A column from the May 29 op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal is disturbing. Entitled "S.O.S. From Afghanistan," it's written by Ahmed Rashid, a correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review, and the author of "Jihad;" and by Barnett R. Rubin, the author of "The Fragmentation of Afghanistan," and director of studies at the Center on International Cooperation, at NYU.

The Journal charges a subscription to their website, so I can't provide a link, but here's some excerpts:

"As the U.S. seemed unable or unwilling to deal with a deteriorating security situation, last week President Hamid Karzai took the initiative. He acted to bring regional commanders under his control and has promised to resign if he fails.

"...This initiative answers demands for a legal government voiced by thousands of Afghans, who are drafting a constitution, preparing for elections, training for a new army and police force, teaching, rebuilding homes, tilling fields, clearing mines and sacrificing their lives in the fight against extremists. Yet in recent angry demonstrations many of these same Afghans poured out their bitterness at how few concrete results these efforts have produced.

"...This is not the assessment only of the 'armchair columnists' to whom Donald Rumsfeld referred while on his May 1 visit to Afghanistan. It is a consensus that emerges from officials of the U.N., the EU, other U.S. allies, aid agencies, U.S. officials in the field, and Afghans loyal to Mr. Karzai. The differences between Washington's depiction and that of others is stark. On his way to Afghanistan, Mr. Rumsfeld announced, 'The bulk of Afghanistan is permissive and secure.' On May 6, however, U.N. Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi told the Security Council that 'the issue of security casts a long shadow over the whole peace process and indeed, over the whole future of Afghanistan.' Appealing for the deployment of international troops outside Kabul, he added, 'the rest of the country must experience increased security lest support for the government...erode[s] dangerously.' The 5,000-strong International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) has no mandate to deploy outside the capital.

"...The enemies of the government are active -- not mere 'remnents.' Daily, the regrouped Taliban rocket or ambush U.S. and Afghan forces in the south and east, where reconstruction (barely begun) is grinding to a halt.

"...The U.S. continues to resist ISAF expansion, and others will not offer troops without U.S. leadership...Even when money trickles in, there is inadequate security to carry out tasks. During a September 2002 summit with Mr. Karzai, President Bush announced a showcase project -- the rebuilding of the highway between Kabul and Kandahar. Though the U.S. heavily lobbied Tokyo to contribute and start work from Kandahar, Japanese officials claim that the Pentagon refused to deploy any of the 3,000 U.S. troops to protect Japanese engineers. Hence after eight months, work has not begun in Kandahar.

"...Fighters will not hand over weapons to the current ministry of defense. As one commander from eastern Afghanistan said, 'Only when there is a demobilization process implented by international forces...will Afghans support it. We hate war, we hate guns, but only then will we surrender our weapons.' While U.S. commanders in the field have helped negotiate the demobilization plan, the Pentagon has declined to help implement it. Mr. Brahimi told the Security Council that demobilization could not start without full reform of the ministry of defense. Yet President Karzai's aides were dismayed that during a visit to Washington earlier this year, U.S. officials failed to pressure Mr. Fahim [Defense Minister and a Northern Alliance warlord who continues to defy the Bonn Agreement, which requires him to withdraw his forces from Kabul] over the continued control of the military..."

****

We knew the Bush administration has a short attention span. We knew Afghanistan would be a mess for some time. But this indicates an almost willful attempt by the Pentagon to maintain chaos in the country, and to allow for the rebuilding of the Taliban.

Chaos in Afghanistan. Collapse of civilization in Iraq. A lot of columnists and bloggers have made hay by comparing the disdain for nation-building Bush showed during the presidential debates with the nation-building we are now supposedly engaged in.

The punditocracy have it all wrong. Turns out that Bush and his team at the D.O.D. do, in fact, continue to disdain such rebuilding efforts, even as Al Qaeda regroups.