My state rep (Dem) here in Oregon served in Afghanistan. He sent out an email that was a brutal takedown of the failures inherent in trying to force government on a people that don't want it.
Here's what I sent him:
What a great email. You captured so many of the issues that we've all known about for years, and did so eloquently and empathetically. Please have someone on your PR team send that out more broadly for publication or syndication.
There are some very good lessons for us to consider at home as well. Consider the following statements, in which you highlight the problem that occurs when government seeks to impose a way of life on people that government deems best. As I'm sure you saw in Afghanistan, a small, nimble central government that focuses instead on partnering with local communities to provide solutions within limited scopes that solve specific, real-world problems, has a chance at being effective.
From your email: "Instead, I found an enterprise consumed with remaking the Afghan government in a manner not supported by the people and not responsive to their needs... A government can defeat an insurgency only if the people believe it provides them with a better future than the alternative. We bet big on the Karzai regime because it looked a lot like we believed a government should look, with a powerful “unitary executive” and authority centralized in Kabul. Our misplaced conviction about the usefulness of this model resulted in rampant corruption and untold suffering for most Afghan people."
As you and I have discussed previously, Oregonians roundly reject "a powerful 'unitary executive' and authority centralized in" Salem. Our executive branch should model the few successes seen overseas, not its failures. Our legislative branch should be the voice of the people, yet recognize that we rarely speak with one voice. Portland's desires almost never reflect the needs of Creswell, Florence, or Springfield. I encourage you and your colleagues to spend little time together in Salem; rather, become experts in the individual needs of local communities you represent.
Finally, I encourage you to be wary of "expertise" that is born merely from academia and agencies. Our forays abroad have shown us the limited predictive and explanatory power that comes from cloistered analysts, researchers and think tanks. Knowledge gained from dirt on the boots often beats knowledge gained from behind a screen, and I say that as an academic nerd myself.
Re-reading the lessons learned in your email in an Oregon context, rather than an Afghanistan one, I see a blueprint for an Oregon government that would be far better than it currently is. I encourage you to consider how the approach you champion abroad might inform our approach at home.
Thank you very much for the time you served over there. I feel for you and all of my active-duty friends who are hurting this week.
Here's what I sent him:
What a great email. You captured so many of the issues that we've all known about for years, and did so eloquently and empathetically. Please have someone on your PR team send that out more broadly for publication or syndication.
There are some very good lessons for us to consider at home as well. Consider the following statements, in which you highlight the problem that occurs when government seeks to impose a way of life on people that government deems best. As I'm sure you saw in Afghanistan, a small, nimble central government that focuses instead on partnering with local communities to provide solutions within limited scopes that solve specific, real-world problems, has a chance at being effective.
From your email: "Instead, I found an enterprise consumed with remaking the Afghan government in a manner not supported by the people and not responsive to their needs... A government can defeat an insurgency only if the people believe it provides them with a better future than the alternative. We bet big on the Karzai regime because it looked a lot like we believed a government should look, with a powerful “unitary executive” and authority centralized in Kabul. Our misplaced conviction about the usefulness of this model resulted in rampant corruption and untold suffering for most Afghan people."
As you and I have discussed previously, Oregonians roundly reject "a powerful 'unitary executive' and authority centralized in" Salem. Our executive branch should model the few successes seen overseas, not its failures. Our legislative branch should be the voice of the people, yet recognize that we rarely speak with one voice. Portland's desires almost never reflect the needs of Creswell, Florence, or Springfield. I encourage you and your colleagues to spend little time together in Salem; rather, become experts in the individual needs of local communities you represent.
Finally, I encourage you to be wary of "expertise" that is born merely from academia and agencies. Our forays abroad have shown us the limited predictive and explanatory power that comes from cloistered analysts, researchers and think tanks. Knowledge gained from dirt on the boots often beats knowledge gained from behind a screen, and I say that as an academic nerd myself.
Re-reading the lessons learned in your email in an Oregon context, rather than an Afghanistan one, I see a blueprint for an Oregon government that would be far better than it currently is. I encourage you to consider how the approach you champion abroad might inform our approach at home.
Thank you very much for the time you served over there. I feel for you and all of my active-duty friends who are hurting this week.
.
