In another post we have been having a healthy discussiong on the issues related to roads in Afghanistan. I have avoided the argument of “you haven’t been there” because I do not know what your experience is and I don’t believe that a visit to Afghanistan is a requirement for engaging in a discussion of the issues.

With that said, I am curious as to whether you have visited Afghanistan or not and your background on this subject. If you have not been to Afghanistan, I highly recommend it. You’ll have the time of your life and meet some great people. Your passion for the topic seems apparent and I believe it would provide some valuable insight. You will be able to see and judge for yourselve what is going on. You would not have to rely on people like Marlowe, Kilcullen, Blosser, Smucker, Ignatius, Moore, Morgan, Johnson and the myriad of others who have reported, discussed, or been quoted on the topic. I also would be very interested to see if and how your perspective would be changed.

For my part, I wish I could better express or “prove” (if anyone can truly prove something) the improvements that I saw during my time in Afghanistan.

In another post we have been having a healthy discussiong on the issues related to roads in Afghanistan. I have avoided the argument of “you haven’t been there” because I do not know what your experience is and I don’t believe that a visit to Afghanistan is a requirement for engaging in a discussion of the issues.

With that said, I am curious as to whether you have visited Afghanistan or not and your background on this subject. If you have not been to Afghanistan, I highly recommend it. You’ll have the time of your life and meet some great people. Your passion for the topic seems apparent and I believe it would provide some valuable insight. You will be able to see and judge for yourselve what is going on. You would not have to rely on people like Marlowe, Kilcullen, Blosser, Smucker, Ignatius, Moore, Morgan, Johnson and the myriad of others who have reported, discussed, or been quoted on the topic. I also would be very interested to see if and how your perspective would be changed.

For my part, I wish I could better express or “prove” (if anyone can truly prove something) the improvements that I saw during my time in Afghanistan.

You say that “one can travel around the vast majority of the provinces safely by oneself.” Would you mind giving us a general count? Or maybe simply list those provinces where you don’t think it’s safe enough to travel alone in 2008.

Thanks.

I think you should drop the comments about Josh, since I can attest, despite my many disagreements with him over time, that his knowledge is top notch. He is not nearly as Ivory tower as you suggest, though Joshua would be upset at me were I to reveal why that is true.

That being said Josh, I do dispute a few points you have made, and in fact, I am writing a post to address them. Generally on counterinsurgency and its political aspects, and specifically on Algeria, where I think you miss the most important lessons of that conflict. This is a subject where I have some knowledge, and a rather idiosyncratic, but relevant background.

The post was not originally addressed toward you, but you know how I love a foil! Tag, you are it. It’ll go up in the morning.

First of all, thank you for your service. It is deeply appreciated, and I wish you success. But I’m afraid the data we have available doesn’t support the correlation between roads and security. One risk monitoring firm actually claims that good roads have actually made insurgent activity worse:

Published: 04 October 2007

The triangle of provinces of Logar, Ghazni and Wardak remain a fertile location for insurgents and insurgent activity. The likely movement of insurgents through different provinces means the central region remains vulnerable. Generally, districts through which arterial roads run in the provinces of Logar and Ghazni are especially likely to suffer security-related incidents…

The eastern belt of Paktika, Khost, Paktya, Nangarhar, Nuristan (especially the Kamdesh District but also Mandol District) and Kunar provinces (particularly the Korengal Valley north of Asadabad and Pech District in general – but especially the Watapur area) continue to be of concern. Khost, Kunar and Paktika have witnessed ongoing hostility; these areas are considered by some to be as dangerous, if not more so, than the above-mentioned southern areas. Kunar sees regular improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and attacks on security force positions. Nangarhar should be considered volatile for a number of reasons.

Now this doesn’t specifically address the number of IED incidents; unfortunately the data I could find on that was really vague (aside from claims that the Taliban “rule the roads“), with the exception that Ms. Marlowe claims. Indeed, given the risks to PRTs and local construction teams, it wouldn’t make sense for paved roads—which require a lot of lingering time and present workers as easy prey to roving insurgents—to be constructed in a high security risk area. From my understanding of areas of road construction vis-a-vis IED attacks, an area needed to become safe enough for workers to actually complete construction.

I don’t doubt that once roads are paved, IEDs are harder to plant (fewer suitable hiding places), and they’re easier to find. So in that sense I was being unclear in my original phrasing in the post above. I meant to say that there is no positive causation, at least with the unclassified data we have on hand: nothing I know of points to “more concrete = less bombs” as a security strategy. Roads help a great deal, though they carry other risks (I think the dual-use argument is stronger, now that I’ve dug through the data some more), but I still don’t see where the causation lies, especially in districts and provinces that saw heavy road construction only after a reduction in violence.

If you have any data you can point me to that contradicts this, I am all ears — I’m not married to my position.