More Advice For Trump -- Afghanistan

Our Most Likely Option

Not many of us feel as favorably as I do about Afghanistan.  I lived there for a combined six months during my college years, which was before the Soviet invasion and subsequent turmoil.  Below are a few photos I took at the time.  But first, my latest advice for President Trump:

Each time I'm reminded of conflict in Afghanistan I think to myself that we as a country should be getting out.  I've felt that way for some time.  So, when I read a piece in the Washington Post recently, urging Trump to get out, I agreed, mostly.  But, Trump has indicated he wants to send another 5,000 or so US troops, or seems to be leaning in that direction.

Well, I got to thinking.  We spend about $1 million per US military personnel sent there, compared to about 1/20 of that amount for a soldier in the Afghan army ($50,000), and yes, we currently support the Afghan military financially.  By the way, this includes all military expenses, including equipment, construction etc., so the figure is total theater expenditure divided by number of personnel.

I just read up a little on Afghanistan's economy, and found that while soldiers are being paid about $2,000 a year (a figure from this Atlantic article --I've upped the figure a bit) the country's average income--reported in a recent poll of Afghanistan (The Asia Foundation has been conducting an in-country poll for the past dozen years)--was around $1,800 /$2,500 for rural/urban areas.  So, soldier salaries are about what an average person earns.  Which, for very dangerous work, is not much of an incentive, and may account for much of the Afghan National Army's high turnover, problems with desertion, and overall difficulties fighting.

So, it occurred to me that instead of our paying another $5 billion a year for those 5,000 US troops, we could instead increase what we spend on the Afghan army & police, by something less than $5 billion, with pay and benefits upped accordingly, making those jobs much more desirable, and saving ourselves some money.

There are upsides and downsides to this.  For Afghanistan, it would cut down on desertion, improve morale/cohesion, and spur the Afghan economy (GDP is about $20 billion, so an additional $1.5 B, let's say, would be an increase of about 7.5% to GDP, which would almost certainly kick the economy into permanent growth mode).  It would also be a cheap way to essentially end the war.  Hey, guys, we're leaving soon; here's what we can afford.  Coupled with diplomacy, and perhaps additional military training, it might work.

And Afghanistan, without a western military presence, would be able to at least say that it was on its own, which is likely how Afghans want to see themselves.

Like many mountainous peoples, allegiance to a central government is limited, so, the way it is now, without attractive pay, there're few reasons for Afghans to stay in the army.  How much of an increase would $1.5 billion pay for?  Instead of being paid $2,000 a year, which for an army and military police force of about 350,000 is $700 million, they'd be paid an average of three times that, or about $6,000.  Since US average household income is about $75,000, that would be like someone in this country being paid over $200,000, instead of only $75,000 (Afghan men earn almost all income, so there is little difference between individual and household income).  Hey, Taliban fighters might reconsider their allegiance if such a deal were on the table.

Perhaps we should look at the downside to this idea before getting too excited: paying for another country's armed forces isn't sustainable, period,   If, however, the Afghan economy were to accelerate, this might only be necessary for 5-10 years.  And Afghanistan actually has natural resources to pay for its own development (see photo of iron ore, below), that could ensure prosperity should security be established.

So, to wrap up, this might just be our least bad option, assuming our military won't accept a pulling of the plug.   Plus, we'd have left a war behind us, and with some dignity.

UPDATE: President Trump has said he will let the Defense Department decide the proper troop level (Hmmm, what happened to the guy who had the 'secret plan' to defeat ISIL, and that ragged on this country's generals?).  The word is that this will mean an additional 4,000 US troops, or, for our calculations, a commitment of $4 billion.  If we stick with our $1.5 billion pay increase for Afghan military personnel, that's still $2.5 billion for additional advisers to train the Afghan army.  Throw in some diplomacy, and make sure the word gets out about that good pay, and we'd have a chance.  Do it for 5-10 years, declare victory, and that's probably our least bad option.

UPDATE 12/9/18: An article in the SCMP suggests--without much to back it up--that China and India might succeed in Afghanistan where the US and Russia did not.  Ok, that could be the beginning of a diplomatic push that shared the necessary funding duties, and the glory.  Funding the Afghan army at a level that would solidify its resolve, and attract those who might otherwise fight for the other side, could be a way forward--or at least the best of unlikely options.  It would take negotiators with great skill, though, to get everyone on board and spread the back-slapping congratulations to all participants.


Those photos I took in the mid-70s:


Stone containing iron ore from Hajigak
area.  Heavy--probably 1-2 pounds.



My parents, King's Garden, Paghman



Friendly kids agree to pose, Paghman


Jewelry bazaar, Kabul


My Dad standing with huge chinar tree,
King's Garden


Painting above large buddha, Bamiyan.  5th-9th
century; Silk Road offshoot; notice what look like angel
wings on figure at center-left; oldest known use of oil
in paint.  Mountains are at right.


Rope bazaar, Kabul


Deal being consummated. Long-lasting
handshake, exchange of Afghanis
(in left hand of man on right), all while
sitting on haunches, with on-lookers
(man standing on left is smiling
broadly).
Animal bazaar, Sheberghan.
..........

And a few taken by others.

Our friend, Peter, with local sheep herder and son.
Man to Peter's left wanted to be in photo.
Animal bazaar, Sheberghan, near Turkmenistan and
Uzbekistan borders.


My brother and me in King's Garden, overlooking
Paghman Valley and points west.  Photo by our
mother.


Where our lane in Kabul met a major road.   Photo
by my brother.

The Subconscious - Why Doesn't It Just Speak To Us?

My Take On How A Mind Is Constructed

In a recent post in the journal Nautilus, the American novelist, playwright and screenwriter, Cormac McCarthy (notably, the author of No Country For Old Men), discusses the question of why our unconscious mind, which can send us coded messages in dreams, doesn't just speak up.

First off, much of the material linked to, above, was way over my head.

Nevertheless, I have a model for the mind's basic organization, that readers might find interesting.

The problem with being able to access the unconscious is that it is merely data (for example, McCarthy's piece describes a famous chemist waking up with a hunch on how to solve a problem he'd been struggling with; his hunch is based on a dream image).  Accessing the data in our unconscious can be done intuitively, with dreams for example.  Or, it can be done consciously, using thought.

One can think of our experienced-based data as a computer.  Either we guess what we're looking for, or we search using key words.  Guessing is an intuitive approach, searching is a more analytical way.  Either can be inefficient and take longer.

The key is guessing correctly, or knowing the key words to search for.  This is called wisdom and is something that, ideally, we work on all our lives.

And now the problems encountered with each system:
  * Guessing, or imagining the relevant data configuration, is only possible if our minds are free to let ideas bubble up.
  * Likewise, analyzing a problem goes nowhere if we have ulterior motives and can't control our reasoning powers.

That is, our dreams can turn to nightmares, and our reasoning can be self-serving.  That's why we should all be seeking both freedom and justice in our lives.
And when we do have both, they reinforce each other.  Leading just lives allows us to be freer, which allows better guesses to bubble up, informing us of how to better analyze our experiences.

Which is all a terribly dry way to say that our unconscious accumulates experience over our lifetimes and so, usually, allows for a wiser perspective.  But the data itself can't tell us the answer.

Update: 5/12/17
Ok, I've had criticism about this post.  Essentially, the problem is that the analytical and the intuitive approach are almost always combined in some way:
  * We dream intuitively, but remembering/interpreting a dream takes analysis.
  * We think through important decisions, but imagining alternatives involves intuition.
Not that this changes the model, which is best understood when divided into its distinct component parts.