Afghan: Cabinet Criticism
December 21st, 2009 by Zack
The Christian Science Monitor reports that Afghan President Hamid Karzai is defending his cabinet choices from criticism that appointees will do little to solve the country’s problems. Several of the new ministers have been accused of “wrongdoing, poor performance, and corrupt practices.” Despite these concerns, many Western governments have expressed guarded, but generally positive reactions to the choices. The choices still must gain parliamentary approval and Al-Arabiya writes that 23 of the 25 nominees will face an arduous approval process.
Nushin Arbabzadah discusses Karzai’s difficult position of balancing divergent U.S. and Afghan expectations. One major point of contention is that the Afghan people believe any minister who holds strong ties with the West, something the U.S. would prefer, will likely flee the country at the first sign of crisis. Ultimately, both groups are expecting too much, too soon.
In the ongoing military campaign, Jon Weiner argues that defenders of the war effort need to emphasize that the West has an obligation to the Afghan people to build a secular, civil society. NATO has reportedly devised a new strategy to pay Taliban-allied villages to switch sides as the U.S. ramps up its troop presence. Lastly, Daily Kos has an extensive blog post detailing the fact that even though the West continues to hang its hopes on new strategies to build the Afghan army, there is little expectation that Afghanistan will be able to maintain a cohesive, motivated military force.
Posted in Afghanistan, Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Human Rights, Military, Public Opinion, Taliban, US foreign policy | Comment »
AfPak: Corruption and Graft
December 18th, 2009 by Jason
Simon Tisdall argues corruption is a larger and more difficult problem than most people realize. He cites Lorenzo Delesgues of Integrity Watch who observes that some USAID programs lose up to 90 cents on the dollar to corruption and fraud.
Juan Cole relays several articles from Afghanistan translated by the USG Open source Center on economic development. Among many other topics, there are articles concerning a fatwa against poppies, the growing role of China, and obstacles to trade with Pakistan.
In addition, Cole discusses a recent travel ban on Pakistan’s interior minister due to charges of graft. While some analysts have fed into the “hysteria” of a coup, Cole interprets the development instead as “an outbreak of the civil rule of law.” He argues “the rule of law is more important for the structural integrity of Pakistani society and politics than the back door deals of the Musharrafs, Bushes, Rices, and Cheneys.”
However, Omar Waraich in Time calls the renewal of the corruption case against President Zardari “bad news” for the U.S.
Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Aid, Judiciary, Military, Pakistan, Taliban, US foreign policy, United Nations | Comment »
AfPak: Galbraith-Eide Feud
December 17th, 2009 by Jason
Laura Rozen relays the latest “feud fall-out” between Ambassador Galbraith and his former boss Kai Eide, reported by the New York Times. According to a letter from Eide, Galbraith’s dismissal from his U.N. post in Afghanistan came shortly after he proposed a secret mission to depose Hamid Karzai and replace him with an interim government led by someone more favorable to the U.S. But Galbraith denies discussing any “extra-constitutional solution to the Afghan elections crisis,” according to the NY Times. According to a commenter on Rozen’s post, Eide himself also proposed removing Karzai from power.
Kelley Vlahos argues COIN in Afghanistan relies on a legitimate central government, effective local security forces, and Afghan trust in the U.S. military - all of which “bear serious problematic signs of failure today.”
Max Boot cites two Washington Post articles that report how President Zardari no longer enjoys immunity from corruption charges and Zardari has resisted President Obama’s request for expanded military operations against the Taliban. According to Boot, both developments “are evidence of Zardari’s weakness” that will prohibit the cooperation America needs.
Meanwhile, David Ignatius argues why Pakistan should partner with the U.S. to gain sovereignty over all the tribal territories, to the benefit of both countries. The Christian Science Monitor explores the debate within the Pakistani military over whether to go after the Taliban in North Waziristan. Michael Cohen questions Pakistan’s resolve and intentions given the latest reports of government officials harassing and denying visas to U.S. officials.
Posted in Afghanistan, Diplomacy, Elections, Military, Pakistan, Public Opinion, Taliban, US foreign policy, United Nations | Comment »
Afghanistan: Delayed Troop Deployment
December 15th, 2009 by Jason
The Christian Science Monitor reports that all 30,000 troops of the Afghan surge will not finish deploying until November, several months after the initially announced timeline. President Obama is expected to conduct an evaluation of the new Afghan strategy that December, leaving only a month for the surge to take full effect.
In an op ed for the Telegraph, President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia explains why his country has decided to send nearly 1,000 troops to Afghanistan, although it is not yet a NATO member. As a nascent democracy that has had success battling corruption, Georgia has a lot of relevant experience to offer in Afghanistan, argues Saakashvili.
George McGovern asks “why do we send young Americans to risk life and limb on behalf of such worthless regimes?” Finally, Juan Cole highlights the increasing militarization of aid in Afghanistan.
Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Aid, Military, Multilateralism, Taliban, US foreign policy, US politics | Comment »
Afghanistan: More Hill Testimony
December 9th, 2009 by Jason
General McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry testified about the new Afghan strategy before the Armed Service Committees in both the House and Senate yesterday. They will continue their testimony on the Hill both today and tomorrow.
According to Chris Good at The Atlantic, General McChrystal’s prediction of success in Afghanistan was couched in “a healthy amount of humility.” McChrystal argued that a combination of the resolve of the Afghans, the unpopularity of the Taliban, the evidence of recent ISAF success in providing better security and goverannce, and the Afghan support for the ISAF mission all portend the potential for success. But Dana Miliband notes that McChrystal managed a “careful linguistic dance” to avoid uttering the actual word victory, defining success instead as the ability for the Afghans to win for themselves.
Anatol Lieven and Maleeha Lodhi in The New York Times don’t see much of a chance for success at all. They therefore argue “it is essential that the U.S. plan incorporate a political strategy aimed at Afghan national reconciliation - and that plan should involve negotiations with the Taliban.” Azeem Ibrahim also calls for negotiations with the Taliban and allow “moderate elements of the Taliban to share power in a democratic Afghan system.”
After a recent trip to Afghanistan, Michael Shank contends “Afghans are simply asking for an Afghan-centered approach, one that puts Afghans at the fore of every peace and security effort, one that builds sustainable Afghan state and local capacity, and one that sets new precedents for justice and accountability.” Such is the plan outlined by General McChrystal. However, Fred Kaplan pounces on McChrystal’s comment that “there is much in Afghanistan that I do not understand” and argues for the necessity of understanding the local society and culture for COIN to be effective. Additionally,which Andrew McCarhty at NRO critiques, “General McChrystal would employ COIN tactics in the course of a broader nation-building scheme. It is the nation-building to which I object. It is premature: Nation-building, if we should do it at all, should follow the enemy’s defeat.” He goes on to defend the original Bush Doctrine formulation “before it was modified by the ‘forward march of freedom’ rhetoric that has nothing to do with American national security.”
Patrick Barry also questions whether the U.S. is nation-building or not, focusing on McChrystal’s warning against “thinking of local militias as a better security off-ramp than the Afghan army.” He also wonders why Pakistan is not received sufficient attentiongiven that, per McChrystal’s testimony, our goal in Afghanistan is to primarily fight Al Qaeda. Laura Rozen explores how the Obama administration has both de-emphasized the faltering leadership of President Asif Ali Zardari while also offering a mixture of sticks and carrots to the Pakistani military to ramp up efforts against Islamist militants and especially the Afghan Taliban.
In another post, Rozen reports that a recent memo from retired General Barry McCaffrey suggests “the international civilian agency surgewill essentially not happen […] Afghanistan over the next 2-3 years will be simply too dangerous for most civil agencies.” Rozen contends such analysis “bolsters chatter that the U.S. military leadership may not be ready to put aside tensions with its civilian counterparts,” as fleshed out by this recent New York Times article on the relationship between General McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry. Nonetheless, Jen DiMascio of Politico reports that the pair “sought to present a unified front” yesterday on the Hill.
Posted in Afghanistan, Committee Meetings, Congress, Democracy Promotion, Military, Pakistan, Taliban, Terrorism, US foreign policy, al-Qaeda | Comment »
Afghanistan: Hill Testimonies Continue
December 8th, 2009 by Jason
Ambassador Eikenberry and General McChrystal are on the Hill today testifying before the Armed Services Committees in both the House and Senate. They will continue to flesh out the new Afghan strategy in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee tomorrow and in the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Thursday.
Meanwhile, Secretary Gates has arrived in Afghanistan on an unannounced trip, reports Laura Rozen. According to Rozen, Gates has “downplayed the need for a full-scale shake up of the Afghan government, while pledging to press for Afghan president Hamid Karzai to appoint some ‘honest’ ministers.” Roger Cohen calls the announcement of a troop drawdown ”not a bad way to pressure President Hamid Karzai to get with the program.”
In The New York Times, James Danly speaks from personal experience about the importance of “full-fledged partnership” between local security forces and American soldiers to create a professional, competent Afghan military. Meanwhile, Al Arabiya reports that Karzai has admitted Afghanistan will not be able to fund its own security forces for the next 15-20 years. Also speaking from personal experience as an Army officer, Jonathan Vaccaro laments the cumbersome military and civilian bureaucracies that constrict America’s ability to act nimbly on the ground.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel at The Nation argues the U.S. should focus on economic development, as the counterinsurgency strategy prescribes, as opposed to military action. According to Spencer Ackerman, the U.S. has shifted away from nation-building in favor of “more fulsome development work.” In response, Michael Cohen questions Ackerman’s definition of nation-building, arguing the U.S. is seeking to “deeply embed itself in the country’s economic development, governance, infrastructure and security efforts.”
Reflecting on the human toll of the Afghan and Iraq wars, Richard Cohen concludes, “we all know the Taliban are misogynist thugs aligned with al-Qaeda - and all that is bad. But what we don’t know is whether any of that is worth the life we see on the nightly news or read about in the newspaper.”
Posted in Afghanistan, Congress, Democracy Promotion, Foreign Aid, Iraq, Military, Multilateralism, Reform, Taliban, US foreign policy, US politics, al-Qaeda | Comment »
Afghanistan: More on the New Strategy
December 7th, 2009 by Jason
On the Sunday talk shows, the administration continued to clarify the new Afghan strategy with analysts weighing in from all sides. Secretary Gates affirmed the proposed July 2011 withdrawal date is “firm,” but the rate will be determined by conditions on the ground. General McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry will testify before Congress this week to further elaborate on President Obama’s new Afghan strategy. Meanwhile, The New York Times provides interesting insight into the strategy review process that eventually led to President Obama’s decision to deploy 30,000 additional troops.
Fred Hiatt in the Washington Post explains the similarities between the Iraq and Afghan surges, contending that predictions of inevitable defeat can still yet be proven wrong. Also citing the surge in Iraq, Sean McLain at The National writes that it will “be a greater challenge in Afghanistan” to capitalize on any military success with political progress. But for any chance of success, Thomas Friedman contends Hamid Karzai must step up to the plate. Friedman elaborates: ”Without minimally decent government, Afghans will not take ownership. If they don’t take ownership, they won’t fight for it. And if they won’t fight for it on their own, whatever progress we make will not be self-sustaining.”
As Eliot Cohen explains, the theory of COIN calls for building a decent government through “competition for effective rule and legitimacy - local political outcomes that are enabled by, yet distressingly independent of, military success […] the key to success is building up your host’s forces and capacity for governance, not your own.” However, Cohen observes that this is easier said than done. Therefore, Doug Stanton outlines a more nuanced approach than a simple COIN strategy that seeks to win over Afghanistan “one village at a time.”
In an article generally supportive of the new Afghan strategy, Frederick Kagan and William Kristol contend that some NATO countries misconceived the mission as “supporting the Afghan government without addressing its endemic corruption and abuse of power.” However, Blake Hounshell expresses concern that “the deadline for initiating withdrawal may actually have the perverse effect of increasing corruption as “Karzai’s cronies want to maximize the amount of goodies they can stuff in their politics” before time runs out.
Tony Karon at Time outlines five questionable assumptions of the new Afghan strategy. Among them, Karon questions whether Karzai can be an effective partner, explaining “Karzai’s government is widely seen as corrupt, ineffective and a tool in the hands of a foreign invader, and Afghans are gloomy about the prospects for reforming it.” As such, John Metzler at the China Post suggests the U.S. may be willing to work around Karzai’s corruption and focus efforts on sub-national leaders. He also argues the surge is ultimately aimed to convince some Taliban to leave the insurgency and negotiate. In fact, Juan Cole reports that President Karzai has once again called for the U.S. to condone talks with the Taliban leadership. A former Taliban minister has recently suggested that if an agreement can be forged with Kabul, the Taliban would abandon its alliance with Al Qaeda. Cole also has posted a summary of Pakistani reactions to the new Afghan strategy, translated by the USG Open Source Center.
According to Claude Salhani in The Washington Times, President Obama should have spoken about the need for greater investment in education, more covert operations, and a greater role for the Afghan tribes in his West Point speech. Meanwhile, Jim Hoagland contends President Obama likely avoided the subject of the civilian surge during the speech “because there is not yet agreement among the president’s advisers or NATO members on how the present ineffective flow of financial aid and technical support from abroad for President Hamid Karzai’s government should be reorganized.”
Posted in Afghanistan, Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Foreign Aid, Iraq, Military, Multilateralism, Reform, Taliban, Terrorism, US foreign policy, US politics, al-Qaeda | Comment »
Afghanistan: NATO Promises 7,000 Troops
December 4th, 2009 by Jason
As General McChrystal assured the Afghan cabinet the U.S. was not abandoning its mission, Secretary Clinton, in an op ed for The Telegraph, called on all nations to help with the mission in Afghanistan. Ultimately, she asserts: ”we recognise that only the Afghan people can decide what kind of national they want to build for themselves. And only the Pakistani people can ensure their country’s democratic future.”
Heeding the call, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark announced that a combination of 25 countries will provide approximately 7,000 more troops to the Afghan effort. In addition, U.S. Navy Adm. James Savridis, head of NATO and U.S. commander in Europe, told the Associated Press that he believes several thousand more non-U.S. troops may be deployed on top of the 7,000 announced by Rasmussen. Meanwhile, Italy also announced it will commit 1,000 new troops to the Afghan mission, and President Dmitry Medvedev also declared Russia’s support, explaining “we are obliged to help in Afghanistan.”
In remarks after the NATO announcement, Secretary Clinton praised the contributions of America’s allies, but also insisted that the U.S. must “provide a sense of urgency to the Afghans to do themselves what we know they’re capable of doing.” During her testimony on the Hill, in response to a question by Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.) about what happens when the Afghan regime fails to improve, Secretary Clinton asserted, “we aren’t aiming at some zero-corruption standard, we just want a more responsive government.” Meanwhile, in his own op-ed for The Washington Post, General Rasmussen explains NATO’s strategy in Afghanistan, insisting “good governance is the best way to close off the oxygen supply to the Taliban.”
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Afghanistan, Congress, Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Iraq, Military, Reform, Taliban, Terrorism, US foreign policy, US politics, al-Qaeda | Comment »
Afghanistan: Administration Testifies on Hill
December 3rd, 2009 by Jason
As the first of the 30,000 new U.S. troops prepare to deploy within two to three weeks, debate at home continues over President Obama’s new Afghan strategy. Notably, Secretary Clinton, Secretary Gates, and Admiral Mullen testified before Congress yesterday on the new Afghan strategy and will continue their testimony today.
Juan Cole relays reactions to Obama’s Afghan strategy from the region. In short, Kabul is content, the Taliban are indignant, the Indians are satisfied, the Russians are concerned about heroin and religious radicalism, and Pakistan wants greater military coordination. The Christian Science Monitor provides a more detailed reaction of Afghan leaders, with mixed reviews centered around the timeline for withdrawal.
Citing Admiral Mullen’s emphasis on governance during his testimony, Patrick Barry of Democracy Arsenal questions what will the Obama administration do when governance does not improve after several months. In a second post, Barry urges the U.S. to consider how to use incentives to create leverage in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as opposed overly relying on coercion and conditions. However, former Ambassador to Afghanistan Ronald E. Neumann warns that while Afghanistan needs “more efficient, more honest government,” the United States must be “sensitive” about how hard it pushes President Karzai.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Afghanistan, Congress, Diplomacy, Elections, Foreign Aid, Freedom, Human Rights, Iraq, Military, Pakistan, Reform, Taliban, Technology, US foreign policy, Women, al-Qaeda | Comment »
Afghanistan: Obama’s Speech and Reaction
December 2nd, 2009 by Jason
President Obama delivered a speech yesterday at West Point that delineated his new strategy in Afghanistan, stipulating a troop surge of 30,000 soldiers that will begin to withdraw after 18 months. The new strategy consists of three complementary efforts of the military, civilians, and a stronger partnership with Pakistan. President Obama narrowly defined the goal of the mission as destroying al-Qaeda, explaining that he refused to “set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests.”
In the final segment of the speech, President Obama broadened the scope to talk about American foreign policy more generally. He argued that our military, though important, is not sufficient our goals, and therefore the U.S. must use diplomacy “because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone.” Furthermore, he emphasized, “we must draw on the strength of our values […] we must make it clear to every man, woman, and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America’s authority.” While the President admitted he is most interested in nation-building the United States, he also contended that the lives of American children and grandchildren “will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.”
In response to the speech, Michael Cohen calls the speech “a wonderful description of what a progressive foreign policy might look like.” However, he also is left wondering why the President did not provide more details of the strategy, a question also asked by Steve Clemons as well as Tim Fernholz. However, Spencer Ackerman at The Washington Independent fleshes out the strategy further. The U.S. troops will deploy largely in southern and eastern Afghanistan where the Pashtun insurgency is strongest, and they will focus their efforts on agricultural development, civilian security and sidestepping President Karzai when necessary to stem corruption. Meanwhile, Michael Tomasky at the Guardian reminds that “just because Obama didn’t say it in one speech doesn’t mean people in the administration aren’t thinking about it and drawing up specific plans.”
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Afghanistan, Congress, Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Elections, Freedom, Human Rights, Iraq, Military, Multilateralism, Pakistan, Political Parties, Reform, Taliban, Terrorism, US foreign policy, US politics, al-Qaeda | Comment »
Afghanistan: Obama Speech Tonight
December 1st, 2009 by Jason
Time reports that the first of 30,000 additional troops will arrive in Afghanistan sometime before Christmas. Meanwhile, everyone is anticipating President Obama’s speech tonight that will delineate the new Afghan strategy and establish a rough timetable for withdrawal.
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Cali.) has released a statement praising Obama’s new strategy that will “work around” Afghan corruption, but calls the troop increase a “mistake.” Chris Good at The Atlantic provides a list of political candidates against the Afghan strategy. In a similar vein, Matt Steinglass (h/t Daily Dish) questions whether the cost of a troop increase is worth the minimal benefit and low probability of creating a “stable, self-sufficient, non-Taliban government.”
Michael Crowley contends that Americans have grown weary of promoting western values and therefore President Obama will couch his strategy primarily in national security terms. But Michael Allen sees the speech as an opportunity for President Obama to “respond to criticism that the administration is overly realist in its foreign policy.”
While President Obama has tripled the number of soldiers in Afghanistan since his inauguration, Juan Cole wonders whether the U.S. has an even minimally-effective partner in Kabul given the Karzai government’s inability to form a cabinet, failure to implement even half of their funded programs, and insufficient spending of available funds.
Ahmed Rashid offers a point by point comparison between Obama’s likely strategy and a recent press release by Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Writing in Slate, Fred Kaplan explores the pros and cons of several Afghan strategies, revealing his ultimate ambivalence towards every option. But he warns, “a columnist can be ambivalent; a president can’t be.”
Finally, Laura Rozen reports that national security advisor Jim Jones will give a members-only briefing on Afghanistan this Thursday on the Hill.
Posted in Afghanistan, Congress, Democracy Promotion, Freedom, Military, Taliban, US foreign policy, US politics, al-Qaeda | Comment »
Pakistan: Zardari Gives Up Nuclear Control
November 30th, 2009 by Jason
The Los Angeles Times reports that Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has abdicated control of the country’s nuclear program, along with other powers, to the directly elected prime minister. The announcement came on the same day his amnesty from corruption charges expired, opening him up to criminal investigations. While Zardari claims the move is part of a greater plan to transfer greater powers to directly elected officials, the article suggests the unpopular Zardari is simply “fighting for his political life.” In agreement, Juan Cole interprets the move as “the maneuvering of a wounded, corrupt presidency.” Additionally, Cole cites fears that a further destabilization of Pakistani politics might lead to a greater military role once again.
Posted in Elections, Pakistan, Political Parties, Reform, Taliban | Comment »
Afghanistan: Obama Unveils Strategy Tomorrow
November 30th, 2009 by Jason
Marc Ambinder reports that President Obama will detail his Afghan strategy tomorrow in a speech at West Point. It is expected he will order approximately 30,000 more troops to the country with the primary goal of building up the Afghan National Army. While he will detail an exit strategy, he will not define any timetable based on political developments, nor will he “impose direct conditions” on President Karzai.
Writing for the National Interest, Nikolas Gvosdev discusses what President Obama should say during tomorrow’s speech. Among other points, Gvosdev urges Obama to clearly identify U.S. goals, as protecting American interests does not necessarily require a government that is “democratic or particularly liberal, nor, in some scenarios, does it even require a unified central government.” Additionally, Tony Karon, citing the shortcomings of the Afghan National Army and the difficulty of training competent soldiers, worries that President Obama’s strategy “will likely be grounded in the false hope of an early departure.”
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Afghanistan, Congress, Foreign Aid, Iraq, Military, Multilateralism, Reform, Taliban, US foreign policy, US politics, al-Qaeda | Comment »
Afghanistan: Troop Increase of 34,000?
November 25th, 2009 by Jason
There is an increasing consensus that President Obama has decided to announce an increase of 34,000 troops next Tuesday. In a recent press conference, Obama insisted “it is my intention to finish the job.”
Matthew Cooper at Atlantic’s Politics blog offers suggestions for what the President should say next week. Among them, he urges the President to avoid promises of creating a “perfect democracy” in Afghanistan, but instead seek to create “relative” stability to ward off Al Qaeda. Juan Cole expresses his doubts that the U.S. will be able to achieve anything but minimal objectives in Afghanistan. He observes the Afghan National Army turn-over rate currently sits at 25% and twelve of President Karzai’s cabinet ministers are currently under corruption investigation. Meanwhile, Seumas Mine criticizes the Community Defense Initiative that pays tribes to buy their support against the Taliban, arguing the tactic will not be as effective in Afghanistan as it was in Iraq.
Last week, a pair of scholars from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Gilles Dorronsoro argued the fraud and low-turnout in the election has undermined Kabul’s legitimacy. Therefore, the U.S. should focus on shifting its focus to the more peaceful northern part of the country and avoid taking on too much responsibility while allowing Afghan institutions to strengthen. Ashley J. Tellis urged the U.S. to rebuild its relationship with Karzai, commit to staying for the long-term, and foster a stronger civil-military partnership.
Finally, Foreign Affairs has republished a collection of articles about Afghanistan dating back over 25 years, giving an interesting background to the current situation in the country.
Posted in Afghanistan, Congress, Elections, Iraq, Military, Taliban, US foreign policy, US politics, al-Qaeda | Comment »
Afghanistan: Strategy Decision Coming Soon
November 24th, 2009 by Jason
Marc Ambinder reports President Obama conducted his ninth and final war cabinet meeting last night. According to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, “President Obama has the information he wants and needs to make his decision and he will announce that decision within days.” It is increasingly expected the President will announce a troop increase somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000. Meanwhile, Ambassador Holbrooke announced that Obama has nearly tripled the number of civilian personnel in Afghanistan since coming into office and he assured that “the civilian effort is going quite well.” The civilian effort, as well as Ambassador Holbrooke, have been receiving criticism recently (see our previous post).
Fred Kaplan at Slate throws his support behind bolstering the role of the Afghan tribes in fighting the Taliban. Kaplan argues that “the United States’ approach of the last seven years - focusing on Kabul and the buildup of Afghanistan’s national army and police force - is wrongheaded and doomed.” Among other benefits, a tribal solution would not rely so heavily on “the political fortunes of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.” But Michael Crowley at The Plank wonders whether the U.S. has the resolve to stay long enough to see an Afghan Awakening succeed.
Alexander Benard urges President Obama to mend his relationship with Karzai so that he will be “in a better position to push and prod” Karzai. According to Benard, “a strong partnership with Karzai is critical if the United States is going to make any progress in improving Afghan governance, rooting out corruption, and succeeding against the Taliban insurgency.” Finally, Juan Cole cites Saleem Safi writing in Pakistan’s The News who explains that the U.S. is failing in Afghanistan because of its “ignorance about the social, religious and cultural values of Afghan people.” He also points to an Al Jazeera English debate over how much authority Karzai actually wields in Afghanistan.
Posted in Afghanistan, Iraq, Reform, Taliban, US foreign policy | Comment »
Afghanistan: U.S. Softer on Karzai
November 23rd, 2009 by Jason
According to The Washington Post, U.S. officials are ”abandoning for now their get-tough tactics with [President Hamid] Karzai and attempting to forge a far warmer relationship. They recognize that their initial strategy may have done more harm than good, fueling stress and anger in a beleaguered, conspiracy-minded leader whom the U.S. government needs as a partner.” Now, the U.S. is trying to balance pushing Karzai to undertake necessary reforms while not cornering him into forging alliances with warlords and drug kingpins.
In response, Rich Lowry at National Review Online argues that the administration “went way too far in pressuring, haranguing, and basically alienating” Karzai. He asserts there must be a balance between “holding his hand and pushing him.” Jennifer Rubin at Commentary agrees, contending “we actually need to bolster the native government if we hope to defeat our mutual enemy.” As does Michael Crowley, who postulates that that Ambassador Holbrooke’s ”hard-driving style simply wasn’t suited for our Karzai problem.”
For this reason and others, William Kristol and Frederick Kagan argue that the political team in Afghanistan has been “weak […] ineffective and even counterproductive.” At the same time, Maureen Callahan at The New York Post profiles one former member of that political team, Matthew Hoh, who resigned two months ago because he believes the mission, not American civilians, is counterproductive.
Andrew Sullivan suggests this shift in tone with Karzai ”sets up the U.S. as not just a counter-terrorism, counterinsurgency force, but a long-term partner in building Afghan government and civil society. It suggests out [sic] mission in Afghanistan will be as much or more focued on Afghan governance and political stability as on finding and killing the Taliban.” But Stephen Kinzer in The Guardian warns against imposing Western values upon Afghanistan. He contends, “blinded to cultural differences and wedded to the one-size-fits-all, ‘world is flat’ concept, the West has pushed competitive elections onto Afghanistan […] Elections, however, have helped rob Afghans of democracy.” In agreement with Kinzer, George Gavrilis in Foreign Affairs cites the example of Tajikistan to argue that “rather than forcing free and fair elections, throwing out warlords, and flooding the country with foreign peacekeepers, the intervening parties [should opt] for a more limited and realistic set of goals.” Both Kinzer and Gavrilis prescribe a return to Afghanistan’s traditional decentralization of government.
Meanwhile, both The New York Times and The Guardian report that Afghan militias under the Community Defense Initiative have begun battling the Taliban across Afghanistan. This development coincides with the observation by David Ignatius that “the U.S. approach in Afghanistan now is a mix of national and local, government and tribe, top-down and bottom-up.” He argues this mixed approach requires a commitment by the White House that “the fight in Afghanistan is worth the human, economic and political price.” Abe Greenwald at Commentary concurs, arguing the prospects of an “Afghan Awakening” is stymied by the uncertainty over whether the U.S. intends to stay the course.
However, others are not only against a troop increase, but for a troop withdrawal all together. The Congressional Progressive Caucus’ Afghanistan Taskforce has sent a letter to President Obama urging a new course that would: institute a timeline for troop withdrawal, prohibit funding for more troop surges, demand 80% of all U.S. resources be devoted to economic and political development, and more generally prioritize diplomacy and development over the use of force. William Polk goes even further at Informed Comment, arguing for a complete troop withdrawal and the necessity of a loya jirga, or grand assembly of tribes, that will help the Afghans “find their way back to their traditional way of governing themselves.”
Juan Cole asks “where is NATO going to get 400,000 well trained police and troops in a country with a 28% literacy rate? At the moment, 10% of the Afghan National Army is said to be literate.” Furthermore, Cole cites a USA Today article that reports the majority of Bagram’s detainees are mercenaries and not ideologically-driven, putting into question the notion that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are inexorably aligned. Finally, Sam Zarifi of Amnesty International contends ”when the Kabul government seeks accommodations with the very same human rights abusers - the warlords, the drug dealers, the corrupt local officials, and now, increasingly, even the Taliban - who’ve preyed on entire provinces for years, ordinary Afghans are entitled to feel betrayed and view both their government and international forces with a sceptical eye.”
Posted in Afghanistan, Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Foreign Aid, Human Rights, Iraq, Military, Multilateralism, NGOs, Reform, Taliban, Terrorism, US foreign policy, United Nations, al-Qaeda | 1 Comment »
Troops in Aghanistan
November 20th, 2009 by Zack
The Financial Times is calling upon Afghan President Hamid Karzaito move beyond “good speeches” and to change his government’s corrupt ways and for the international contingency to decentralize the Afghan government. The editorial argues that while this is not a perfect solution, “Afghanistan is still largely a feudal society hostile to any form of central government.” Foreign Policy reports that former presidential candidate Ashraf Ghani has rejected any participation or power-sharing with the Karzai government.
In regards to the U.S. military commitment, The Hill reports that “additional troop deployments to Afghanistan likely would happen at a slower pace than the surge in Iraq because of the lack of infrastructure in Afghanistan,” according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Daily Kos has published a post arguing that corruption in Afghanistan is both endemic and tacitly supported by the U.S. occupation. Given America’s tattered reputation for fighting domestic corruption, the article argues that any Afghan surge would be a “snare and a delusion.”
In the National Interest Online, Jerry Silverman argues against the domino theory that losing in Afghanistan would lead to further “loss” in South Asian. Instead, he believes the region is stable enough to handle a U.S. withdrawal and that the greater threats to U.S. intersts ”are likely to be attempts by erstwhile regional allies to leverage American military involvement in support of their own parochial interests.” Lastly, Paul Pillar writes that the Afghan war is not making Americans safer, with the original threat of al-Qaeda being replaced by the broader violent jihadist movement coalesced against the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.
In a related story, Reuters is reporting on a State Department effort to ramp up the number of U.S. civilians working in Afghanistan through a simulation training complex operating in Indiana.
Posted in Afghanistan, Democracy Promotion, Elections, Legislation, Political Parties, Taliban, US foreign policy | Comment »
Karzai Sworn In Again
November 19th, 2009 by Jason
President Hamid Karzai was sworn in for his second term today. In his inauguration speech, he promised to host a loya jirga, or tribal council, to invite “dissatisfied compatriots who are not directly linked to international terrorism to return to their homeland.” Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari attended the event, as did Secretary Clinton who pressed Karzai to “tackle corruption” among other issues.
Corruption pervades all levels of Afghan government and society, with the latest example coming from an article in The Washington Post revealing a $30 million bribe by a Chinese company to Afghanistan’s minister of mining. In response to the situation, the Economist explores different methods of fighting corruption in Afghanistan, such as the creation of an elite law-enforcement agency, as well as urging for the removal of Ahmed Wali Karzai from power.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Afghanistan, Congress, Elections, Iraq, Judiciary, Military, Multilateralism, Reform, Taliban, US foreign policy, al-Qaeda | Comment »
Afghan Corruption Could be Worse…
November 18th, 2009 by Jason
Transparency International now ranks Afghanistan the second most corrupt country in the world, only edging out Somalia. Pratap Chatterjee provides some context to the ranking by dissecting the “Afghan culture of corruption” and Alex de Waal details the “political souk where buyers and sellers haggle over the going rate for renting allegiances.” In response, Michael Cohen at Democracy Arsenal suggests “we need to use troop levels as the ultimate lever” to force the Afghans to clean up their act.
At Middle East Online, Tom Engelhardt contends that the corruption and nepotism is so widespread there is no chance of reforming the system.The editorial staff at The Guardian also see little hope, arguing for an immediate ceasefire and negotiationswith the Taliban leadership from the Quetta Shura.
But Senator Kerry (D-Mass.) is not ready to concede defeat, telling USA Today that the Taliban can’t take over Afghanistan again because the people don’t want them. He affirms that the military mission must be bolstered by governance and development. While corruption presents an obstacle, the mission is also hampered by a lack of U.S. civilian capacity.
Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Aid, Military, Taliban, US foreign policy | Comment »
Afghan Shamocracy
November 17th, 2009 by Zack
Joshua Meah has an editorial asking if “anyone actually believe[s] democracy exists in Afghanistan?” He argues that Afghanistan has no more democracy than China, but that the international community tries to pretend otherwise. Western interests are sacrificing good governance for hope of democracy, but democracy isn’t always “good” in and of itself. Meah supports Ashraf Ghani as Afghanistan’s Jawaharlal Nehru who could lead the country towards modernization and economic integration.
Tony Blankley argues in The Washington Times that the U.S. should withdraw troops completely if it is not committed to winning the conflict.
Steve Coll in The New Yorker (h/t Daily Dish) attempts to define what failure would mean in Afghanistan and its conceivability if ”the Obama Administration does not discover the will and intelligence to craft a successful political-military strategy to prevent.”
Juan Cole provides a round up of recent Afghan news, including a NY Times editorial arguing against a troop increase, the spiraling cost of the war, Abdullah Abdullah’s contention that a withdrawal of international support the Taliban will take over, and a CBS report that claims corruption is a bigger problem than the Taliban.
Posted in Afghanistan, Elections, Freedom, Reform, Taliban, US foreign policy | Comment »
