ADVANCE FOR SUNDAY, DEC. 6 AND THEREAFTER MUST CREDIT THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE Questions? Please e-mail Lois Kazakoff lkazakoffsfchronicle.com I was in shock over President Obama's foreign policy after he laid out his plans regarding Afghanistan. How could one of the most intelligent men in politics state that the Afghan government is hampered by corruption, admit that it has an under developed economy and go on to say that the United States will have nothing to do with nation building in Afghanistan? If Obama's goal is to get out of Afghanistan quickly, then increasing troops is not an option . It will mean more casualties on both sides. The goal should be to help the Afghan people unify, construct a national identity while maintaining tribal rule and be sensitive to the culture of each province, creating a state that will remain politically stable. After these steps are accomplished, it would make sense to increase troops and train additional Afghan security forces. Without a stable governing power, training Afghan security forces will place more people who have little trust for the Afghan administration in positions of authority. In a country where overthrowing the government is common and civil war is the norm, Obama's plan is a road map to disaster. He is talking about handing guns and training the men and women of Afghanistan to fight for a legitimate Afghan government that most do not believe in or trust. Obama stated that the United States is in Afghanistan out of necessity. I hope he also understands that American troops are fighting for freedom from terrorism, and most of them uphold American laws. In contrast, trained Afghan security forces will not be standing by their government to fight for freedom and obey Afghan laws, they will be fighting for power and survival. History has taught us that Afghans do not like corrupt foreign influences in power in their country, and today, the Karzai administration is viewed as a corrupt foreign influence. In 2001, when the United States announced its war in Afghanistan, I heard Franz Shermann, a founding editor at New America Media, say, 'The Taliban are dead, long live the Taliban.' At the time I debated the statement with force. I strongly believed that the new government America would introduce in Afghanistan would replace the initial need the Afghan people felt to embrace the Taliban movement. Today, regretfully, I would not debate the statement. When the Taliban first established their stronghold in Afghanistan, the promise of the restoration of the Afghan nation resonated with the people, and it even echoed as promising words to Afghans in America. The Afghan people, out of necessity, welcomed the Taliban with open arms. Today I believe that Afghans continue to crave a government that they can trust, and the lack of this type of government might drive them back into the arms of the Taliban or a similar power. Obama should invest more in nation building and think of alternative plans such as decentralizing the Afghan government. By allowing rudimentary governments in villages to run schools, police units and courts, Afghanistan would no longer be separated into ethnic fractions, and the local head villagers and district leaders, who were appointment by the people, could sustain accountability. The task could be as simple as gathering the elders in each province and asking them to identify people they trust to carry guns, regulate laws and report to a higher governing power. Community self-governance makes the most sense in a tribal country like Afghanistan. The concept may seem archaic, but it is respecting of current cultural practices. People will hold people accountable. Afghanistan has long been a society that values village elders. In a small country where culture is appreciated beyond nationality, a centralized government creates friction amongst the people. A decentralized, community-based governing structure could bring long-anticipated peace to the country. The United States failed to recognize that centralized governments in the past fell because of the lack of checks and balances. This system would provide just that. Once checks and balances are in place, the country can sustain itself and no longer be a breeding ground for terrorism. Only then would it make sense to send in more troops and wrap up the U.S. war efforts by training additional Afghan security forces. Instead of sending in 30,000 more troops and seeking immediate gratification at the end of a war that many Americans have sacrificed their lives for, Obama should be patient and invest time in creating a foundation that will prevent the necessity for future wars. Obama should concentrate on nation building, not handing out more guns in Afghanistan. Mizgon Zahir is an Afghan American journalist and freelance writer for New America Media. She grew up in the Little Kabul area of Fremont. 