The future with Karzai: a debate (merged thread with new title)

[Sylvan]

"OUR" Constitution it wasn't.
It is a Western Europe constitution that our State Department was so enamored of and shoved down their throat.
As you can see in other threads, my admiration for the capabilities of our State Department is literally immeasurable.
We gave them a disfunctional frame work, and then installed a disfunctional ruler.
And we are now befuddled that Afghanistan is disfunctional.

[Bob's World]

"OUR" Constitution it wasn't.
It is a Western Europe constitution that our State Department was so enamored of and shoved down their throat.
As you can see in other threads, my admiration for the capabilities of our State Department is literally immeasurable.
We gave them a disfunctional frame work, and then installed a disfunctional ruler.
And we are now befuddled that Afghanistan is disfunctional.

GIROA can never be any anything but corrupt, with fixed elections under the current constitution. Bad systems lead to bad results.

In the US we forget how blessed we are by our good systems.

As to Mr. Karzai, that is a matter between him and the people of Afghanistan. The U.S. needs to get out of the mindset of thinking that if we don't like a particular leader of another nation that we have some right to change that leader.

We need to make our focus the people of Afghanistan. The Afghan Army is never going to threaten the US; but if we take positions that are counter to the well being of the populace of Afghanistan the people certainly can.

Mr. Karzai is doing the US a favor by creating separation and working to create legitimacy for his presidency that if not borne of the popular will of Afghanistan, at least is not perceived as borne of the popular will of the US.

We need to step back and reassess where certain "lines" are. There are things that are within our "area of concern"; those that are within our "area of influence"; and those that are within our "area of control." We traveled down a slippery slope throughout the Cold war, and the subsequent War on Terrorism, to where we seem to think that every corner of the globe not within the sovereign borders of a nuclear state is within our area of control. I doubt that there are many others who agree with that assessment; and it is a position that is wearing thin with friends and foes alike.

Once we realize that not everything that concerns us can or should be influenced by us, and certainly even less should be controlled by us, we will begin to find the security from terrorist attacks that we seek, and a reemergence of the influence with others that has waned of late.

Perhaps Mr. Karzai will help us to figure that out.

[Steve the Planner]

Bob:

Well said, but wasn't that paraphrasing a prayer?

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

Wisdom, humility and understanding all rolled together.

Steve

[Schmedlap]

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

... and a tight shot group for when all else fails.

[slapout9]

As to Mr. Karzai, that is a matter between him and the people of Afghanistan. The U.S. needs to get out of the mindset of thinking that if we don't like a particular leader of another nation that we have some right to change that leader.

We need to make our focus the people of Afghanistan. The Afghan Army is never going to threaten the US; but if we take positions that are counter to the well being of the populace of Afghanistan the people certainly can.

Hi Bob, couple of points.

1-As long as we are fighting,dying and paying for the Government I think we have a legitimate interest in having some control of that Government.

2-As for focusing on the people of A'stan correcting the corrupt leadership of the country is focusing on the people of A'stan, isn't it?

[Ken White]

debbil's advocate, let me flip 'em for disccussin' purposes.

1-As long as we are fighting,dying and paying for the Government I think we have a legitimate interest in having some control of that Government.

An alternative question is: Is our interest in control of the government of 'X' legitimate enough for us to be fighting, dying and paying for that government? *

2-As for focusing on the people of A'stan correcting the corrupt leadership of the country is focusing on the people of A'stan, isn't it?

If the people of A'stan do not look upon their methods of interchange and intercourse as 'corrupt,' do we have an obligation -- or even a right -- to decide for them that they are wrong?

More importantly, how much time and effort are we prepared to expend in the almost certainly very difficult if not doomed attempt to turn around several centuries of practice?

A practice that while technically illegal and frowned upon still exists and skews things in our own nation to an admittedly lesser but still pervasive extent? What does such an effort say to others about our being hypocritical and thus encourage them to ignore our preaching as we do indulge in the practice ourselves...



* I realize we are there and my question thus is marginal on the merits and 'what if' doesn't do it. I ask it not so much for Afghanistan which is on a course that is set and we will not, cannot, significantly affect but for consideration prior to embarking on future operations.

[Bob's World]

I like Ken's version.

[slapout9]

debbil's advocate, let me flip 'em for disccussin' purposes.An alternative question is: Is our interest in control of the government of 'X' legitimate enough for us to be fighting, dying and paying for that government? * If the people of A'stan do not look upon their methods of interchange and intercourse as 'corrupt,' do we have an obligation -- or even a right -- to decide for them that they are wrong?

More importantly, how much time and effort are we prepared to expend in the almost certainly very difficult if not doomed attempt to turn around several centuries of practice?

A practice that while technically illegal and frowned upon still exists and skews things in our own nation to an admittedly lesser but still pervasive extent? What does such an effort say to others about our being hypocritical and thus encourage them to ignore our preaching as we do indulge in the practice ourselves...



* I realize we are there and my question thus is marginal on the merits and 'what if' doesn't do it. I ask it not so much for Afghanistan which is on a course that is set and we will not, cannot, significantly affect but for consideration prior to embarking on future operations.

Hi Ken, all I can say is agree with you 100%. The correct Political Questions have never been asked and answered. I do think that Brzezinski's viewpoint has a lot of merit. Link to interview below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXy8mz_UVEU

[Sylvan]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ctions_opinion

Snip
Some months ago, our envoy to Kabul, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, saw into the heart of the matter in a memo to his superiors. Mr. Eikenberry was without illusions about President Karzai. He dismissed him as a leader who continues to shun

responsibility for any sovereign burden, whether defense, governance or development. He and his circle don't want the U.S. to leave and are only too happy to see us invest further. They assume we covet their territory for a never-ending war on terror and for military bases to use against surrounding powers.

The Eikenberry memorandum lays to rest once and for all the legend of Afghanistan as a "graveyard of empires." Rather than seeking an end to the foreign military presence, the Afghans and their leader seek to perpetuate it. It spares them the hard choice of building a nation-state, knitting together feuding ethnicities and provinces, and it brings them enormous foreign treasure.

[Firn]

[QUOTE=Sylvan;96502]
...

"responsibility for any sovereign burden, whether defense, governance or development. He and his circle don't want the U.S. to leave and are only too happy to see us invest further. They assume we covet their territory for a never-ending war on terror and for military bases to use against surrounding powers."

So in short he thinks that he and his circle think that the necessities of a perceived Realpolitik of the West and especially of the US gives him enough hand to bite in and to gain political capital out of it. I really wonder if he does see it like that and very much so if his biting is in our interest.


Firn

[slapout9]

The Eikenberry memorandum lays to rest once and for all the legend of Afghanistan as a "graveyard of empires." Rather than seeking an end to the foreign military presence, the Afghans and their leader seek to perpetuate it. It spares them the hard choice of building a nation-state, knitting together feuding ethnicities and provinces, and it brings them enormous foreign treasure.

Yea, we are being played for suckers

[Sylvan]

GIROA can never be any anything but corrupt, with fixed elections under the current constitution. Bad systems lead to bad results.

In the US we forget how blessed we are by our good systems.

As to Mr. Karzai, that is a matter between him and the people of Afghanistan. The U.S. needs to get out of the mindset of thinking that if we don't like a particular leader of another nation that we have some right to change that leader.

We need to make our focus the people of Afghanistan. The Afghan Army is never going to threaten the US; but if we take positions that are counter to the well being of the populace of Afghanistan the people certainly can.

Mr. Karzai is doing the US a favor by creating separation and working to create legitimacy for his presidency that if not borne of the popular will of Afghanistan, at least is not perceived as borne of the popular will of the US.

We need to step back and reassess where certain "lines" are. There are things that are within our "area of concern"; those that are within our "area of influence"; and those that are within our "area of control." We traveled down a slippery slope throughout the Cold war, and the subsequent War on Terrorism, to where we seem to think that every corner of the globe not within the sovereign borders of a nuclear state is within our area of control. I doubt that there are many others who agree with that assessment; and it is a position that is wearing thin with friends and foes alike.

Once we realize that not everything that concerns us can or should be influenced by us, and certainly even less should be controlled by us, we will begin to find the security from terrorist attacks that we seek, and a reemergence of the influence with others that has waned of late.

Perhaps Mr. Karzai will help us to figure that out.

Mr. Karzai is no longer considered by the people of Afghanistan as their legitimate ruler. He is seen as our installed dictator.

The Afghans I dealt with (Ghilzai Pashtoon primarily) had no problem with the US because the vast majority realized we are a temporary problem that will go away. They had huge problems with both Karzai and the government's construct.

We have earned the right to have a huge say in Afghanistan because
1. We broke it, we bought it.
2. We installed Karzai (that is not only true, but believed by 90% of the Afghans out there)
3. We are defending (but not, tragically, defunding) the current corrupt, disliked and illigitimate government.

Mr Karzai is doing us no favors at all. When he parrots the worst lies of the Taliban (which he does regularly) he does nothing to distance himself, he just makes the US look like liars. When his regime falls, he will follow nasrallah's path quite quickly. And I will shed no tears.

Where our opinions converge is that we tried to create government in a model of western european society and with no regard or understanding of Afghan society.
So we have an omnipotent central government, controllling both the military and police(!) appointed governors and a toothless, but popularly elected parliment. The Afghans quickly understood how worthless voting is and that is reflected by the ridiculously low turn out in the last election, even in areas where security was established

Karzai has done us, and the people of Afghanistan, no favors. Everyday he remains in power he hurts the interests of the United States and destabilizes the IGoA

Afghan society is capable of decentralized governance and peace at a much lower cost to the US in both military and cash cost.

The sooner we come to realize our mis-steps and rectify them, as opposed to doubling down, the sooner we can leave Afghanistan with our short and long term objectives met.

[Bob's World]

Sylvan,

I think you should re-read what I wrote; and also consider if the ends-ways-means of what you propose match up.

You say we should "realize our mis-steps and rectify them." I agree, we just differ as to what the mis-steps are and how to go about rectifying them.

The fastest way to get Karzai to either be legitimate or replaced is to encourage his pursuit of legitimate processes, such as the Peace Jirga that his current actions are building up to.

Your steps 1-3 essentially state that we have made Afghanistan our sovereign property/problem; so we can do what we want. I argure that we need to distance ourself from that position, and that if Karzai throws some hard words in our general direction in the process, to put some thickskin on and deal with it.

We need to change the course of both our politics and our military strategy here, just doing one or the other isn't enough. Personally I think that Mr K's current play supports what GEN McChrystal is doing very well.

[Steve the Planner]

Sylvan:

That's exactly right.

From what I can figure out, Afghanistan has always had a very complex form of decentralized concensus based governance which is consistently contrary to the desires and interests of external parties.

But none of those external parties has, to date, figured out how to centralize things, and those who have tried, even with internal Afghan "national" figures has not been successful.

The remainder issue for us is what basic formats need to be in place in order to assure our realistic objectives, given the reality of a decentralized Afghanistan.

I remain of the opinion that many Afghans do, in fact, want the international community to do many things for them. So, when and how can they build a concensus around trading between what the international community wants as a floor for doing what they want. That discussion, concensus needs to be addressed, with or without the Mayor's input---for them to decide.

Hard to imagine that a well-focused and realistic military mission can not be accomplished in the next year provided we don't get lost in chasing the windmills in Afghanistan.

[Sylvan]

A Loya Jirga that keeps the current Constitution in place is doomed to failure.
As long as Karzai is willing to fight to the last American, we get primary authority in that country. I have seen the ANA just sit in their FOBs all day while the ANP and ISAF do the brunt of the fighting. When the Afghans step up, they get more say.

Non-concur on Karzai supporting McChrystal, unless to give support to McChrystal's excusal of ANA non-performance on the battlefield due to "A poverty of resources."

While lip-service is given to fighting corruption, the money is still flowing into Karzai's coffers, AWK still is de-facto governor and chief drug runner in Kandahar, and the elections were so ridiculously rigged that our continued expression of Karzai being "the elected leader of Afghanistan" is a joke in Afghanistan and out.

If in fact he calls a Loya Jirga (which he really has to) the results of that Jirga will be the deciding factor. I believe he will buy off the attendees and maintain the Status quo. While hiding behind the fig leaf of using Afghan traditions.

We will see. I am not (obviously) optimistic.