U.S. construction in Afghanistan designed to maintain dependency

[~Spectre]

In 2004, the Department of Energy carried out a study of Afghanistan. It revealed abundant renewable energy resources that could be used to build small-scale wind- and solar-powered systems to generate electricity and solar thermal devices for cooking and heating water.

Rather than focus on those resources, the United States government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to build large diesel generators and exploit the country’s oil, gas and coal reserves. The drilling of new oil wells may provide unskilled, poorly paid jobs for some locals, but the bulk of the profits will likely flow overseas or into the pockets of a few warlords and government officials.

American taxpayers’ dollars are also being used for energy-inefficient construction projects. During my year in Afghanistan, I sat for hours in meetings with local officials in remote mountain and desert locations, sweating or freezing — depending upon the season — inside concrete and cinder-block schools and police stations built with American aid. These projects are required to adhere to international building codes, which do not permit the construction of traditional earthen structures.

These structures are typically built with cob — a mixture of mud, sand, clay and chopped straw molded to form durable, elegant, super-insulated, earthquake-resistant structures. With their thick walls, small windows and natural ventilation, traditional Afghan homes may not comply with international building codes, but they are cooler in summer and warmer in winter than cinder-block buildings.


Along with advocating the construction of a pipeline to carry natural gas from Central Asia, across Afghanistan and into Pakistan, the United States is also helping to fund a 20th-century-style power grid that will compel Afghanistan to purchase the bulk of its electricity from neighboring former Soviet republics for decades to come. Even if this grid survives future sabotage and political unrest in Central Asia, its power lines and transmission towers will be carrying this imported electricity right over the heads of rural Afghans and into Afghanistan’s major cities


Sustainable development in Afghanistan has taken a back seat to “quick wins” that can be reported to Congress as indicators of success: tractors that farmers can’t repair and that require diesel fuel they can’t afford; cheaply built schools; and smooth but wafer-thin asphalt, which will never stand up to Afghanistan’s punishing climate without costly annual maintenance.

Another glorious victory for "Liberal Humanitarian Interventions"!


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/opinion/20mcardle.html?scp=1&sq=afghanistan&st=Search

[KC]

This article sounds more like an issue of state bureaucracy than it does direct imperialist exploitation or an attempt to "maintain dependency":


Sustainable development in Afghanistan has taken a back seat to “quick wins” that can be reported to Congress as indicators of success

Building diesel generators is, from a planning perspective, easier for the US government to implement. Adhering to international building codes instead of constructing buildings out of cob is based on the necessity to design buildings based on design principles already in place (as far as I know there aren't any codes adhering to or analysis of cob as a structural component in existence). A renewable energy program would have been large-scale, costly up front and would not have produced results in the short/mid-term. Developing a rural electricity grid is a monumental feat, one incredibly larger than powering just the major cities.

[~Spectre]

This article sounds more like an issue of state bureaucracy than it does direct imperialist exploitation:

The whole thing is written from the perspective of a former State department official, so she worries about things like "persuading" to the U.S. side, which she takes for granted as being superior. Still, her political points ignored, I think the information is telling.

It directly contradicts the U.S. public line of wanting to help Afghanistan become "independent" and self-sufficient. Things we already know, but the data is useful for educating and agitating.

[KC]

It directly contradicts the U.S. public line of wanting to help Afghanistan become "independent" and self-sufficient. Things we already know, but the data is useful for educating and agitating.

I don't think it's this simple at all. The US state is a bureaucracy, which includes competing interests based on different sections/strata of the bureaucracy. Quick wins that are reportable to congress are probably based on the desire of certain departments to maintain or secure additional funding. Conversely, a section of the American bureaucracy does want to withdraw from Afghanistan.

I think we (as in most everyone, not just socialists) all know that the US isn't in Afghanistan on a humanitarian mission, but as socialists we should be delving deeper into the issues than the common shallow analysis of "the US" wanting to "exploit/imperialize" "the Afghan people". Nothing as monumental as a decade-long occupation can be phrased in such simple terms without becoming vulgarized.

[~Spectre]

I don't think it's this simple at all. The US state is a bureaucracy, which includes competing interests based on different sections/strata of the bureaucracy. Quick wins that are reportable to congress are probably based on the desire of certain departments to maintain or secure additional funding. Conversely, a section of the American bureaucracy does want to withdraw from Afghanistan.

I think we (as in most everyone, not just socialists) all know that the US isn't in Afghanistan on a humanitarian mission, but as socialists we should be delving deeper into the issues than the common shallow analysis of "the US" wanting to "exploit/imperialize" "the Afghan people". Nothing as monumental as a decade-long occupation can be phrased in such simple terms without becoming vulgarized.

Chalking it all up to "the bureacracy" isn't vulgar? When construction efforts are systematically designed to require costly energy, and maintenance, as opposed to what was previously status quo and what was previously available, and when energy and maintenance is designed in a manner so that it necessarily must be sought from outside of Afghanistan...the problem isn't diplomatic mess, it's systemic.


That you take a former government official at her word that this is the result of bumbling benevolence instead of deliberate, seems to be rather hilarious in light of your previous use of the word "vulgar".

[KC]

Chalking it all up to "the bureacracy" isn't vulgar?

I'm not chalking "it all" up to bureaucracy, I'm chalking up most of what this article discusses to bureaucracy, which is why I said "this article sounds like..."


When construction efforts are systematically designed to require costly energy, and maintenance, as opposed to what was previously status quo and what was previously available, and when energy and maintenance is designed in a manner so that it necessarily must be sought from outside of Afghanistan...the problem isn't diplomatic mess, it's systemic.

Sure, but I don't see what that has to do with this article.

[~Spectre]

Sure, but I don't see what that has to do with this article.

That's the gist of the article.That the U.S. is systemically "rebuilding" Afghanistan, in the least efficient, and most dependency inducing ways.

[danyboy27]

i know a fews corporation who will make big bucks out of this maintenance.