"Proof" for Karzai narrative: Part 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davidbfpo
This BBC report 'Italians held over Afghanistan 'assassination plot' alleging Italian NGO staff involvement in a plot to kill the Helmand governor is not good news and rather fits in with the Karzai narrative:
Link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/8613801.stm
An update:
Quote:
Emergency, the Milan-based charity, said on Sunday that the arrest of its workers on Saturday was an attempt by the Afghan government and Nato forces to silence a "troublesome witness" of the suffering of civilians in the country. "They want to get rid of a troublesome witness. Someone has organised this set-up because they want Emergency to leave Afghanistan," Gino Strada, the head of the charity, told reporters.
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-governor.html
'The Great Game' continues
Hat tip to Leah Farrell for capturing this Indian article on Karzai:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...ow/5781643.cms
Ends with:
Quote:
Standing by the elected Karzai — no matter how cozy he becomes with Pakistan and the Kandahari Taliban — is the only way for India to affirm its status as a secure and truly powerful regional hegemon. Moreover, it is the only course of action that is consistent with the Indian democratic narrative. Standing in Karzai's way because Indian hawks are worried about Pakistani influence in Afghanistan would immeasurably short-sighted, because Pakistan's influence in Afghanistan is inevitable and organic. Besides, Karzai's ventality, corruption and incompetence should not be so strange for South Asians. Our South Asian politics is like this only. Karzai was, is, and will remain, one of our own.
Not a viewpoint I would endorse, but as others have noted before 'The Great Game' continues.
A few observations to add to the discussion...
Not defending Karzai, and claiming no expertise here, just offering up for comment a few things that cross my mind when I see discussions like this one.
One: It's frequently asserted (including this thread) that Afghans no longer view Karzai as legitimate - or some variation on that theme. I'm certain that's true of individuals (no doubt of Abdullah Abdullah, to name one) and results in regions will obviously vary, but while I've seen poll results (BBC/ABC/ARD) that indicate Karzai's support/popularity among Afghans is actually on the rise (post-2009 election, even), and has always been higher than that of NATO forces, I've never seen the opposite claim supported.
Two: After Karzai and Abdullah's fraudulent votes were thrown out of the Afghan election results (only @200k for Abdullah, iirc), Karzai ended up with a hair under 50% of the vote, Abdullah a bit over 30. I believe the result of "round two" would have been a greater gap, with far fewer votes cast. Pure speculation on my part, as Abdullah's withdrawal assured we'll never know. (But see one above - re: Karzai's "popularity".)
Three: No discussion of the wheels within wheels/great game aspects of the situation is complete without a read of Kai Eide's December, 2009 letter, this NY Times report on same, and Peter Galbraith's response to that report. Certainly there are many other "must reads" but I think these give the reader a good feel for some of the behind the scenes fun and games.
From the Times:
Quote:
“He [Galbraith] told me he would first meet with Vice President Biden,” Mr. Eide wrote. “If the vice president agreed with Galbraith’s proposal they would approach President Obama with the following plan: President Karzai should be forced to resign as president.” Then a new government would be installed led by a former finance minister, Ashraf Ghani, or a former interior minister, Ali A. Jalali, both favorites of American officials.
Galbraith characterizes that a bit differently: "I privately suggested to Kai Eide, the United Nations special representative to Afghanistan, that we consider recommending to the Afghans that they establish an interim government headed by a respected neutral figure..."
I'm not certain in this case that Ghani (2.94% of the vote) or Jalali ("Afghan American and a Distinguished Professor at the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies of the National Defense University, which is located in Washington, D.C.") would have been welcomed by the Afghan people as "neutral".
In fact, whether he actually said it or not, I imagine I hear Ho Chi Minh repeating his comment on the coup that toppled Diệm: "I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid." A harsh thing sometimes, my imagination.
I do know Kipling said this:
Quote:
"They do not understand that nobody cares a straw for the internal administration of Native States so long as oppression and crime are kept within decent limits, and the ruler is not drugged, drunk, or diseased from one end of the year to the other."
...and I find it interesting that there's now a push on to portray Karzai as drugged, drunk, or diseased.
You think so? I'm not at all sure...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sylvan
Its the traditional sense of ruling afghanistan that brought us where we are today.
I think that our needless interfering in Afghanistan put us where we are today. We got involved with the USSR invasion on a knee jerk basis and as much to prove the Democratic party could be 'tough on communism' as for any remotely valid reason. After doing that -- not nearly as successfully as some like to think -- we left. That was dumb. US Domestic politics have to be considered in international relations but they should not be the driving force that they are.
Then we mishandled the Taliban and Bin Laden who should've been zapped NLT 1992. We had motive, means and opportunity...
Quote:
The best traditions of Afghan society (decentralized limited government) are being discarded for the more standard kleptocracy of every other failed unstable state. And we are empowering it.
We can agree on that. My question is how much of that syndrome is due to Karzai et.al. and how much is due to our actions? We've become so bureaucratic that decentralized is anathema to many here and to most in the US Government. I'm inclined to fault us on that one, admitting that the locals are, as usual, manipulating us. We're egotistical, arrogant, rich -- and dumb -- really bad combination.
Quote:
Again, we can legitemately state "mission accomplished" and go home leaving Karzai to fend for himself. But as long as we are propping up his state with investments of blood and treasure, he should dance to our tune.
I agree with the first part but not the second; I don't think he can afford to do that and I'm not sure we have any business wanting him to do so, even resources and cost being considered...
I say that mostly long standing observation that "our tune" usually has been the wrong one at the wrong time and off key to boot...:rolleyes:
In this case, I'm not at all sure we -- the US Guvmint -- could even agree on any tune or tunes. All that is admittedly academic, we are where we are and it isn't likely to get much better -- nor much worse. :wry:
I had retired from the Army and was working as a DAC at that time.
The USSR invasion didn't garner much attention other than the comments that they'd have their own Viet Nam like episode. Most Americans had sense enough to realize that Afghanistan was not of major concern -- nor, at the time, was Pakistan. That came later.
I don't recall the skipping of the '80 Olympics being a big deal other than some of the Athletes whining they'd worked for years to be able to go and that politics should not intrude. The only traction I recall is on that latter issue, IIRC, most thought it was not a particularly good move -- yet another nail for Carter -- but I don't recall much noise other than the Athletically inclined mumbling in the media. Restaurant, street, store, house and airplane passenger conversations didn't accord it much time.
Yes, I saw the Brzezinski interview though I usually avoid most stuff with his name attached. He wasn't the worst NSA but he's in the top five. The debacle that was Iran in 1979 arguably is the reason we are in Afghanistan and Iraq today. It certainly was a major contributing factor. Totally unnecessary, too. :mad:
Carter and Brzezinski didn't do as much damage as the British and French did drawing lines on maps but that wasn't for lack of trying... :(
True on the manipulation of focus -- particularly easy today with the short attention spans and lack of historical knowledge. :wry: