EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Will Appoint Afghan 'Prime Minister' to Bypass Hamid Karzai
White House plans new executive role to challenge corrupt government in Kabul
The US and its European allies are preparing to plant a high-profile figure in the heart of the Kabul government in a direct challenge to the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, the Guardian has learned.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai speaks during a joint press conference at the Presidential Palace in Kabul. The US and its European allies are preparing to plant a high-profile figure in the heart of the Kabul government in a direct challenge to the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, the Guardian has learned.Karzai said Wednesday he would decide "soon" whether to run for re-election in August, based on his concern for stability in his fragile nation.
(AFP/Shah Marai) The creation of a new chief executive or prime
ministerial role is aimed at bypassing Karzai. In a further dilution of
his power, it is proposed that money be diverted from the Kabul
government to the provinces. Many US and European officials have become
disillusioned with the extent of the corruption and incompetence in the
Karzai government, but most now believe there are no credible
alternatives, and predict the Afghan president will win re-election in
August.
A revised role for Karzai has emerged from the White House review of Afghanistan and Pakistan ordered by Barack Obama when he became president. It isto be unveiled at a special conference on Afghanistan at The Hague on March 31.
As well as watering down Karzai's personal authority by installing a senior official at the president's side capable of playing a more efficient executive role, the US and Europeans are seeking to channel resources to the provinces rather than to central government in Kabul.
A diplomat with knowledge of the review said: "Karzai is not delivering. If we are going to support his government, it has to be run properly to ensure the levels of corruption decrease, not increase. The levels of corruption are frightening."
Another diplomat said alternatives to Karzai had been explored and discarded: "No one could be sure that someone else would not turn out to be 10 times worse. It is not a great position."
The idea of a more dependable figure working alongside Karzai is one of the proposals to emerge from the White House review, completed last week. Obama, locked away at the presidental retreat Camp David, was due to make a final decision this weekend.
Obama is expected to focus in public on overall strategy rather than the details, and, given its sensitivity, to skate over Karzai's new role. The main recommendation is for the Afghanistan objectives to be scaled back, and for Obama to sell the war to the US public as one to ensure the country cannot again be a base for al-Qaida and the Taliban, rather than the more ambitious aim of the Bush administration of trying to create a European-style democracy in Central Asia.
Other recommendations include: increasing the number of Afghan troops from 65,000 to 230,000 as well as expanding the 80,000-strong police force; sending more US and European civilians to build up Afghanistan's infrastructure; and increased aid to Pakistan as part of a policy of trying to persuade it to tackle al-Qaida and Taliban elements.
The proposal for an alternative chief executive, which originated with the US, is backed by Europeans. "There needs to be a deconcentration of power," said one senior European official. "We need someone next to Karzai, a sort of chief executive, who can get things done, who will be reliable for us and accountable to the Afghan people."
Money and power will flow less to the ministries in Kabul and far more to the officials who run Afghanistan outside the capital - the 34 provincial governors and 396 district governors. "The point on which we insist is that the time is now for a new division of responsibilities, between central power and local power," the senior European official said.
No names have emerged for the new role but the US holds in high regard the reformist interior minister appointed in October, Mohammed Hanif Atmar.
The risk for the US is that the imposition of a technocrat alongside Karzai would be viewed as colonialism, even though that figure would be an Afghan. Karzai declared his intention last week to resist a dilution of his power. Last week he accused an unnamed foreign government of trying to weaken central government in Kabul.
"That is not their job," the Afghan president said. "Afghanistan will never be a puppet state."
The UK government has since 2007 advocated dropping plans to turn Afghanistan into a model, European-style state.
Richard Holbrooke, the US envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, who will implement the new policy, said it would represent a "vastly restructured effort". At the weekend in Brussels, he was scathing about the Bush administration's conduct of the counter-insurgency. "The failures in the civilian side ... are so enormous we can at least hope that if we get our act together ... we can do a lot better," he said.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
82 Comments so far
Show AllWhy is it always other governments that are corrupt and not our own?
Yeah, frightening levels of corruption. Who would put up with that kind of sh*t?
The only good, moral and ethical states who uphold JUSTICE AND FREEDOM AS BEACONS FOR THE WORLD are the US and Israel all others are corrupt and need the intervention of the US and Israel to bring them into their civilized and righteous cultural, economic and political paradigm! Anyone with half a brain can see the the US and Israel along with their partners, the major banks and financial institutes, have the good of the common citizen and especially the poor when making their decisions about peace, economics, health and general social stability. Three cheers for the great leaders of humanity: the US and Israel, partners in peace and prosperity for all.
risingsawn "three cheers for the great leaders of humanity: the US and Israel, partners in peace and prosperity for all."?? You are jolking right? I certainly hope so because if not visit googlesearch and type: "Norman Finkelstein/the coming breakdown of American Zionism" Also: "democracynow.org/norman finkelstein vs. alan dershowitz debate"
I would hope that this is sarcasism.
Joe Hope's work has not been in vain.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Hey.
I don't agree that the US and Israel should invade the world.
I just want safety for the US and Israel.
What is it about Americans that they seem so scared shitless all the time? Talk about a bunch of pussies.
-----------------------------------------
What Is Marxism? - a short primer on a subject the working class needs to know.
http://www.marxist.com/Theory/what_is_marxism.html
Ever hear of 911? 3000 innocent Americans murdered in a single day?
I guess you in a town small enough to not be considered a target.
At least you DO appear to understand why Jews don't feel safe outside of Israel. Or do I have to explain that too?
"Talk about a bunch of p*****s. " How about dropping the sexist profanity? Do you really think it helps you make you point?
40,000 Americans are killed from traffic 'accidents' annually. Is there a War on GM?
And 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed by American soldiers. By my calculations, that is over 33 times more people than died on 9/11/01.
Remind me again . . . who are the real terrorists?
God, what a pussy!
Shades of Diem
.. or Saddam or ,,,
I'll be surprised if they instal Hanif Atmar. He is, in my experience, a good guy. I think he'd also be open to a peace process with the Taliban (although I don't know what his current position is on this). I'm not suggesting he could solve the current mess in Afghanistan, but he is someone who'd try his hardest. Not only does he have a reputation as competent, hard-working and incorruptible, but I doubt if he'd be willing to be a puppet of an imperial power. I could, of course, be wrong, and I'm aware the power corrupts.
If I were Karzai, and valued my life, I'd grab my money and go. Or maybe the 'major banks and financial institutions' will loan him the money.
Thank you 'risingdawn, for the early laugh ( however sick) that is skewering real life.
My copy of the Constitution doesn't empower the government of the United States to determine the leadership of any other country. This simple proposition NEVER gets stated in the MSM...even on "enlightened shows" such as Countdown and Maddow. Eisenhower's warnings about the MIC were certainly accurate. Any suggestions on how to put "our" government back in its Constitutionally-defined borders? For instance, ALL of our predations in the Middle East are clearly unconstitutional: Congress does not have the power to delegate war powers. What options do we have? No points for suggesting the courts...December 2000's Bush v. Gore decision showed that, if the subject is really vital, then the Constitution and precedent are irrelevant.
First step is to press for dissolution of the NSC and putting the dam Pres. of the U.S. signature back on the International Criminal Court so the U.S. thugs can't keep invading illegally and causing vast destruction for oil and other resources (and MIC contracts to 'rebuild' the mess). Then, put Obama's and our congress people's feet to the fire to reign in our over-blown Empire (pull out of overseas bases, now about - 1,600?). We took over more than 14 or 20 in the Middle East after Russian pulled out and our illegal invasion of Iraq. Keep harping on this to Pres. O (& your Rep.'s) and see if he has any integrity left at this point. Kucinich's Dept. of Peace is a good thing to support, as it is being supported by a few congress people. Then give it TEETH! (well not harmful teeth, but... you know what I mean - some serious funding and power)
Thanks for the suggestions. How do we vest the mast mushy middle of our fellow citizens in reversing this lunacy? Maybe a resources argument that Eisenhower made..."For every dollar spent killing innocents in the Middle East, we could spend....?"
Why one would almost wonder if there are ulterior motives for trying to take over the Middle East! And, hmm... I could have SWORN there would be some kind of international organization that could air national sovereignty issues and give an equal voice in international affairs... dang, sure wish there was one. I've heard of something called NSC, which must stand for No Suckin Control by anyone but US, but I'm not sure. I am glad however that most of the Middle East is bombed to f_ing h___ so that we could flush out Osama. Sure was effective, eh?
Poor Karzai, the former UNOCAL executive. That'll teach him to not get hooked up with the likes of GW, Dickie, and Condi.
He was plunked in that office, and then, I believe, tried hard to get what he needed to govern properly and also spell out what the Afghans needed, and it wasn't just more guns and U.S. Army personnel. On one of his last begging trips, he met with Bush in Washington and from all accounts was treated shabbily.
Remember when Bush said how we would reconstruct Afghanistan, this poor war-torn country, and we would never desert the people like others had. BOMBS AWAY ...
Karzai will take the heat as another rotting apple in the barrel, and even though an elected official as compared to "rotten-apple," G.I. grunt, Cindy England et al., taking the heat for Iraq's Abu Ghraib [sp.] blood-sex-electrode scandals, the blame-game is the constant and what it's all about.
Here's the real trouble:
"[Obama's] main recommendation is for the Afghanistan objectives to be scaled back, and FOR OBAMA TO SELL THE WAR TO THE US PUBLIC [MY CAPS] as one to ensure the country cannot again be a base for al-Qaida and the Taliban, rather than the more ambitious aim of the Bush administration of trying to create a European-style democracy in Central Asia.
"Other recommendations include: increasing the number of Afghan troops from 65,000 to 230,000 as well as expanding the 80,000-strong police force; sending more US and European civilians to build up Afghanistan's infrastructure; and increased aid to Pakistan as part of a policy of trying to persuade it to tackle al-Qaida and Taliban elements."
Why don't we bring over some Afghans, Iraqis, Pakistanis to help us with our economic crisis and clean up Wall Street?
I'm not being irrational, just reacting with fury and disgust from my gut to the constant meddling and manipulating by this country. The U.S.'s C.I.A. initially trained Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts; we supplied weapons to the Taliban during Russia's miserable Vietnam-style debacle in Afghanistan [Russia was smart enough to throw in the towel totally]; then criminal elements in our government designed, planned, and carried out the deliberately uninvestigated 9-11 event; then, pre-planned before 9-11, we bombed Afghanistan where the alleged 9-11 perpetrators lived in caves, obviously with a hi-tech dialysis machine for Osama's failing kidneys, then we bombed mercilessly in the north so Cheney and Condi could have their gas pipeline, with an eye to causing trouble for Russia and becoming eventual beneficiaries of more natural gas, more pipelines, more oil, etcetera, as their former U.S.S.R. bloc of countries saw the light and sided with the good old RED, WHITE & BLUE.
GET OUT! GET OUT! GET OUT!
LET US CLEAN UP OUR OWN BLOODY ACT!
WE ARE NOT THE GOOD GUYS!
And if you really want to do something, President Obama, stop sending Israel Billions of Dollars and weapons, and tell them to leave the Palestinians in Gaza alone, and instruct our new UN representative to vote YES on all those new resolutions against Israel for its barbarously inhumane treatment of the Palestines.
(I can dream, can't I?)
I think it's all gotta' fall down, and fingers in the dike ain't going to cut it anymore. It's rotting from the inside, and the rot is getting perilously close to the outer shell.
/cm
Yea, WE have to put OUR candidate in the Afghan elections.
We have the money, we have the power to control!
Bill, were you snarking? If not, do you really think "we" should support any candidates in other countries?
What I'm saying is OUR interests are not in line with the PEOPLE in that country.
It should be OUR job to see that elections are fair and that the people get what they want.
But we know how to FIX elections don't we!
Not to worry, soon the USA will be invaded by China and they will graciously give us a Chinese style state.
But seriously, ------ the article fails to mention one main tactic, the bribes that will be given to the Pushtun footsoldiers so they do not fight for the Taliban. Much better thought than killing the Pushtuns but not as easily accomplished as bribing the Sunni to fight al Qaeda. The Sunni's alliance with al Qaeda was one of convenience between indigenous and foreign fighters. Bribing Pushtun against Pushtun especially considering their strong ethics of unity may be alot more difficult.
Hopefully Obama does not build up warloads and create another civil war situation.
What is needed is immediate peace negotiations and withdrawal of all foreign troops. This is what Karzai, the Afghans and the people of the world wish for.
If the Guardian report is true, then the Obama administration is falling into the same trap that Dubya, Cheney, & Co. fell into: the idea of Afghanistan as a central unified state. Anyone with a vague idea of the place's history and its' ethnic make up knows this relic of "the Great Game" is a Yugoslavia style break up waiting to happen. The West's interests, a potential oil pipeline and preventing it from becoming a haven for Muslim terrorists, at this point, would be best be served by equipping those peoples (Hazaras, Uzbeks, Tadjiks) who could serve as a counterbalance to whatever polity emerges from the Pashtuns (which, at this moment, appears to be the Taliban). This can be accomplished in the same way Mao was able to acquire the heavy war material that enabled the Chinese Communists to win their civil war: they got it from the retreating Japanese. Likewise, the West should make sure anti-Taliban forces wind up with war stuff already in the country.
Nate 12:29 ------ Afghanistan is not a conglomeration of states as was Yugoslavia. Afghanistan has been a unified viable state for 150 years ask any Afghan. Because it has different ethnic groups does not make it a disjoint state, what country does not have a variety of ethnic groups? Afghanistan has fought many wars to maintain it's Nationhood.
I find it very discouraging that there are still so many people with the mindset that one nation may invade another inorder to manipulate its structure to the invaders advantage. First this is extremely violent and immoral. Second it rarely is successful; rather leading to long term destabilisation, as in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Your formula is exactly the wrong one, a formula for another protracted civl war.
Nations that are dominanted by your imperial mindset are their own worst enemies,the USA certainly needs a moral revolution
It was immoral to avoid WW2 as long as we did. It was immoral to ignore the Taliban and even invite them to Texas as ambassadors..but we did. Ignoring people in plight is immoral. Iraq was not in plight......Afghan was.
We can make this war a win...in fact we already have. We just need to allow development work to continue. Then we can pull out and leave Afghan to the Afghans. An early pull out could...and probably would result in a resurgence of the Taliban. I'm not down with that. Especially after we created the conditions to allow for progress
What kind of Afghani hashish have you been smoking?
"Afghanistan is not a conglomeration of states as was Yugoslavia."
Afghanistan is an artificial creation that dates back to "The Great Game," before that, various conquerors (Alexander the Great and the Mongols were the most successful) have come and gone in that place.
"Afghanistan has been a unified viable state for 150 years ask any Afghan."
What "Afghans" (if any) have you been speaking to? Afghanistan is notorious for ethnic rivalry, tribal warfare, and blood feuds. Just like Sub-Saharan Africans, they identify first with their ethnicity / tribe, not the nation whose passport they hold.
A brief period of unity under the Durrani Empire, then being formed as a buffer state between Czarist Russia and the British Raj does not a unified state make.
"Because it has different ethnic groups does not make it a disjoint state, what country does not have a variety of ethnic groups?"
Let me introduce a new vocabulary word for you: homogeneous. It can be applied to places like Japan, Jordan, etc. Afghanistan, on the other hand, is not a homogeneous country.
A "protracted civil war" already occurred and is in the cards given the current situation. What can not be allowed to happen is a redux of the nightmare Pashtun centric state that the Taliban foisted upon Afghanistan and the world, where t
heir barbaric destruction of the Bamyan Buddhas was emblematic of their misdeeds. Before you spout about morals, at least have a faintly realistic grasp of what you're writing about.
"
Let me introduce a new vocabulary word for you: homogeneous. It can be applied to places like Japan, Jordan, etc. Afghanistan, on the other hand, is not a homogeneous country."
And homogeneous can be applied to the US? To Brazil? To India? To Russia? To the UK? And so on.
Your point is...?
Your named examples are not exclusively homogeneous countries, but each has less ethic diversity from a statistical point of view than Afghanistan (i.e., their extent of homogeneity is greater than Afghanistan). Thus let me make it simple for you. Considering the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan, the Pashtuns, are approximately 50% of the population, with the Hazaras, Uzbeks, Tadjiks, and Kirgiz making up the rest. Thus, it is safe to write that Afghanistan is not a homogeneous country by any stretch of the imagination. If this little bit of reality mentioning puts you into a tizzy, you should best avoid this site from here on in.
Drugs are the missing factor. We can buy up all the opium that they can produce. This will mean dealing with the people out in the fields, presumably where the money is needed. The cost of this can't be much different than what is happening with the military. We then would have all this dope to dispense into the world and we could do something of the order when the English ran the opium trade into China back in the 1800's. I think the CIA would know how to do this if they aren't already doing so, but not on the scale necessary for the US to re-establish the balance of payments with exports and imports. As far as drug use in the US, opium would make it easier to control the users as it is more of a downer, not like PCP and Meth.
Obama promised some changes and practical ones so here is something that might be worth a try.
Nah.. never work. 1) We're still coming out from the great "War on Drugs" began in the 70's, and public sentiment isn't ready for any kind of legitimate trade in opium. 2) The pharmaceuticals run whatever the MIC doesn't in this country, and would not want any competition (and they can't openly approve of opium). So, no, we'll never see legitimization of opium trade. All drugs have some usefulness in certain ways, but are far over-used and abused. So, (KBR and?) the drug cartels will still be 'underground' I suppose, for some time (KBR has mysterious large warehouses along a big drug trade route or two). Legalization and regulation of habit-forming drugs (and marijuana) would certainly be better in this country, but we've had decades of fear-mongering brain-washing to de-program from.
This is simply Vietnam all over again.
"We need someone next to Karzai, a sort of chief executive, who can get things done, who will be reliable for us and accountable to the Afghan people."
LOL! This will be the funniest joke you'll hear all this week. Afghanistan is full of Jack Abramoffs, Jeffrey Skillings, Bernie Madoffs, Randy Cunninghams, Richard Fulds and John Thains. Those totally corrupt, dirty bastards dine regularly with the American political and military elite there. They screw the same women, snort the same blow and sit and smile easily as they listen to the Gringos talk about how stupid and backward the Afghans are. Meanwhile . . . hey, I had $250,000 in cash in the safe here. Anybody know what happened to it?
This is the clearest sign yet that Obama is Bush-Lite. Our imperialist tendencies will never die. The hypocrisy is mind-numbing ... what does "accountable to the Afghan people." even mean ?!! We are the moral equivalent of Israel in the current context.
Obama Haters Unite-
1. Obama is moving to depose the corrupt karzai. The OPPOSITE of bush.
2. Obama has REACHED OUT to the Taliban. The OPPOSITE of bush.
3. Obama is seeking a detente with Iran. The OPPOSITE of bush.
4. Obama stated yesterday any Afghanistan plan must have an EXIT STRATEGY. An EXIT STRATEGY! The OPPOSITE of bush.
5. Holbrooke two days ago said the drug war in A was a failure. The OPPOSITE of bush.
You Obama haters are united in your emotions, but not your facts.
The 5 points I mention are radical departures from bush Afghan effing up, and not 'lite,' but radically different.
Obama Yes. Sure he heads an evil empire. Did you all think Obama would be elected and the Revolution would have magically happened? Did he promise that?
Obama haters squirm, because he is dragging this imperialist carcass forward as best he can and you don't like having your predictions of failure for BO not hold true.
Go Barack, Greatfully, Joe.
Who the hell is Obama to depose a foreign leader?
Obama's foreign policy is a carbon copy of Bush's with some cosmetic differences (the ones you listed) to fool brainwashed buffoons like you.
the regime brings the president, the president does not bring the regime. same ol same oil.
System of democracy are needed first. Our regime, with the help of international orgs, can help build a foundation of Democracy in a small country like Afghan. Not Iraq....but possibly Afghanistan.
I would bet my entire net worth on that (aprox 1k US....hahah)
Uh, Afghanistan is a hell of a lot bigger than Iraq. Nearly 50% bigger by total land area. The thing with Iraq is that is was already quite urbanized and had been exposed to Western culture and society for a long time...Afghanistan is way different. I don't see democracy as we think of it ever working on a national scale there. Good luck to Obama.
Do you wonder what Afghanistan would be like without our presence or just hope for the best?
It would probably revert to 1997 times. Women covered from head to toe, public stonings, ect...
Our invasion allowed international orgs to begin real development work (something the Taliban were dead set against). I fear our pull out would undo all we have done. Besides, from what I gather the only ones who want the US out of Afghan are the remaining Taliban and arm chair reactionary Liberals. Are you in good company?
From what I gather from development workers in the area the majority of the populace in kabul are happy we kicked out the Taliban. Why aren't you?
Even if bush used Afghan as a precursor for Iraq good can still be achieved.
This is just one progressive point of view.
Aid workers asked if they should stay?It is not their country!Ask the people then I might believe.Tony
cape_fear. Karzai, the Unocal lobbyist puke is reviled by Afghans to a one, the Taliban controls most of Afghanistan, to the edges of Kabul. He leads no one.
You are typical, you don't have the intellect to refute facts, so you revert to infantile name-calling. Have you no self-respect?
Obama. Slowly changing US direction, not totally of course, but by degree.
If I thought you had the brains, I'd encourage you to reflect on the absolute idiocy of being supportive of Karzai to make ANY point.
Thanks for your laughable post.
Respectfully! Joe.
I agree! Nice listing of facts. I think most people either forget or never knew what Afghanistan was like prior 2002. Any thing is better than that. While Iraq is obviously worse after our invasion Afghanistan is a Much...much...much better place because of our presence.
I support our troop increase there because major gains have already been made and the population and country is such that maintaining a level of peace is possible even after we pull out.
Go OBAMA!
P.S. It would still be a great thing if we brought Bin Laudin to justice and stopped his calls to violence against innocent people...(like the ones reading this email....yes you. He wants to kill you and will not stop advocating your death until cought).
news flash----bin laden is dead and has been dead.
For years, I might add.
If you want to stop his "calls for violence", contact CIA headquarters at Langley. They're the ones making all the bin Laden videos.
Nothing like the sweet smell of imperialism in the nice and stylish Obama-version.
Let him come we can meet at the mall.Tony
Azjoe you really need to stop snorting the Obama white lies! You are worse than a goddamn republican. You democrats that will allow the U.S. to continue doing exactly what they've done for the last 100+ years throughout the world simply because an articulate black men is president opposed to an ignorant white man is very dangerous.
I'm sure you've got a "i'm already against the next war" bumper sticker right next to your "obama/biden" bumper sticker don't you. wake up and see the light.