Should the Economy Be First Priority for U.S. Government?

By Simon Johnson

The administration is signaling a new strategy for Afghanistan: “economic development and governance”. On the front page of the Washington Post last week, President Obama’s national security adviser, James L. Jones, told Bob Woodward:

The piece of the strategy that has to work in the next year is economic development. If that is not done right, there are not enough troops in the world to succeed.

This is an appealing statement. But does it make any sense?

Providing people with the means to earn a decent standard of living is a good thing in itself, and better future prospects can encourage them not to fight. Economic stress often – but not always – encourages violence (.pdf).

Still, there are three problems with the Jones Doctrine, as applied to modern Afghanistan.

1. Economic development generally requires a high level of physical security. You only make investments if you are reasonably confident that you will live to see the benefits of those investments. If setting up a store or planting more acreage raises your profile in the community and makes you more of a target, why not keep your head down? The Taliban knows this and acts accordingly. Economic development is something that follows – hopefully - from more physical security, rather than providing an alternative.
2. The U.S. can provide more resources to targeted communities, e.g., roads and other physical infrastructure, improved health, and more teachers. But none of this necessarily adds up (.pdf) to sustained increases in incomes. This may not be a problem, if we are willing to keep ploughing money in essentially without limit. But what is the budget for this activity and how much support does it have on Capitol Hill?
3. If you can achieve security and provide infrastructure, what exactly will the rural citizens of Afghanistan invest in? If it’s opium poppy production, doesn’t that create a whole other set of issues? If you try to prevent people from cultivating poppy, what exactly are their alternatives – and how much money can they make? If you try to eradicate poppy production, doesn’t that undermine the physical security goal? And if the poppy trade gains the upper hand, doesn’t that support illegality and mafia-type activity in both Afghanistan and its neighbors? How does that impact the Jones’ Doctrine sensible emphasis on improving governance?

All of these questions surely have answers, but none of these answers seem easy or should be assumed to have political support. If you really want to switch emphasis in Afghanistan, there needs to be a much more engaged and detailed conversation – led by the White House and very much involving Congress.

As it currently stands, the Jones Doctrine appears more as a slogan for an intra-military discussion about troop levels (68,000 vs. 100,000). Or perhaps it is just an exhortation to keep civilian casualties down – a sensible goal, but not by itself offering a way out of the quagmire.

Comments

[jkatzman:]

It isn't just economic development. It's a specific kind. This article explains more:

www.windsofchange.net/...

To strip it to basics, Afghanistan needs agricultural assistance, the ability to get its agricultural goods to market across Afghanistan, and international buyers for that produce. Absent that, the only distribution network available is opium's, even though the base price paid to farmers isn't that great. That creates a number of dynamics that make success difficult to impossible.

Pakistan's Taliban state-within-a-state remains the elephant in the room of all this, but the local Afghan strategy also needs to be sound.

Jul 05 02:35 PM

[reveigel@ms...:]

Just another government program doomed to failure. Does the govenrment attempt to do that in America? Yes. And what has been the result. Certainly not success. Abject failure. What has been the result of all the money we send to other Nations? Lines the pockets of the rulers. How does the old saying go, give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Trying to be a nice guy is OK, but being stupid is getting old and expensive with few positives.

Jul 05 08:32 PM

[reveigel@ms...:]

Just another government program doomed to failure. Has it been tried here in America? Yes. And with what results? Abject failure. What has been the result of all our foreign aid other than lining the pockets of those in power. How does the old saying go? Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. It is one thing to be generous but another to be stupid over and over again. If there is a way to teach and help people learn to do on their own, OK. To keep throwing money down a drain is very poor money management.

Jul 05 08:43 PM

[reveigel@ms...:]

Just a test. Have tried to post a comment twice. No result.

Jul 05 08:45 PM

[Steven Hansen:]

our strategic goal is to prevent the taliban from making afghanistan a training ground.

what do the people want? democracy is pretty far down their list of things (but close to the top of ours). let them grow poppies. set up stores to buy all they can produce. let the country settle down and stabilize by creating jobs for the little guy.

the leadership in kabul reminds me of how effective we were in vietnam. we are backing a government who has no standing outside of kabul.

Jul 05 11:48 PM

[conceptwizard:]

The statement: "The piece of the strategy that has to work in the next year is economic development. If that is not done right, there are not enough troops in the world to succeed".

My comment, bring the boys home, If you cant get the economy fixed in your own backyard, you wont get it fixed in someone elses. This boys are fighting a battle that is dependant on Politcians getting the economy right, when we all know its not possible.

Jul 06 12:04 AM

[Ferdinand E...:]

Mr Jones knows, just as I know - and you would also know if you thought about it, or did some research - that the 'allied' efforts in Afghanistan are hopeless. Unless I'm mistaken however, his statement to Bob Woodward is a valuable contribution to the argument to close down that operation. Close it down and try to forget that anybody in their right mind really thought that a war that was won six or seven years ago should be continued for the remainder of this century.

Jul 06 10:03 AM