The Outlook is Grim for the People of Afghanistan

Afghan Water Vendor, Kunduz, June 2005

On what authority do I state this? I have one specific source and one general source.

The specific source is a day-long seminar held December 1 at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs (UI) on the campus of The Royal Institute of Technology entitled “Afghanistan After 2014”, which I attended.

The general source is the recent and current news of the world which has focused, again, more sharply on Afghanistan because of The announcement by President Obama that the US and NATO military forces will exit Afghanistan by the end of 2014; and, the convening of the Second Bonn Conference on Afghanistan held on 5 December 2011, ten years after the First Bonn Conference. In addition, there have been violent episodes within and without Afghanistan (in Pakistan near its border with Afghanistan), even as I compose this article, that bode ill for a strong and peaceful Afghanistan while the foreign troops leave over the next two years.

I have a small authority having worked for thirty days in 2005 as a volunteer consultant in Afghanistan, in the provinces of Kunduz and Wardak. You can see images and some narrative from this visit here.

I will offer links to current news and other sources of information after I present this summary of the seminar.

Seminar Summary, Four Sessions
(Note: remarks attributed to the participants are transcriptions from my hand-written notes; any errors of fact and interpretation are mine).

Twelve experts and scholars provided a comprehensive look at the history, current issues and possible outcomes for Afghanistan and the region around it. I will identify the participants during the course of this article. The sponsoring agencies for the seminar were:

FOI (Swedish Defence Research Agency)
SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute)
UI (Swedish Institute of International Affairs)

First Session: Reconciliation and Peace—a Possibility?

Masood Aziz, former Afghan Diplomat in Washington, D.C. began the formal presentations.

Ten years have passed since the first Bonn Conference in 2001. The news is generally bad in evaluating these years in Afghanistan. There has been some progress, but the outlook is bleak. Mr. Aziz is pessimistic because the Afghan government is weak, corruption is rampant, and the international community is losing interest.

There is a state of crisis, currently. The Afghan government may collapse after NATO/ISAF troops leave by the end of 2014. The Current USA conversation with the Taliban is going nowhere. NATO lacks a credible plan for transition for after 2014.

With a weak central government, and its possible collapse, the strongest remaining institution will be the Afghan army. (Here Mr. Aziz was not explicit, but it was clear that the prospect of a military dictatorship, or of the military playing a dominant role such as in Pakistan, was on his mind).

Counter-insurgency has been the main purpose of NATO and ISAF (International Security Assistance Force of NATO), not nation-building.

What to do?


  • Redouble efforts to support and establish the legitimacy of the national government in the eyes of the Afghan people. If this confidence cannot be engendered, then collapse of the government is inevitable, with attendant violence between ethnicities and factions.
  • Need to buttress the rule of law, versus the rule of men.
  • Afghan security forces need to be at the service of the state.

From Wall Street Journal (


Development of Afghanistan’s mineral resources may be the game changer, e.g., the Chinese-run copper mine and the Indian-run iron ore mine. However, the danger of the “resource curse” may be a down-side. A major portion of the state income from the development of natural resources should be directed as cash transfers to the people, as is done in other resource-rich countries such as Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Bolivia and Mongolia.

Mr. Aziz ended his prepared remarks thus:

The last ten years of NATO operations in Afghanistan have focused on strategic issues, mostly security. Since 2001 there has been a massive inflow of unconditional money from governments and NGOs causing the state to be dependent on these gifts. This is state-building from the outside, not from the inside and from the ground up via the people. Much of this money and other resources have flowed to former warlords.

Cash grants to the people from the income of natural resource development will force the government to rely on the people through the taxation of their income. This will also give new life and purpose to the National Solidarity Program and strengthen the governments and capabilities of the 34 provinces. Local communities will be empowered to take care of their own security and infrastructure projects. Not all security and infrastructure development need be performed by the national government.

Eva Johansson is head of the Afghanistan Section at the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). Here are some of her points.

Children are the most often forgotten in the issues addressed. Additionally, SIDA is interested in helping women to participate in the formation of the country. Sweden, through SIDA, has increased its support of these issues to become the second largest donor. The emphasis on security and counter-insurgency has put the issues of women and children in lower priority, despite efforts of SIDA and UNICEF. SIDA continues to be concerned about the condition of women’s rights in Afghanistan.

In the Bazaar, Kunduz, June 2005

Peter Brune, Secretary General of the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan (SCA/SAK). The Swedish Committee has 6300 people in 12 of the 34 provinces. SCA/SAK have been on the ground in Afghanistan since 1982, providing education and other developmental services to people in the villages (not in the capital, Kabul).

In responding to Mr. Aziz’s comments Mr. Brune said it was a “tough call” to say we’ve failed. Mr. Brune introduced the discussion point that ten years is not enough time. This point was taken up and further developed by other speakers who followed.

Mr. Brune made these other points:

  • There needs to be a link between development and education.
  • It’s important not to be “diplomatic” in assessing and addressing the problems. We need to examine and learn from failures.
  • The state hasn’t failed yet. Girls are going to school; the army is being built, etc.
  • Others should do more of what the Swedish Committee is doing.
  • SCA/SAK has zero tolerance for weapons in schools. It’s important to separate the military from education and other efforts at the grass roots.
  • We (NATO/ISAF, the Afghan government) are scrambling to build an army. Meanwhile the Afghan and Pakistan armies are facing each other on their common border.
  • There will be consequences in building a strong army in a weak state (thus buttressing Mr. Aziz’s argument).
  • What are the other institutions we can look to? The constitution, the executive and the parliament, none of which existed before the current government was established. [Note: he didn’t mention the judiciary, which is generally seen as corrupt and ineffective at the state level, although not necessarily at the local level).
  • Important people and entities are not talking with each other. For example, the Supreme Commander of NATO forces and SIDA have never met.
  • Real security is to strengthen the state.

Second Session: Reconciliation and Peace—a Possibility?

Robert Lamb is Director and Senior Fellow at Program on Crisis, Conflict and Cooperation at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Washington D.C.

There have been talks about peace talks, but no peace talks. After the Taliban fell many soldiers and commanders went home without veterans’ benefits. Foes of the Taliban included the Northern Alliance, led primarily by warlords, some of whom are still in place.

In the 2001 Bonn Conference the Taliban were excluded and, since they had no part in the deliberations they have no stake in peace. Therefore, they went to Pakistan and became “insurgents”. The talks about peace talks continue, to date. Pakistan now demands to be part of the conversation.

Bad things began happening in 2010. An imposter apparently representing the Taliban conned the government of Afghanistan out of a lot of money, and created extreme embarrassment for all connected parties. In September of this year the chairman of the Afghan High Peace Council, Burhanuddin Rabbani, was been killed by a suicide attacker. He was meeting members of the Taliban at the time in an effort to negotiate toward peace talks.

It’s not clear what we can do to prevent civil war in Afghanistan. Former warlords, some of whom are now regional governors, are hoarding money and weapons.

We need to prevent the collapse of the Afghan state. (Non-military) development is important, “big time”, but will do no good if the government collapses. We need to keep the potential combatants (in a civil war) co-opted in the Afghan Government. This means tolerating “some very bad guys”.


Helene Lackenbauer is an FOI analyst and former political aide to the Swedish Force Commander in Afghanistan.

There are very few possibilities leading toward peace. Who are the actors and what do we provide them? What are our prices for peace? Are we prepared to sell out women’s rights? What do we intend for the Taliban?

Mr. Brune responded: Afghanistan is at war. There are police, weapons, explosives and insurgents. The Taliban is not defined in any way. There can’t be a universal strategy; we have to address each group’s needs and grievances. Peace can be based on justice; all their rights have to be recognized and supported (implying the need for a strong and professional, not corrupt, national judiciary).

Robert Lamb “lifts the gloom”

  • Eleven years ago Afghanistan was a medieval theocracy. How long does it take to for such a state to become a representative democracy?
  • There is a civil service, although it is constantly raided for employees to the better paid NGOs and other private organizations.
  • Free speech exists, even if it may be dangerous.
  • There are radios and telephones.
  • Most areas are less violent than Northern Mexico.
  • Ten years is nothing in the history of nation building. Transitioning from Warlord rule to the rule of law doesn’t happen quickly or easily. Afghanistan is still in the warlord phase and will be for a long time.
  • Seventy-five percent of Afghans think the government is doing a good job, although the jirgas have more effect at the local level. If the state isn’t there, they figure things out (at the local level).

[Here I am not sure whether Robert Lamb continues, or whether Peter Brune and perhaps others are responding]

    • The Swedish Committee for Afghanistan has one-half million girls in school.
    • Students have TV and radios.
    • Rural areas are more negative on the future and are concerned about the return of the warlords.
    • Afghanistan is ethnically divided and is waiting for the next war. If the Taliban returns, they will bring Taliban rules. (Taliban are fundamentalist Sunni Muslims mostly from the Pashtun tribe).

(Note: Languages are Dari (official) 50%, Pashto (official) 35%, Turkic languages 11%, 30 minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai) 4%;  Ethnic groups are Pashtun 42%, Tajik 27%, Hazara 9%, Uzbek 9%, Aimak 4%, Turkmen 3%, Baloch 2%, other 4%. Religions are Sunni Muslim 80%, Shia Muslim 19%, other 1%.

  • (Upon the likely collapse of the national government) a new Northern Alliance will emerge to oppose the Taliban.
  • The concerns of the people are: civil war, political collapse, financial crisis, jobs disappearing. The current president Hamid Karzai will not be running to succeed himself in the next election—who will rule? If the election collapses, who will emerge, and how?
  • Governors are more powerful than the national government in the eyes of the people. When the Soviets left there was chaos. Will there be the same again? After the Soviets left it was worse than with the Soviets.
  • People in Kabul are more positive. Children are always more positive (Note: the median age is 18 years: source).

Ann Wilkens, former Swedish ambassador to Pakistan and former Chairman of the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan, emphasized the point that there is not a unified Taliban group in Afghanistan. There are splinter groups, some interested in insurgency, some in drug traffic and some with other aims, for instance relating to religious practice.

Masood Aziz augmented this observation by noting there is a spectrum of different groups and there is a problem in assessing the association of any of them with Al Qaeda, which is of non-afghan origin led by non-Afghans. In addition, Mullah Mohammed Omar, the past and present leader of the Afghan Taliban, has been hiding out in Pakistan, even when he was head of state during the time when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan.

Middle East expert at UI Magnus Norell raised the question of the current objective of the Taliban. He suggested they want influence in the current processes addressing the future of Afghanistan. Ann Wilkens asserted that the institution of Sharia law is their objective. Norell said that these were not mutually exclusive.

Masood Aziz said this is not a valid question because there is no unified Taliban. He further noted that strict Sharia law alienated Afghans during their Taliban rule. Afghans felt an alien force took over their state. Mullah Omar, who has no stated or known religious education or lineage, alienated Afghan tribal leaders during his rule.

Kabul, June 2005

Third Session: Counter-insurgency


  • “All the bad stuff” is located in Pakistan: the Quetta Shura Taliban and the Haqqani Network, for instance.
  • The tribal and other leaders in Afghanistan have a common enemy in the various Taliban entities, but have no common strategy.
  • The stated US objective is to disrupt and destroy Al Qaeda. Is it working, or should the US change its objective? President Obama has shifted the focus to counter-insurgency.

Stefan Olsson of the FOI stated the problem with counter-insurgency is that it will take ten years to wipe out the insurgents. There is too little time for this (by the end of 2014) and it won’t work.

Harsh Pant of King’s College, London, said the current tension between the US and Pakistan over insurgents in Pakistan will come to a head as a result of a vicious cycle.

Masood Aziz said that the US military has ever-changing nomenclature for what it is they are doing. “Stability” is now in vogue. Previously it was “Clear/Hold/Build/Transfer”. Before that it was “Fight/Talk/Build”.

Military officers are talking to village elders about democracy; they aren’t experts in this. The US military is trying to embed itself in the culture and change it from the inside. It won’t work.

Stefan Olsson said “counter-insurgency is not nation-building”.

We have to realize our limitations in using only the military to bring “stability”.

Question posed to the panel: Will Afghan security forces be able to fill the vacuum left by the NATO/ISAF departure?

One response: The Afghan people would like the troops to leave, but “not too quickly”.

Stefan Olsson: The Swedish government doesn’t know what the end state should be, or when.  The USA seems to want to fight the insurgents to the negotiating table.

In the Afghan security forces the Army officers are from the former Northern Alliance; that is, they are not of the Pashtun tribe as is the majority of the government officers. The Army may not feel itself subservient to a weak national government.

Other responses:

In that the USA/NATO have announced a time certain by which their troops will leave, the Taliban is in a position to wait to intensify their incursions.

The USA needs to stay after 2014, in some fashion, to deal with other countries such as Iran and Pakistan.

Neither the USA nor NATO has a strategy for filling the vacuum created by their departure.

Question from the audience: Can and will India be a force for good in Afghanistan?

Masood Aziz: Pakistan seems to want the opposite of what everybody else wants in Afghanistan. India, which is right next door, is the world’s largest democracy. In contrast, the military dominates Pakistan, but is not all-powerful because of the influence of organized groups such as the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) which wants to oust the US-backed Pakistani government.

In response to another question regarding the possible role of the EU, Mr. Masood said that the EU has the talent and moral foundation to help build infrastructure for Afghanistan. As an example of “moral force” he recited a story of how a US Peace Corps volunteer in the 1960s left an indelible impression on a now elderly man in a remote village.

Chief Engineer, local construction engineer, and driver — employees of the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan, 2005

Fourth and Final Session: Geopolitics and the Regional Dynamics

Context: There has been a change in the global balance of power from West to East, in operational terms. The center of world politics has been Europe, but now is moving toward Asia/China.

Harsh Pant of King’s College, London opened the session.

American priorities are changing: Afghanistan is not as important as before, as China emerges as a priority.

Global priorities are going to be influenced/centered in Asia/Pacific.

Pakistan now realizes that it is not the most important ally the USA has in its region. The USA sees India as its most important ally vis-à-vis China, and Islamabad (Pakistan’s capital) is worried. Pakistan has to hedge its bets; it needs a friendly Kabul (Capital of Afghanistan) so as not to be flanked by enemies—India to the east and Afghanistan to the west.

Pakistan’s self-identity seems to have been that it is not India. The Pakistan military has never won a war, but the Pakistan army points the people of Pakistan to India for its raison d’être as an army. Pakistan has tried to marginalize India in insisting they not be included in Afghan talks. Washington finally realized that Pakistan was playing a double game.

India realized this marginalization and now has decided to invest in Afghanistan (refer to the previously mentioned iron ore mine in Hajigak). Additionally, India has been reaching toward Russia and Iran, both of which flank Afghanistan. India likes a western presence in Afghanistan, but Russia and Iran don’t—but India balances this somehow.

China is feeling encircled by the USA. They are reluctant to talk with the USA about Afghanistan and Pakistan. They don’t want to compromise their relationship with Pakistan.

Current events reveal a conflict between the USA and Pakistan, a symptom of the underlying problem of Pakistan’s feeling of isolation and loss of importance to the USA.

Neil J. Melvin, Director of the Armed Conflict and Conflict Management Programme at SIPRI, responded:

The USA is drawing closer to its Asia/pacific allies and courting new ones such as Burma. Therefore, Afghanistan will remain important to the USA in this context, but where does Afghanistan fit? We don’t know yet.

Russia is courting Afghanistan by encouraging it toward the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. (The six-nation SCO comprises China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. India, Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan attend its meetings as observers. Source).

Harsh Pant added that Pakistan’s uncertainty about the USA’s intentions makes it difficult for them to know how to act.

Former Swedish Ambassador to Pakistan Ann Wilkens stated that the sequencing of events is unfortunate for Pakistan. There are conflicting messages to and from all players in the region. What does the USA want? She noted that the Pakistan army was built by the USA.

Magnus Norell:  A report of the US Marines recommended forgetting nation building and to leave just a small counter-terrorism force in Afghanistan. It should be treated by the USA as a “marginal country”. We’re reading too much importance into it. You can’t solve Afghanistan unless you deal successfully with Pakistan. Let’s not look at Afghanistan as a regional issue. Keep it local.

From the moderator: From the perspective of Iran and Pakistan (which have long borders with Afghanistan) why is everyone waiting to see what the USA is going to do?  The USA doesn’t have the leverage for a regional solution.

Neil J. Melvin: it is a dilemma. Russia, Iran and others want the USA out, but no-one else has the strength to do anything constructive on a regional basis. Iran has around three million Afghan refugees and doesn’t like the Taliban. There needs to be trust building between nations in the region. China is interested in stability and doesn’t want attacks from terrorists, so it keeps a low profile. One of China’s important interests in stability is due to the question of whether to build an additional gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to China through Afghanistan.

From the moderator: the world economy affects Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan and things are looking austere for these countries. How does this factor into the regional issues?

Answer from panel: if the world and local economy were better, it still wouldn’t solve Afghanistan’s problem which is one of governance.

Last question form the moderator: What should we do? What should we focus on?

Reponses from the panel:

  • The West should continue to support Afghanistan economically.
  • Donor nations need more humility in their approach to Afghanistan.
  • Get out and stay out, militarily.
  • Spend aid on education, etc.
  • Don’t pull out (the military) gradually.

The moderators were:

Nathalie Besèr is Advisor to the Swedish Institute of International Affairs (UI)

John Rydqvist is Head of the Asia Security Studies Program at FOI.


Links to information sources:

NATO in Afghanistan
Al‐Qaeda and Afghanistan in Strategic Context: Counterinsurgency versus Counterterrorism
Quetta Shura Taliban
Mullah Mohammed Omar
Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP)
NATO/ISAF history and facts about its troops


About Ron Pavellas

Expatriate American living in Sweden with wife. Retired from employment in the USA. Currently focused on blog articles, memoirs, and creative writing.
This entry was posted in Geography, War & Peace and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to The Outlook is Grim for the People of Afghanistan

  1. E Gandy says:

    The moot question is Why are other countries involved in Afghanistan at all? Of course motives vary and are not always what they are said or appear to be. Which of course makes it impossible to achieve a coherent approach. The representative from Swedish Sida – second largest donor – talks about children’s and women’s rights. But if you look at the Swedish strategy for aid to Afghanistan, you will find military, security, trade and migration objectives alongside development. Now that Osama bin laden has been killed, what is the interest of the US? Geopolitics possible. But if that is the case, it is necessary to learn from history, for example the British (twice) and Sovjet disastrous attempts to rule Aghanistan. Two years ago I heard a British military adviser working at SIPRI say “when we have sorted out Afghanistan”. Several eyebrows were raised by this disturbing lack of interest in learning from the history of Afghanistan. The outlook is indeed grim.


    • Ron Pavellas says:

      My take on why other people are in Afghanistan is, as they say in the Real Estate business, Location, Location, Location! It’s on the way between east and west, and north and south. The Great Game between Russia and England was North and South (Russia trying to access India); the silk road was between east and west. It all started with Alexander going as far east as he could. It seems the unfortunate people of Afghanistan will not be left alone. Now they have India and China developing their natural resources.


  2. Sonja Hendersson says:

    Hi Ron. Thanks for your well-written and concise update of what is going on in Afghanistan. We keep thinking about all the women and children who are just trying to get on with their lives, take care of their families and have a good life, but are caught up in the larger structural conflicts and the power conflicts of the region. Human rights – namely, the right to a life of dignity, does not seem to be the currency on which solutions are built; rather it is the interests of the regional powers and other involved entities that drives the conversation. It seems to me that this dialogue should be re-framed within a social justice framework, and then the issues should be worked out from the bottom up. Is there access to food? water? health care? education? How can these things be addressed and expanded so that the dialogue is one that promotes realization of basic human rights? But then I am a hopeless idealist!


    • Ron Pavellas says:

      Here’s something I wrote to another person in Facebook: “We are in agreement that the Taliban are very bad guys. The Aghans do not want them back. What they do want is security, which the current weak and corrupt government cannot provide. Now the NATO/ISAF forces will leave in 2 years, gradually, and Afghanistan may well not have the means to provide their own security, except if the army takes over and that will be bad… They are people trying to get along in the world as best they can, despite all the questionable interest other nations and forces have in their country.”


    • Ron Pavellas says:

      As for basic human right, explore what the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan has been doing since the Soviet invasion in 1979. [Link to a Power Point Presentation showing some of what the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan is doing:


  3. Sonja Hendersson says:

    Hi Ron! Here are just a few more thoughts to add to your blog discussion.
    I am thinking about the agenda and the voices involved. A distant bird’s eye view of the situation to me looks like a big cake with outside forces jostling one another for the largest share of the cake according to their own interests of national security, border security, resource control, migration control, to name a few. What happens when you take off this “cake” layer and try to focus on the core of the situation? At the core, under the “cake” layer of the discussion are people who need to find a voice, and whose voices need to be heard. People who may want to articulate how they want to find joy in their lives. What do they need to be able to articulate this? Their basic needs must be met. You need to ground the discussion by looking at the maternal mortality rates, the literacy rates, the life expectancy rates and the existence of kitchen gardens. Above this layer you need to follow the channels of resource control and the control over the household income.
    Who is in control of the agenda? Who should be in control of the agenda? Whose voices are part of the agenda?
    What are the agendas of the different parties involved? These agendas range from interest in the natural resources and cash crops to national security, border security and migration control. If I could cut through the complicated agendas of the many parties involved, I might conclude that any party whose own agenda is not purely focused on the realization of the human rights of the Afghan people, especially the women and children (dare I say it?) — that pushing these other agendas may mean that you are inhibiting the realization of the human rights of the people of Afghanistan? But then again, the situation is complicated, and my view is a long way off the sidelines.
    You just have to ask if the persistence of this “pie–piece” mentality — that is, dividing up spheres of influence according to one’s own interests, abilities, or needs, could have an extremely long-lasting negative impact on the internal power structure of the country. Look at Cambodia in the post-war rebuilding years and decide for yourself. The economics of supporting these outside “guests” in the country can divert resources from building communities that can meet their own basic needs.
    If I were a woman living in Afghanistan, what would I need to be able to articulate my needs? Here I can only guess that this ability to articulate would begin with meeting the needs of my family and children, food, clothing, shelter, feeling safe, as well as safe schools, health care, – it is “Maslow 101” and the hierarchy of needs. One can’t reach the self-realization level until other layers of need have been met.

    By the way, what is the soil like? Is anybody “building” dirt, and small kitchen gardens? Do women know how to compost and build kitchen gardens that they can have control over, and so provide food for their families? This small food source can go a long way. Who are the soil-builders? They need to be part of the agenda. Do not underestimate the power of the kitchen garden, as long as women control it and it is used only for food.
    I’m thinking about the power of the kitchen garden, composting, building the soil, growing your own food…. Have we overlooked the power of small “invisible” places, like in the women’s arena? Do they have access to the telephone network? Midwives (am I right in that male doctors cannot treat females?) have a huge role in their ability to disseminate information, create channels of communication, and build channels of support among women. Even distributing alphabet charts on paper (which can be folded and hidden) can help women build phonemic awareness for themselves and their children (this is a beginning step in building literacy). What I’m talking about is building the capacity of power within the women’s sphere of influence, and the rethinking of this arena as not a void of power, but as a resource. In short, reframing one’s repertoire of solutions by looking at the spheres of influence you have previously overlooked.
    Why does this geopolitical “game” have to be so complicated?
    This quote from Mother Theresa just popped into my head: “Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.”


    • Ron Pavellas says:

      Here are just a few responses to your ideas and observations: I didn’t like Kabul. It was not of the people, but of the government and all the other governments and NGOs doing their stuff, seemingly largely uncoordinated. When I arrived Kunduz by air, I was taken back to my time of living in the great central valley of California: rich farm lands nourished by rivers from nearby mountains. See the several photos in this sequence: The Afghans in this northern territory and province have been farmers for untold years. They are also carpet weavers and artisans, and shop keepers, and professional people, etc. They have an apparently sustainable way of life, if left alone by invaders and marauders, and if protected by a system of laws and security. The local laws and justice system seem to be well-enough developed; it is at the national level that some things tend to fall apart. There are endemic diseases they need help with, and widespread ignorance in matters of childbirth and maternal health which the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan is bravely and competently addressing. The SCA also helps with potable water projects–wells, etc. China, or Germany (I believe) was helping to build a paved road from Kunduz south to and through Baghlan province ( which goes further toward the high mountain Salang tunnel ( leading into the Kabul basin (around one mile in elevation, like Denver). So there is an example of infrastructure development. The cascading of events from the Soviet invasion, the chaos of the mujahadeen, the terrible rule of the Taliban caused millions of people to flee Afghanistan: generally Pushtun people to Pakistan and Dari-speaking people to Iran. Now they have been returning to–nothing! Most of their familiar places are gone or ruined and many many people live in UN camps, and other less than satisfactory conditions. Basic survival is the lot of a great many people. That’s about all my fingers and brain can do right now.


  4. Sonja Hendersson says:

    Look for solutions in your largely over-looked places of abundance, namely, among the women. Enable the sisterhood to be powerful.


  5. Pingback: Pakistan Vs USA | Death of 24 Pakistani Soldiers in NATO Air Attacks

  6. budbromley says:

    The outlook has been grim for the Afghani’s ever since the muslim’s wiped out their religion and history, even though the country has enormous valuable natural resources. Religions grow out of the long-held customs and culture of the people as a way to preserve those. When those are destroyed, the links to the past are mostly lost. This is an intentional strategy of Islamic indoctrination. In out lifetime, muslims continue to destroy ancient cultural places of pre-muslim Afghanistan, for example the Buddhas of Bamyan were two 6th-century monumental statues of Gautama Buddha carved … The statues were blown up and destroyed in March 2001 by the Taliban, on orders from leading Mullah. Since then there is some effort to rebuild. And similarly, the current by BLM/Antifa et al to destroy statues and monuments in the U.S. and Europe will have similar long-term disasterous result: recessive, backwards civilization, even though it is held out to be “progressive” by its violent proponents, Democrats, UN, and the 269+ global corporations and NGO’s that are funding and supporting BLM et al.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.