Hey, we can do statebuilding

The Chicago Tribune has a good story on successful U.S. efforts to rebuild the state in Afghanistan, one town at a time. The key grafs:

GARDEZ, Afghanistan — A remarkable transformation has taken place in recent weeks in this once-troubled provincial capital, now bustling with new businesses, new relief projects and a new optimism about the future. The warlords have been driven away one by one. In the past three months, the central government, with the help of U.S. forces based in the town, has succeeded in replacing all of them with police and army professionals, answerable solely to the government in Kabul…. But Gardez is only one town, a model rather than a trend, and extending its successes to the rest of the country won’t be easy. The U.S. military chose Gardez, a three-hour drive southeast of Kabul, as the pilot for its first Provincial Reconstruction Team, a concept the U.S. military hopes will restore stability and bolster reconstruction efforts across the country. The team is made up of about 60 military and civil affairs officers doing mostly humanitarian work. But their presence was an undoubted deterrence to any thoughts of resistance the warlords may have had, said Asadullah Wafa, the governor of Paktia province. “Without the Americans, this would be very difficult,” he said. “They are helping us a lot.” There are now only three other reconstruction teams, and although there are plans for four more, most towns and provinces won’t benefit from the presence of U.S. forces.

Go read the entire article for an excellent account of warlord politics in Afghanistan, and the need to eradicate as many of them as possible before elections planned for 2004. The Guardian reports that the U.S. plans on sending troops to support another PRT to Kunduz. Here’s an idle thought — why doesn’t NATO create even more Provincial Reconstruction Teams? This is definitely an area where other countries can contribute — indeed, this is an area where our allies may have a comparative advantage. New Zealand is already taking over one PRT. According to the Miami Herald, however, there is a problem with the European members of the coalition:

Some European members of NATO have been reluctant to put their soldiers in harm’s way. “They’re scared,” said [country director for the aid agency] Mercy Corps’ [Diane] Johnson. “I think they know they’re going to get a lot of potshots. It all boils down to political will.” (emphasis added)

Indeed. [But why should the Europeans help us? Aren’t we too belligerent for their tastes?–ed. This ain’t Iraq, it’s Afghanistan. This is the country for which NATO invoked Article V and for which the Security Council unanimously approved force. So our interests coincide in Afghanistan. From a purely self-interested perspective, however, our European allies have a strong incentive to demonstrate the utility of their armed forces to the U.S. government and the U.S. public. The more useful their military units, the greater demand for their services. The greater the demand for their services, the more leverage they have in affecting American foreign policy.]