As low as it is, Steve, they will have to build it back themselves. Any Aid Money we give them will just goes into a hole in the ground, as the story below on Bosnia shows. Afghanistan had about 25 Million people, and a "Guessable" GNP based on Agriculture of about 20 Billion. These figures are from '97 country studies.
My gut reaction to that figure is “no way”. I don’t have figures to set up against it, but if Afghanistan’s farmers produced $20 billion worth of crops in the last 12 months I’ll eat my hat (I’ve made one of pasta, just in case). Even including the opium, I doubt they did half of that.
A lot of the aid money will vanish, as it does elsewhere. This doesn’t mean that aid is not useful, or necessary; it just means that we are really bad at administering aid (not everyone is as bad: the Japanese, for one, do a much better job). Still, if we want to have any chance of keeping Afghanistan from sliding right back into chaos – and back into being a breeding ground and shelter for terrorists – there will have to be aid, and plenty of it.
I read a recent story that we have troops doing "Peace Corp" type activities, going from village to village, setting up and overseeing the building of wells, schools, and other infrastructure.
These things are good, but they barely scratch the surface and can probably be classified (like the Peace Corps) more as PR than aid.
The first thing we have to accept is that for several years, substantial quantities of pure humanitarian aid: food, medical supplies, shelter, clothing will be necessary just to keep people alive. Real development aid cannot even begin, in any relevant sense, until some semblance of political stability is restored. Then it’s a long, tedious process, starting from the bottom and working up. It can be done, but it takes money, expertise, and most of all commitment. The latter variable is the one that seems most likely to be lacking. |
