Since 2001, the West has tried to build a strong centralized government in Afghanistan in which has been spent billion and trillions of dollars. But such an approach fits poorly with the country's history and political culture. The most realistic and acceptable alternative models of governance are decentralized democracy and a system of internal mixed sovereignty.
The original plan for a post-Taliban Afghanistan called for swift, transformational nation building. But such a vision no longer appears realistic, if it ever was. Many Americans are now skeptical that even a stable and acceptable outcome in Afghanistan is possible as far as they are present in the country. They believe that Afghanistan has never been administered effectively and is simply ungovernable being dominated by corruption. Much of today's public opposition to the war centers on the widespread fear that whatever the military outcome, there is no Afghan political end state that is both acceptable and achievable at a reasonable cost.
Above all, Afghanistan's own history offers sufficient evidence of the kind of stable, decentralized governance that could surely meet today's demands without abandoning the country's current constitution bit if all the optimistic people are offered and given the authorities to run it. By learning from this history and from recent experience in Afghanistan and elsewhere, the United States can frame a workable definition of success in Afghanistan by staying for more combating the insurgents and other mindset organized net works polluted the afghan territory. Peace will, stay upon our country if the corrupt people within the government are set off.