Afghanistan: historically

[fable]

A topic for the discussion of the reasons behind Afghanistan's current political, economic and social turmoil.

[ThorinOakensfield]

Well Afghanistan has always been a place of turmoil and a land that so many wanted but couldn't control. The terrain was too tough. the people were too tough.
The russians couldn't control it. the mughals wanted it. it was stuck between the great persian and arab empires on one side, the indian empire on the other side, and the wild central asian steppes to the north.

[ThorinOakensfield]

afghanistan gained independence in 1920's IIRC, and was in a perpetual state of civil war with different tribes and war lords vying for control. it had some periods of stabiltiy though. then the russians conquered and developed the area quite a bit. they built roads, air bases and such.

then they were thrown out by a bunch of young men trained by bin laden and the us, and led by the now dead NA leader.

after that there was more war and the taliban and na were formed, and so on so forth.

[fable]

My impression is that unity and peace has only been purchased in Afghanistan at the cost of muzzling the lesser tribes, roughly fourteen or so, who are distinct from the Pashtun majority: the Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Hazaras, etc. Roughly half the nation's population is Pashtun, but the rest is divided up among the lesser groups.

It sounds like a situation of either keeping things bottled up, with only the Pashtun controlling the government, or letting the nationalities fight it out to nobody's advantage. I understand there are efforts underway to reinstall the former King as a caretaker president with a representative council, but can't really see how that will help. The forms of government can be changed at will; the players maintain a mindset that sees all in terms of absolute rule or nothing. So long as that mindset prevails, whether Afghanistan has a king, a president, a parliament or a dictatorship--it won't really matter.