To say that North, Central, and Western Afghanistan are safe is to ignore reality — recent events.

When a single ethnicity makes up the plurality of a country, its concerns must be taken into account. The Economist article discusses Tajik social norms as well. The last major ethnic group – the Hazara – are not major sources of violence in the same way the Pushun are.

And the Economist’s facts were derived from interviews with actual Pushtuns and Tajiks living in Pakistan — the accounts of the British imperialists were thrown in for western context. The reporter was staying in Peshawar, for crying out loud. Very few westerners dare to travel out that way.

If you have some ethnographic studies you think I should read, I’m all ears. I’ll add the caveat that I have a built-in skepticism of ethnographic studies, in part because of my experience with the ethnographers at my alma mater, in part because many of the studies read like anti-Western revisionist histories with little insight into the actual society and customs of the cultures in question. In other words, I admit I am biased toward socio-political analyses of culture. Still, I’d be interested in these genius Danes and Russians, though I wonder how useful the Russian ethnographers were in the 80′s…

Also, why should the over all policy in Afghanistan be custom-tailored to the cultural peculiarities of one ethnic group concentrated in the south? Or did I miss a qualifier somewhere?
Ignoring of course the fact the Economist draws heavily on selected readings from Colonial agents. Afghans are represented not only as driven by a code of honor, but also as devious, given to thievery and untrustworthy.

In any case, I am not sure if a Victorian gentleman’s imagination is a good basis for policy. How about reading some actual ethnographic studies? The Danes have done extensive research as have the Russians and others. But of course the folks at Economist reach for the most easily accessible, no one likes hard work.