The Karzai Interview
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has once again demonstrated he doesn't understand the U.S. nearly so well as he thinks he does, giving an interview to the Washington Post that calls for an end to U.S. military operations in his country. It's getting lots of attention for having aggravated General Petraeus, who seems to be the Afghan President's sole ally in the Obama Administration. I didn't read Karzai's meaning that way -- it sounded to me more like him wishing the time for operations was over, and the understandable frustration of a political leader that has to justify night raids by foreign military forces (we've tripled the number of such raids in the last few months as part of the surge).
What really did alarm me about the Karzai interview was his allegation that the U.S. “rigged the elections.” I don’t question the validity of the statement, mind you. The 2009 Presidential elections were so fraudulent that the United Nations’ #2 man (an American) resigned rather than validate the results. What’s so breathtaking about Karzai’s complaint is that he was the beneficiary! The rigged election is what returned him to power, and the rigging was not done by the U.S., but by his henchmen and politically-stacked electoral commission. The same can be said of the recent Parliamentary elections, the results of which have not yet been announced.
The Obama Administration brushed Presidential election complaints under the rug because of the difficulty of organizing a new election, the embarrassment of complicity – you’ll recall the President boldly stated at the conclusion of his first Afghanistan review (March of 2009) that leaders would no longer get a “blank check” -- and the belief that keeping Karzai in place would facilitate a speedy withdrawal of U.S. forces. That election is widely seen as having delegitimized both democratic government and U.S. motives among Afghans.
There’s a great book about soldiering called Once An Eagle, by Anton Myrer. In it, the hero concludes that “the romantic, spendthrift moral act is ultimately the practical one – the practical, expedient, cozy-dog move is the one that comes to grief." The Obama Administration allowing rigged elections in Afghanistan is yet one more demonstration of that wisdom.
- Comment (7)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: The Karzai Interview
A year ago Obama was calling Karzai the corrupt figurehead of a double plus corrupt government. An imbecilic swipe at an ally. To coin a phrase: the chickens are coming home to roost.
Re: The Karzai Interview
Hi Kori, welcome!
This past spring, Peter had Fouad Ajami on Uncommon Knowledge. Fouad's assessment was that Karzai's diatribes against the United States essentially amount to a bid to curry favor with his own people -- he doesn't want to be seen as a sell-out. At the same time, Karzai really doesn't want to see U.S. forces leave because he has no interest in assuming the responsibility of governing Afghanistan, and he also really enjoys the money that comes into the country from the U.S. and allied forces.
What do you make of Fouad's evaluation?
Jul '10
Re: The Karzai Interview
Well, that's only fair given that I don't understand why he'd pitch the idea that the election was rigged by the U.S.
Why not accuse the opposition of attempting to steal it and describe his own actions as countermeasures? Why not act as if he's above the entire thing? Why not pick out some no longer useful sacrificial lambs every couple of months and blame them?
I certainly don't think any of those is a good idea. They just all seem notably less stupid than saying "the Uncle Sam did it." But I think I'm missing something obvious.
Maybe, and this is a stretch, he wants the Administration and Press to debunk it. Maybe he figures that even if he benefitted, his hands are clean enough, and he can jettison some dead weight that he owes. Best I got.
Jul '10
Re: The Karzai Interview
Given the corrupt government, the absurd ROE, and the continuation of the drug trade, can someone please explain to me why the U.S. is bothering with Afghanistan again?
Do we not have enough heartburn?
May '10
Re: The Karzai Interview
Why can't we just have Karzai assassinated?
May '10
Re: The Karzai Interview
Corruption was rampant in Afghanistan long before 2010. Compared to his neighbors -- Karimov in Uzbekistan, for example -- Karzai isn't that bad. As for why we shouldn't pull out or assassinate Karzai, do stability in Pakistan and US national prestige mean nothing? Calling for withdrawal now that the war belongs to the Obama administration smells awfully like a practical, expedient, cozy-dog move.
Edited on Nov 16, 2010 at 8:25pmRe: The Karzai Interview
To answer Diane's question, I have a lot of time for Fouad's thinking generally, and I think he's right that Karzai doesn't want to be seen as a sell-out although he's completely dependent on us. He'd be in a stronger position domestically if he brought the rule of law and basic local governance; since he isn't producing those, he's becoming a demagogue about U.S. military operations.
I agree with the points folks made about the Administration publicly castigating Karzai, the perils of assassinating him, and that withdrawing from Afghanistan before its strong enough to hold its own is both morally wrong and strategically damaging. What I wish we were doing an awful lot more of is broadening the base of next generation leaders in Afghanistan -- governors, parliamentarians, anti-corruption campaigners -- who can challenge Karzai. We're over-invested in him just as we were in Musharraf in Pakistan and need to cultivate and credential other potential leaders.