  BUSH WANTS MORE TAX MONEY FOR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT - In Afghanistan . . . The U.S. wants local Afghan warlords to urlLink swear fealty to Hamid Karzai and offer tribute or get thumped . They are scheduled to meet Karzai this week. Warlords are currently taking customs duties and tax money for themselves and their regions and not giving it to the national government. The U.S. is finally recognizing that Karzai's government is too weak and the warlords too strong for the country's own good. Though the warlords are expected to fall into line because they fear the loss of jobs that are key to their legitimacy, the U.S. is threatening to use U.S. forces as well as the Afghan National Army to reign them in. I personally would like to see the Afghan National Army get used to take out noncompliant warlords and get some practice. I think this can strengthen the Army, give its members more confidence and cohesion and make it a more effective national institution. Afghanistan sure needs some. Things seem sorry there, with no money flowing to the national government and people not getting paid.
Clearly the small-scale U.S. presence in Afghanistan has forced the U.S. to rely on the warlords to an extent that is bad for the country's long-term prospects of the country and the U.S. is starting to recognize this. The U.S. may be able to get the warlords to play nice after this meeting, but I doubt for long. The U.S. will have to project power out into the provinces, and that will require either more U.S. troops or deployment of the Afghan National Army.
My vote is that the Afghan National Army go out there, supported by the Special Forces soldiers that trained them. As they gain experience, the soldiers should learn to do their jobs better and will not require Americans to hold their hands. All this just makes me realize that a lot of hands-on political and military management is necessary for a successful transition whether in the Balkans after a Clintonian war or in Southwest/Central Asia after a Bushie war.
Who out there is against nation-building now? Anybody? I think the real debate is over how much U.S. involvement is necessary, and situations like this in Afghanistan make me want to say more, not less. Less involvement means we have to rely on locals who can work at cross-purposes to U.S. interests. More involvement allows us to create better institutions like national armies, and dare I say it, bureaucracies, where warlords previously ruled. 
