employment the way you do?

‘Current social is created under the influence of westerners. It is not the only and it is not the ideal. Things in Afghanistan changes fast, you won’t have a chance to reflect on what is happening and where I fit. To survive you need to punch forward. If there was no international aid, consequently my business, then I would be free to grow drug. Why do they whinge when I make money the way I do.’ said Elias.

Elias like many modern Afghans I know argue that democratic principles are riddled with double standards and contradiction. Modern Afghan grievances are based on what they see as democracies ineligibility to the moral authority. They say: what about Guantinimo, what about treatment of minorities in the ‘free world’, what about corruption in western politics. Muslims lack a sense of self criticism to enable them compare Islamic morality with democracy. Islamic morality is blazingly clear but its impairment is not questionable even by the modern Afghan. There is an urge for clarity. We should respond to the criticism of free world morality. I think there are three things here: the treatment of own citizens and the free world is doing very good. Secondly, respect to international law. Again the free world is doing good except the US under Bush administration and finally what the free world does to realise its own morality in places like Afghanistan and it is horrific. The free world is not only helping but has financed genocide. if we are talking politics that was then and now is now. The slightest believe in Islam does not distinct between personal and politics, making western support for previous wars a personal matter. We have been through enough crises to understand that decisions are not based on principles but political realities and human’s realistic ability as oppose to our wishful thinking. Elias seems to have been for most of his life at the betrayed end of hypocrisy culmination and he has experienced a larger share than ordinary man. Contradiction in the principles of democracy has made Elias highly suspicious of the values and principles of democracy. For instance, freedom of expression as a value and objectivity as a core principle of it, is viewed as a mirage. Elias is correct in saying that no outlet is objective and they have their own angle into the issues; but he doesn’t recognise how distorted their interpretation of the truth is. BBC has an angle but the angle Aljazeera or Taliban media or Iran state media has, lies some 180 degrees away from the truth. In the mid90s when Taliban were battling the northern alliance in the north of Kabul after capturing Kabul. Iranian Sada Wa Sima radio was reporting that Taliban has launched a massive attack on Kabul. This is why BBC has a reputation in Afghanistan for providing objective news and information. Truth doesn’t always matter; we as humans are fallible and for a believer in human fallibility truth doesn’t exist. The larger and the further the object of truth is from us, we’ll have more autonomy in selecting what truth is which basically means the angle we view it.  if battle is raging at the gates of Kabul; a Kabuli wants to know the progress; it is a truth. I could be heard and felt. But some Taliban pocket of resistance in Kandahar some 500KM away can’t be felt but realised through anecdotes. That is why Aljazeera make perfect sense for millions of Afghans and other Muslims as well as non muslims as long as ones world view is compatible with it. once a modern Afghan starts to take Aljazeera as an outlook to the truth it means changes to certain aspect of his world has happened.   

The notional objectiveness does not exist but do you see some are more objective than others?

‘There are international treaties and conventions. The western world has always violated these documents when it comes across their interest. The west has created an unfair world where everybody fights for survival, the weak has no choice of winning but to create a different perspective. If you are on the weak side it is as more objective than the western aspect.’  Said Elias.

Elias believes that Hamas and Taliban actions or other militant groups are justified because they are denied justice and have been shoved to margins of opportunity. They have no choice but to resort to cruelty. This is while Elias’s business partner Zameer has arrived at the conclusion that reconstruction projects are a waste of money instead the international community should have supported businesses. This view is generally shared by other business pioneers too. The basic of economics is: fixed exchange rates which will keep the goods circulate in the free market by keeping the price down is good for the national growth. Such a business oriented approach to development is assuming that Afghans would shoulder a bigger portion of responsibility instead of foreigners building stuff for them.  Elias believes that those under tremendous stress can’t be judged by the same token as those living the good life often at their expense. I asked him if people are not to bear  responsibility for their action disregarding their situation then why does he run a radio station, the basic notion of which is empowering people and providing a voice for the marginalised so grievances could be addressed and alternatives to the vicious circle of poverty could be found? 

‘America has an obligation to Afghanistan. they can’t go around and destroy countries and leave them on their own. They can but they will taste the consequences as they did on 9/11. The west bombs, kills and destroys but when we demand justice we are told that is against human rights and when we take matters in our hands, we are called terrorists.’ Answered Elias.