Day: December 15, 2010
Afghanistan: love it and leave it
National Security Network Executive Director Heather Hurlburt and General Paul Eaton in Politico today offer a very sensible eight points of broad agreement among recent reports on Afghanistan. As I was about to have a look through them to determine where they agreed and disagreed, I find this timely and useful.
Meanwhile, the New York Times is busy leading the effort to make news of supposed differences between the intelligence community and the military on how successful the Afghanistan “surge” is. This is silly, as the author of the article acknowledges in the fine print: the cut-off date for the intel assessment is earlier than for the military assessment, and in any event intel analysts are paid to anticipate problems while military people are paid to solve them.
Eaton and Hurlburt (caveat emptor: she is married to my first cousin once removed) are playing the better game, even if they fail to deal with my favorite question: is Karzai worth it? Their eight points add up to this: however successful the military “surge,” we need to negotiate a way out (with all deliberate speed, as the Supreme Court would say) with support from the neighbors, having done what we can to improve local governance, revive the economy and train the Afghan security forces, thus leaving behind a regime that will not harbor transnational terrorists.
They talk about “political progress,” but it is unclear what they mean by it. Maybe this is code for President Karzai cleaning up his, and his government’s act, or maybe it is progress in the reconciliation department, which is the label generally given to efforts to bring the Taliban in from the cold. Or maybe it also covers efforts to get Pakistan to take stronger action against the Taliban. Hurlburt and Eaton accept the judgment of several of the reports that failure to make progress should lead to quicker withdrawal and conversion to a counter-terrorist (i.e. kill the terrorists from afar) rather than a counter-insurgency (i.e. protect and serve the population up close) effort.
At this point, I don’t see any chance that the Administration will change its timeline, which will begin turnover of security responsibilities to the Afghans next July and aim to complete the process by the end of 2014. The NATO decision boxed us in to that schedule, which is what the Administration presumably wanted. It seems to have had the great virtue of removing Afghanistan from the domestic political debate, which is no place for rational discourse and decisionmaking these days.
What we could use now–tomorrow’s publication of the Administration “review” would be a good moment to start–is an honest assessment of where we stand on the main factors to which Hurlburt and Eaton point: negotiations with the Taliban, cooperation by Afghanistan’s neighbors, strengthening of local governance and the economy, buildup of the Afghan security forces. A bit on why Karzai merits $120 billion per year and the lives of American soldiers and civilians would be useful too.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Kosovo gets complicated
What should we make of allegations “of inhuman treatment of people and illicit trafficking in human organs in Kosovo” by a Council of Europe rapporteur, Swiss politician Dick Marty?
The report merits being read in its entirety: it raises serious questions, not only about the specific crimes cited in its title but also about alleged Kosovo Liberation Army involvement in them, including involvement of current Prime Minister Hashim Thaci.
The best I can do in reacting is to quote the report itself (paragraph 175): “Our task was not to conduct an [sic] criminal investigation -we are not empowered to do so, and above all we lack the necessary resources – let alone to pronounce judgments of guilt or innocence.”
Would that the rapporteur had observed this restraint in the rest of the report, which not only pronounces judgments but presumes guilt at the higher levels without providing much more than a thread of connection–an American court might regard much of it as inadmissible hearsay–between the prominent politicians named and the crimes allegedly committed. I do not deny those connections–I have no basis on which to do so–but they need to be demonstrated in a court of law on the basis of real evidence, not in a parliamentary committee report.
If the report serves to generate a serious investigation, with proper forensic tools and witness protection, it will have served a useful purpose. The international community has hesitated too long to determine what really happened–allegations of trafficking in human organs have circulated for a long time.
In the meanwhile, Mr. Marty’s report will complicate the process of government formation in Kosovo, already made more difficult by allegations of vote fraud on the part of Thaci’s party. What looked to me a few days ago like an opportunity for Kosovo to demonstrate its democratic credentials is turning rapidly into a debacle. Kosovo’s citizens deserve better.
RSS - Posts
