Tag: Afghanistan
Weekend reading and touring
More than 10 years managing programs at USIP have left me well behind in the bookreading category. This week’s efforts will be focused on finishing Joseph Stiglitz’ and Linda Bilmes’ The Three Trillion Dollar War, now two years old but still edifying, and Michael Mandelbaum’s more recent and even more edifying The Frugal Superpower, which examines the constraints fiscal stringency will put on American foreign policy. Both are well-written, easy reads, on which I’ll comment more fully once I’ve finished them.
I’m also planning a visit today to President Lincoln’s Cottage, where he spent many nights during the Civil War. Adjacent to a Union cemetery, the cottage is today largely unfurnished. But the National Park Service tour somehow manages to evoke the environment in which Lincoln deliberated on slavery and war. There is nothing like your own civil war for beginning to understand other people’s civil wars.
I’ll be on the road tomorrow but hope to be up and running again bright and early Monday. Have a fine weekend!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
“Forlorn Karzai breaking with the west”
Ahmed Rashid in the FT tries to convey how the world looks in the eyes of President Karzai: he sees in the West mixed messages, inability to get Pakistan to do the right things, a cacophony of ambassadors, vacillation about staying and going, unfair criticism, and manufactured rumors of mental imbalance. Preparing for NATO departure, the President is reasserting Afghan nationalism and trying to cut deals with the Taliban supported by Pakistan and Iran.
Larry Korb reporting from Kabul confirms that the President is largely in tune with others there, who are frustrated and unappreciative of the Administration’s surge and other efforts.
Meanwhile, in Lisbon NATO is preparing to reaffirm July 2011 as the beginning of its drawdown, with 2014 as the target date for completing the turnover of primary security responsibility to Kabul (a training/mentoring mission would remain). This reflects political feasibility in Europe and the U.S. as much as it does Afghan reality, but it is still an enormous additional investment. The question remains: is Karzai worth the candle? But it is the kind of question that won’t be asked once this NATO Summit has set its course.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Is Karzai worth it?
Five months ago James Traub in Foreign Policy asked the question: is Karzai worth the War in Afghanistan? General Stanley McCrystal had just been cashiered and David Petraeus had just taken over.
This is still the vital question. There is no point in conducting a counterinsurgency war unless the host government has legitimacy with the population. Karzai understands this perfectly well, which is why he complains bitterly about night time raids by U.S. forces, even if they are as effective as Petraeus claims.
The main American complaint about Karzai at the moment is corruption, which is rampant. The problem is that what the Americans view as corruption Karzai views as his system of governance, which relies heavily on a coterie of strongmen and large quantities of cash. Afghans are much less impressed than Americans with elections as the basis for legitimacy. They regard deliver of services, even those delivered through less than transparent means, as more important.
The Americans are working hard on anti-corruption efforts, but the opposite of corruption is not anti-corruption. It is good, transparent, accountable governance.
That should start at home, as Karzai rudely points out: American contracting for security and other services appears not only to be corrupt but also to be putting money in the pockets of insurgents.
But even if he has a point, the question remains: is Karzai worth it? This should be a focus of the December policy review, if it is going to be of any real use.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The road to Kabul runs through Kashmir
Ahmed Rashid’s proposition runs counter to Indian and Pakistani insistence on handling Kashmir separately, but it nevertheless makes a lot of sense: only by getting India and Pakistan working together in Afghanistan will the problem be soluble, and they will only work together there if they are also working together to resolve Kashmir. Otherwise, what we’ve got are Pakistan/India proxy wars in Afghanistan, Baluchistan and Kashmir. We can expect little help from Islamabad so long as it remains obsessed with countering the threat from India.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
And Petraeus channels Petraeus
The General’s transition plan to phase out NATO combat operations by 2014 bears a distinct resemblance to the Iraq phase-out now being completed.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Karzai channels Maliki
Afghanistan President Karzai, in an interview published this morning in the Washington Post, asks for a reduced U.S. military presence and an end to night-time raids on Afghan homes. He sounds a lot like Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki three years ago, but he has shown none of Maliki’s grit (remember the Iraqi attacks on Moqtada al Sadr’s people in Basra and Sadr City?). Karzai also blames corruption in Afghanistan on American contracting practices. Maybe we should cancel all those Afghanistan reports (as well as the December policy review) and leave Karzai to his own devices.
RSS - Posts
