But with the violence it is dangerous just going to the market much less anything else. I think there is a real fine line between leaving people in the dark against putting too much information out. I really do not have a answer for that.

It not that the corruption is not important, but I think that the really way of dealing that is removing them. But a few things that would mean. The first one more soldiers that would replace the ones being provided by the war lords. That is why they are being used in the first place; it allows us to use fewer troops. That is why that I think that we could pull off dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. (Dumb idea) The second was if we try to remove them that we may have another incident in Somalia in 1993.

But if we leave, we are removing those that would be following the rules, leaving those that are doing these crime go totally unchecked. It is getting late and I have to be up early so I will have to stop at this point.

The point of the above post’s note about press censorship was aimed more at folks who might be surprised by lower violence than expected. It was a warning to take the reports with a grain of salt since a press blackout on those stories had been ordered. I understand what you’re saying, but the blackout also has a flipside: it prevents people from knowing just how dangerous it might be to go vote. In a sense, it’s tricking them into risking their lives without having information that might weigh on their decision.

Re: stopping the violence…I think folks have to understand that the corruption is not a side issue compared to violence, but a very potent driver of the violence. I mean, we basically say as much in the counterinsurgency manual when we say a legitimate host nation government is required for counterinsurgency success. That’s just another way of saying that people will shoot at the government until they find it legitimate. These warlords will a) themselves use the Afghan state apparatus for violence and b) provoke violence from groups hostile to them and to their behavior. So I think the violence question and the legitimacy question are in many ways the same problem.

Also remember when we talked about the media and getting the right info? Here is a line that caught my eye.

Meanwhile, a separate statement from the Interior Ministry said journalists should stay away from the scene of any attacks until investigators have a chance to collect evidence.

Also just below was a police officer yelling at the reporters for trying to take photos of the bomb attack.

One officer yelled, “Your pictures help the enemy! Why are you helping them?” at an AP reporter as he shoved him back.

I mean it is true, those that attack Coalition force along with Iraqi and Afghanistan troops video tape them to show that they can pull the attacks off. So by showing the effects of the bombings they are getting free publicity that service two purpose. One is that it service as a recruitment too to show those that this group can successfully make attacks. Second is to intimidate the populations so they stay quiet and isolated making any attempt at resist, regardless of violent or not almost impossible.

lastly is that they are trying to take photos and videos of ground zero. We do not allow the press to get that close over here because we have find the families of those that died or hurt. Also how easy would it be for a forward observer posing as a press person radio mortar attacks? It is a real thought because in IED attacks they often put another bomb to try to take out anyone that is coming to the aid of those that got hurt.

Now as far as corruption goes yes there will be a problem there, but right now the main concern is to stop the violence first before any other reforms can be done. It is why the idea of a smoking ban in Iraq is such a joke with all of their other issues.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090819/ap_on_re_as/as_afghan_election_broadcasting_ban