The article ‘Why U.S. Efforts to Promote the Rule Law in Afghanistan Failed” revolves around unsuccessful determinations by the U.S. with regard to endorsing rule of law within Afghanistan. According to the article, when President Barrack Obama assumed office starting January 2009, he commanded a significant change in the policy of the U.S. toward Afghanistan. Cases of lawlessness and corruption in the government led to growth of insurgency among Taliban groups (Swenson, 2017) . Courts of the state pursued rent as opposed to justice. In the case of Obama, he assured that his administration would adopt would lay emphasis on devising a new approach that would facilitate in stopping the progressively worsening security issue, strengthen the declining authenticity of the state, as well as reverse the conspicuous revival of the Taliban (Swenson, 2017) .
Upholding the rule of law as well as ending the justice emptiness would be an ideal area for the U.S. policy to target as well as the military troops. Proceeding with the rule of law established a guarantee of counterinsurgency efforts by the U.S. in Afghanistan. Regarding the official policy, it stipulated that the rule of law as well as justice initiatives would lay emphasis in the establishment of predictable as well a fair mechanism of resolving disputes with the goal of eradicating the emptiness exploited by the Taliban (Swenson, 2017) . On the one hand, the administration of president Obama managed to identify a key truth revolving around the need for building the state after the conflict, which resulted to significant international and domestic endeavors with major transnational security effects. In this case, establishing a viable justice sector by the state would be crucial to facilitate in the overall failure or success of the efforts for building the state (Swenson, 2017) .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the position of the author, while the approach by the Obama administration aimed at progressing the rule of law, it was incapable of understanding the repercussions that would result from the legal pluralism, in which a single or several legal systems coexist in a similar social field. Within Afghanistan, the region never realized a justice vacuum (Wang, 2014) . Non-state justice, especially in the case of the mechanisms of addressing conflicts in the local society, including shuras as well as jirgas, played an essential role with regard to sustaining legal order in most parts of the nation. Instantaneously, the justice by the Taliban commenced effectively proclaiming itself against the country in diverse areas, rather than just focusing on filling a void (Swenson, 2017) .
The endeavor of building the state within Afghanistan comprised of a key area of the foreign policy by the U.S. as well as countrywide priority in the area of security for over a decade. The efforts of rebuilding received tremendous support from the international community. In fact, Afghanistan appeared to depend on the support of the U.S. even while performing basic functions, including sustenance of courts, police, as well as the military. In the event of the justice sector, around 90 percent of financing emanated from outside sources, especially international organizations, including the UNDP (United Nations Development Program), as well as donors from Western states (Swenson, 2017) .
Regarding the efforts by the Obama administration, they mostly lay emphasis in continuing the efforts initiated by the Bush administration to facilitate in stabilizing the justice system of Afghanistan, although it also increased financing to judicial institutions. The rise in funding failed to take note that similar activities did not realize any substantial impact in the earlier years. Here, it is essential to note that considerable amounts of funds have been invested in the country with the goal of building the states. However, irrespective of the many years of experience in the area, the approaches the U.S. adopts are not effective. As such, decision makers have experienced challenges when it comes to devising ideal policy responses that would facilitate in conceptualizing the sophisticated legal environment while at the same time enduring the religious and cultural backgrounds of the state (Swenson, 2017) . In this vein, it is apparent that the Afghan state is a complex one and demands major understanding of the area to devise effective policies of addressing the problems it faces.
Owing to the ineffectiveness of the efforts, it is apparent that the U.S. policymakers either remained in denial or rationalized of the disinterest of supporting the rule of law. The decisions in this sense have had significant repercussions, especially with regard to state building efforts in Afghanistan. The legal system that the Taliban follow continues becoming dominant even with the end of Obama administration and the commencement of trump. In the event of President Trump together with the broader international society, they will need to devise ways of dealing with the challenges that result from the conflict prevalent in Afghanistan as well as other states in different parts of the world characterized by violence, such as Syria, South Sudan, and Libya. Failure to embark on approaches that are more effective will continue leading their intervention efforts in Afghanistan and other countries suffering similar fates ineffective (Swenson, 2017) .
On the pros of the position of the author, therefore, it is apparent that it has become possible top understand why nations, such as the U.S., have experienced challenges when it comes to upholding the rule of law in Afghanistan despite donating significant amount of funds to foster justice in the nation. The author has managed to reveal that dealing with the conflict in the area demands interactions with the social groups in the area to understand the manner in which the operate and how to joint efforts of ending conflicts in the area (Swenson, 2017) . By contrast, on the con associated with the position of the author, it emanated from dwelling so much on the contributions of the U.S. to the Afghan state while limited emphasis has been directed to other Western states that also play a critical role in dealing with cases of conflict in nations, such as Afghanistan. The author has also failed to illustrate the ideal approaches that the U.S. should consider implementing to facilitate in boosting its efforts to end conflicts and support justice in Afghanistan (Wang, 2014) . Offering suggestions on such issues would lead the work to be clearer and convincing to the audience.
Concerning the summary from the article, it is apparent that the assistance that the U.S. offers to Afghanistan has not played any major role with regard to advancing the country’s rule of law, while it has been considered as counterproductive in certain instances. Rather the intervention has contributed to predatory practices by the state. Most of the aid aims at supporting most of the compromised institutions whereas democracy was abandoned in search for security. Also, no significant thought has been given to the constructive engagement of the religious and tribal actors who have been affiliated with serving as vital pillars of legal authenticity. Regarding the situation that is taking place in Afghanistan, therefore, the ideal recommendation would to consider the issue as a case study that depicts the manner in which things would worsen when trying to build a state after periods of conflict. In this sense, it appears as if the decision made were ineffective hence the need for different decisions that would lead to the realization of positive results. These would emanate from taking legitimate governance as well as democracy seriously while laying emphasis on understanding the legal culture of a country as well as its politics and history to understand the appropriate ways of addressing the conflict.
References
Swenson, G. (2017). Why U.S. efforts to promote the rule of law in Afghanistan failed. International Security, 42 (1), 114-151.
Wang, C. (2014). Rule of law in Afghanistan: Enabling a constitutional framework for local accountability. Harvard International Law Journal, 55 (1), 214-249.
