THE PLANK NOVEMBER 2, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
When John Kerry persuaded Hamid Karzai to agree to a run-off election, the New York Times correctly described this victory as "little more than a catastrophe averted." So how do you describe the situation as it exists now, with the run-off called off due to Abdullah Abdullah's withdrawal? I'd say it's a pretty big victory for Karzai, and not just because he's won himself another term. By agreeing to the run-off (and satisfying the U.S.) but then refusing to take the steps necessary to make that run-off fair (and thus failing to satisfy Abdullah), Karzai bought himself some precious time. Remember, until Karzai gave in to Kerry's cajoling, he was on the verge of losing international support, most crucially from the United States. Now, his "victory" is being welcomed by the Obama administration--with David Axelrod going so far as to say that Abdullah "was likely to be defeated anyway."
So what's next? Obama administration officials are saying they'll judge Karzai on his appointments and whether he finally cracks down on drugs and corruption. But, of course, it's going to take at least several months before they can make any judgments about those things. And, by that time, it's a good bet that Obama will have already decided to send least some of the additional American troops Karzai so desperately needs and wants. And who knows? Karzai was pretty good at getting out of this jam. If Obama isn't satisfied with Karzai's performance several months from now, Karzai may well be able to get out of that jam, as well.
4 comments
Wait a minute. Obama couldn't make a decision on more troops until the Karzai gov't was "legitimate." Or so I was told just last week! Even sent John Kerry over to bore Karzai until he agreed to new elections, it was so important. Now, not so much, apparently. Is the Karzai gov't legit or not? If it is, can the POTUS FINALLY make a decision on Gen. McChrystal's request? Or will it take another month or so for some reason unclear to us all? The circus is in town.
- butchie b
November 2, 2009 at 3:09pm
Did Karzai play us? Of course. So what else is new? He can't be blamed for our ignorance, now can he? Afghanistan can be a platform for us to demonstrate our military power if we dispense with baseless notions of a "central government" and just secure the cities as "oil spots", actively develop humint resources to facilitate the periodic assassination of troublesome individuals region-wide, and stay active for another generation or so. Or maybe we should just forget about Afghanistan again and concentrate on Mexico...
- Robert Powell
November 2, 2009 at 3:20pm
Hi butchie. What's the rush? We have already boosted the number of troops by a factor of three--about eighteen months ago the total number of foreign troops in theater was less than 30,000 and now it's nearly 100,000. Bush let McKiernan's request for reinforcements sit on his desk for six months, and Obama expedited it as one of his first acts in office. It's not like we're being called upon to reinforce a garrison that's about to be overrun. Afghanistan is, and will be for the forseeable future no matter what we do, Afghanistan.
- Robert Powell
November 2, 2009 at 3:52pm
Allow me please to rephrase that: Did Wall Street play us? On the other other hand, who exactly is "us"? Let me guess: All of us? America reduced down to "us". "Us" versus "them"? As though it is unthinkable that a true American patriot would ever embrace it in any other way. If you are part of "us", fine. But not all of us are. george
- iambiguous
November 2, 2009 at 6:16pm