Nation Building in Afghanistan: The German Provincial Reconstruction Team Concept - Means to Improve Efficiency of Effort?

Does anyone know of more, and more recent articles in this vein?

Since it was mentioned in one of the comments to my last post, here is my take on the prisoner issue.

I recently finished reading a Time Life series of books on World War Two (initially I started reading them to learn more about the Pacific Theater, which tends to get little attention in German books on the matter, and then spontaneously decided to read the rest of them). One of the last books I read was about prisoners of war.

And one of the most striking examples was the chapter on German prisoners in the USA. The USA adhered strictly to the Geneva Conventions with regard to these prisoners, and thus gave them the same food and accommodation as to their own troops - and the same pay too, when they were sent to work in the fields.

The reaction of the prisoners were often incredulous to this, as both accommodation and food were far better than anything they were used to. When some prisoners saw the amount of food they received, they thought that this was some kind of prank. And after the, a former POW said the following to a journalist at a reunion at a former POW camp: "If there's another war, I advise you to side with the enemies of the USA - and then get taken prisoners by the American forces!"

This stance paid off later in the war once the Allies invaded mainland Europe. The German soldiers were convinced that they would be treated well if they surrendered, and thus were far more likely to do that than fight to the last man. On the other hand, on the Eastern Front where neither side showed mercy, many fought on to the bitter end. Indeed, in the final weeks of the war the main goal of many German forces on the Eastern Front was simply to get West as far as possible so that they could surrender to the first Americans they saw!

So how does this apply to the modern day? Well, let's leave the legal details aside for the most part and concentrate on the actual political impact of how the prisoners are treated (though let me add that while most of the insurgents probably wouldn't qualify for POW status, since they do not wear uniforms or other insignia which identify them as members of a military unit, this still doesn't mean that they have no rights, as the White House wants to claim - all that means is that they can be treated as suspected criminals for attacking US soldiers. But even suspected criminals have rights).

I think it's simple - if you are known for treating your prisoners well, then your enemies are far more likely to surrender to you than if they think that they will be abused. And the stories and images from Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib have now convinced many in the Arab world that death is a preferable alternative to being taken alive by US forces. Therefore, they will fight to the bitter end.

But imagine if the USA had done the following instead in both Afghanistan and Iraq: Captured prisoners would have been given the benefit of the doubt and been granted POW status. They'd been brought to the USA to POW camps in remote, rural regions and been given the opportunity to work on the fields for the same pay as the basic, enlisted members of the US armed forces receive. And they could use this money to purchase American-made goods and entertainment. They'd be given access to American media and news, as well as educational opportunities.

I'd be sure that at least some of them would reconsider their stance on the USA and no longer see them as evil as they have been taught. And once the conflict was mostly over in one way or another and they are repatriated to their countries of origin, they might actually do something constructive with their lives instead of being eager to blow themselves up.


Of course, this debate is moot now, as the treatment of prisoners by the USA has been just one more way of becoming more hated in the region...