Its probably too early to tell, but do we stand at a point where Afghanistan looks like a better fit for democratic transformation than Iraq? If so, why?

"Over the last three years, however, most of the important militia leaders, like Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum of the Uzbek community in the country's north, have shed their battle fatigues for the business attire of the politicians they hope to become."

My understanding is that Karzai directed that military leaders/warlords could no longer occupy military and political posts. Thus you'll find most (if not all) of them shifting to political posts. Of course, there is always the possibility of controlling the military from that political position.

"Kabul, the capital, is now one of the fastest-growing cities in the world, with spectacular traffic jams and booming construction sites."

Traffic Jams caused by international organization vehicles trying to co-exist with local carts powered by lawnmower motors. I would also argue that a significant contributer to the traffic jams in that city of 3 million people is that fact that there are no traffic lights. Intersections are chaos.

Opium production is up, though.
(Time, Aug 9, 2004).

Not to be picky, but this was only one of two op-eds. The other one was not as positive.

The real story in Afghanistan is that there is no rebellion and the economy is so much less developed that a little looks like a lot. Moreover, the top crop, opium is going great and this is enough to generate growth and income .
While having a great crop may generate GDP but it is not development. Moreover, is providing the world with illegal opium what we want?

Finally, the European community is working in Afgh. to provide security and aid while we have lost that help in Iraq.

Maybe if we were not wasting so many resources in Iraq, Afghanistan could be a "real" success
story rather than a partial cuccess..

How is it that the Taliban-based insurgents have so little effect? Does it enforce the claim that a major state like Iran, and not Al Qaeda, is the power behind the Iraqi insurgencies?

I will admit that I had hoped the international forces would secure for the new Afghan government an effective area of control extending beyond Kabul. But in the long run it may be just as well we have not made the vast commitment to rebuiding Afghanistan some had contemplated.

If Afghanistan remains stable and al Qaeda are not again able to resume using it as a base, American purposes are pretty much served. The establishment of a functioning democracy would be helpful as well -- the question is what price we ought to be willing to pay for it. Afghanistan is better than it was if not as good as we would like it to be. This may not be dramatic success but it is not disaster either.

"This may not be dramatic success but it is not disaster either."

I would agree with that. And judgeing by Afghanistan's history that alone is something of a minor miracle.

No matter what we do, did, or could do, Afghanistan isnt going to be anything like a progressive, successful nation for many years. It is starting way too far in the hole. If we can see it relatively peaceful, with democratic traditions being established, and some form of effective and loyal federal army, thats pretty darn good for 3 years work in what was the most repressive, backwards, violent nation in the world. I think there is a good chance Iraq could look something like this in 6 months, and that too would be about the best we can hope for for the time being.

Two months ago we were told that Afghanistan was on brink of being a failed state, by those America-first hating Brits.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/07/29/uk.afghan.iraq/

So, I'd take this with a gigantic grain of salt.

Back in July, Peter Bergen wrote an essay in Mother Jones that, among other things, had pronounced Afghanistan to be an unqualified failure. I honestly find it remarkable that the Peter Bergen who wrote that Mother Jones piece a few months ago is the very same Peter Bergen who wrote this recent NYT opinion piece.

I'm not sure it's true that the Taliban insurgents are having "little effect" when, last I heard, Talibani were again in control of some regions and Karzai had bowed to their demands to include them in the national elections.

If that's true, then it would seem to be that the Taliban insurgency achieved its goals.

We just need another conduit for news besides the BBC, Reuters, the Associated Press, and CBS. At least until after the election, we will continue to be bombarded by misinformation from people intent on spinning things to prove their position. The main way that we are getting good information from Iraq and Afghanistan is from emails and blogs from people in the military. We also have a conduit through Iraqi bloggers, since Iraq is much closer to a Western-style nation than Afghanistan. They are too close to the worst of Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Still, it is a hopeful sign when we can occasionally get useful information from The New York Times, otherwise one of the Democrat propaganda outlets.

Yeah, it's amazing how many news organizations, even international ones, have signed on to the Democratic Party.

Like all those career military officers, foreign policy experts and counter-terrorist advisors who served multiple Administrations for over 20 years and managed to hide their true allegiance to anti-American leftism until being cleverly unmasked by the Bush Administration.

"Ten million Afghans have registered to vote, far more than were anticipated..."

That's because there are only 9.8 million eligible voters in Afghanistan. Even if you're rounding up that's assuming 90-plus percent of eligible voters are registered.

but wait, there's more...

"Even in Kandahar, more than 60 percent of the population has registered to vote, while 45 percent have registered in Uruzgan Province, the birthplace of Mullah Omar."

This is election fraud, it is not a sign of a 'promising' democracy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that things are getting better, and frankly, I'm not surprised nor particularly disheartened that Afghanistan's elections may not be the most fair ever conducted. What I can't stand is people using the 10 million as proof of success in democratizing Afghanistan, when it is blatantly not. There are other encouraging facts to use rhetorically, but lies of omission seek only to obfuscate, and I think this election year has been shadowy enough.

Reasons why Afghanistan is more stable:

1. They used up most of the explosives and other really destructive weaponry in the civil war.
2. Most Arab fighters who might have gone to Afghanistan, or who were already in the area went to Iraq because it is much more of a priority for them.
3. Neighboring countries don't feel particularly threatened by Afghanistan because it is so undeveloped and poor in capabilities.

Omphale's right. Bergen's celebrating the fact that there are more registered voters than voters.

Also this from the LA Times:

Mohammed Mohaqiq says he was getting ready to make his run for the Afghan presidency when U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad dropped by his campaign office and proposed a deal. "He told me to drop out of the elections, but not in a way to put pressure," Mohaqiq said. "It was like a request." ... Mohaqiq was still determined to run for president - though, he said, the U.S. ambassador wouldn't give up trying to elbow him out of the race. "He left, and then called my most loyal men, and the most educated people in my party or campaign, to the presidential palace and told them to make me - or request me - to resign the nomination. And he told my men to ask me what I need in return." Mohaqiq, who is running in the Oct. 9 election, is one of several candidates who maintain that the U.S. ambassador and his aides are pushing behind the scenes to ensure a convincing victory by the pro-American incumbent, President Hamid Karzai. The Americans deny doing so. "It is not only me," Mohaqiq said. "They have been doing the same thing with all candidates.... They all want Karzai - and this election is just a show." The charges were repeated by several other candidates and their senior campaign staff in interviews here. They reflected anger over what many Afghans see as foreign interference that could undermine the shaky foundations of a democracy the U.S. promised to build.

Why not just install Karzai and keep him there? The Afghans aren't fooled by this.

Your adding the Thiel op-ed just raised my respect for you massively. It is great to see some one who is actually trying to be an honest analysts.

When visiting New York City, a co-worker of mine met some European tourists. They had heard at home that New York was a dangerous city, and they had seen on TV many, many car chases through the streets of Manhattan.

So they decided they wanted to see a car chase, too. They went to Times Square and waited. And waited. And waited. They were disappointed that nothing happened.

Peter Bergen's personal observations of relative calm in Afghanistan reminded me of these European tourists. The question is not whether one can tour the country without seeing an explosion or being shot at. The question is what's really going on politically and economically, and whether the right decisions are being made to stabilize the country for the long term. And I'm not even saying that that's not the case, but it sure hasn't been our focus for the last two years.

That's because there are only 9.8 million eligible voters in Afghanistan. Even if you're rounding up that's assuming 90-plus percent of eligible voters are registered.

Typical left-wing propaganda crap from those who want to see Afghan democracy fail simply because Bush is the one promoting it.

That there are more registered voters than eligible voters is an absolute myth, pulled out of the air by Bush Haters. The fact is that no one has a clue how many eligible voters there are Afghanistan. There has been no census. There are no identity cards. There are no birth certificates. Plus, 3.5 million refugees have returned to Afghanistan since the Taliban were overthrown (a statement of our success in and of itself) and we are registering Afghans still living in refugee camps outside Afghanistan's borders.

Then again, the BBC says it knows there are more registrations than eligible voters. And the BBC is completely trustworthy, right? After all, it's not like their top two executves had to resign in disgrace after it was revealed that the BBC made-up anti-war propaganda. Oh, right...

But, of course, the left-wing keeps moving the goalposts. Election fraud in Venezuela... who cares? As long as Castro's buddy Jimmy Carter says OK. But Afghanistan? They expect Afghanistan to have higher election standards than Holland.

Oxblog reprints an e-mail from a source in Afghanistan that echoes Bergen. I think the e-mail also explains why Bergen might do a u-turn. A lot has happened in Afghanistan in the last few months, and there have been a fair number of dogs that didn't bark over the past few months.

"Ten million Afghans have registered to vote, far more than were anticipated..."

That's because there are only 9.8 million eligible voters in Afghanistan. Even if you're rounding up that's assuming 90-plus percent of eligible voters are registered.

Excellent. Afghanistan's elections promise to be as clean and free from fraud as Philadelphia's.

Why is Afghanistan more successful than Iraq?

It might have to do with the fact that the U.S. worked intimately with the U.N. and NATO on Afghanistan, and continues to do so today. There are comparitively few U.S. troops in Afghanistan as well. This is a true international effort.

Segue to Iraq. Arrogant unilateralism and pre-emption. Remember Charles Krauthammer's WaPo editorials admonishing the U.S. to FOREVER disavow and abandon the United Nations. This neo-conservative transformation of American foreign policy has now wrought its dire effects. The next story to be written is just how America undertakes its disgraceful evacuation from the failed neo-con adventure in Iraq.

Afghanistan is more successful because Zarqawi & Co.
moved to Iraq. A middle successful Afghanistan is not a threat for them like a succefull Irak. The ripples of a successful Irak which is an Arab country ( Afghanistan is not) bigger, with better communications, more resources, and geographic position could mean the begining of the end of extremism.

"How is it that the Taliban-based insurgents have so little effect?"

Well, try this metaphor. Imagine that the flying saucers come down and announce that from this day on there will be no more Repubicans, they will capture as may Republicans as they can find and carry them off for medical experiments. At first thought you might expect the Republicans to make as big a fuss about that as they can.

But then you notice that a whole lot of former Republicans are now Libertarians, and a whole lot more are Naderites and a number of them are even Democrats. And they haven't changed their ideology or anything, they've just changed their party. And when the flying saucer people get distracted and stop paying attention, a lot of Republicans even come back as Republicans. Why should they make a big fuss about it when they can adapt and do just fine?

I think that's pretty much what we have in afghanistan. As long as they don't call themselves Taliban we don't bother them, and they'd rather do politics than worry about the name.

"Peter Bergen's personal observations of relative calm in Afghanistan reminded me of these European tourists. The question is not whether one can tour the country without seeing an explosion or being shot at."

qw, in iraq that *is* the question. So if we can believe this, it looks like afghanistan is in considerably better shape than iraq.

And maybe one major reason is that we don't have nearly so many troops in afghanistan, and they aren't so intrusive.