I have argued earlier, that the intellectual contribution from Europe on the AfPak situation was very limited. It is hard to find contributors to the ongoing discussions who

(a) have a profound insight and
(b) are publishing on a platform that is accessible via the net or newspapers/magazines.

Germany has some ranging from a good insight and knowledge of the region and its past (Scholl-Latour; a great thinker who traveled the area as well and still provides valuable ideas, but his times as a journalist in the area are over) to a good insight and knowledge with frequent visits to the area (Ladurner; I just don’t agree with most of what he says) to people with insight producing a lot of crap.

Austria has Gudrun Harrer. Her output is limited to the newspaper DerStandard.
Switzerland has none that I would be aware of.

France definitely has some but I didn’t have the time to go through their papers and interviews – apart from that my french is unfortunately quite poor.

UPDATE:

A response to Michael Flynn’s “Making Intelligence relevant in Afghanistan” by Michel Masson.

Christophe Jaffrelot’s profile.

Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, the Scandinavian countries and the Benelux are for that matter countries I don’t know. Input appreciated. Same applies to Eastern European Countries. I don’ speak or read Russian, so unfortunately I can’t access their insights which are for sure vast, considering their long engagement in the region that lasts until now.

The first convincing contribution I have stumbled across now is from England.

Rory Stewart, a professor at Harvard who is also actively engaging in an interesting project in the old city of Kabul (Turquoise Mountain) has written relatively few comments on AfPak so far, but those struck me as very to the point. Check “The Irresistible Solution” on the London Review of Books which has been published in a short form in the Daily Telegraph. I would like you to note the titles – the media expects titles about “winning” or “loosing”, whereas Stewart prefers to elaborate on more detailed thoughts and the “irresistible illusion” created by exactly that catchy media jargon (“It conjures nightmares of “failed states” and “global extremism”, offers the remedies of “state-building” and “counter-insurgency”, and promises a final dream of “legitimate, accountable governance”. It papers over the weakness of the international community: our lack of knowledge, power and legitimacy.”). That is taken to a further level in an even shorter piece for Time which is not satisfied with an evaluation but wants outright solutions, and not just humble ones – “How to save Afghanistan”. It’s written in easier language with explanations were I had to laugh (”…opium (used to make heroin)” and “… the majority are educated only one grade level above their students (if they are teaching second grade, they have a third-grade education)“).

Apart from his first argument (papering over weaknesses with fancy words, something apparent with many experts who do not travel the region but are content with their observations from afar) I also can identify with many points he makes on the way ahead. Although a pacifist by legal terms (I voted not to join the army and agreed to not carry a gun for 15 years and stated that I have a pacifist world view) and to some extent by heart, I was in favor of the increased troop deployment to Afghanistan in recent months and am not sure whether I agree with Stewart’s call for a decrease to 20 000 troops max. I do definitely oppose the “All out” ambitions of some American and many Europeans politicians. His arguments are simple and point again and again at local development and capacity building – something he himself does have experience at. Letting a hypothetical British policy maker speak in the ideas of Sir John Lawrence (19th century British viceroy in India) he states: “The presence of Nato special forces, the challenging logistical and political conditions in Afghanistan and lack of technological capacity, are likely to impede al-Qaeda from posing a significant threat to UK or US national security. Instead development in South Asia should remain the key strategic priority for the UK government.” Something I feel is desperately needed at the moment, not only from Britain but other countries who wish to meddle in this area as well. A commitment to non-military-infrastructure development, seen as a strategic initiative.

Pointing at other pundits who churn out opinions, suggestions and solutions day by day he states, “To suggest that what worked in Iraq won’t work in Afghanistan requires a detailed knowledge of each country’s past, a bold analysis of the causes of development and a rigorous exposition of the differences, for which few have patience.”

The fact that there are so many pundits around who merely produce new solutions nobody will or can implement without the necessary insight coming from patience, should be the guideline for “The Other View” – we want to collect valuable views to shed light on a possible way ahead, not create just another dead-end of “irresistible solutions”.