Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiUS Fed Up With Troops Dying to Prop Up Karzai
It seems that Hamid Karzai just can't be trusted on his own.
![["Democracy?" asked a Kabul cabbie during a local television phone-in. "That's an American euphemism for occupation." (AFP/File/John D Mchugh)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/troopsfedup.jpg "troopsfedup.jpg")
When
he breasted the microphone at the presidential palace on October 20, to
make an oblique admission that he attempted to steal the election and
would go along with the second poll which he had resisted for weeks, he
was flanked by a high-powered international posse - lest he depart from
the agreed script.
On one side was the US senator John Kerry; on the other, the United Nations special envoy Kai Eide; and riding shotgun were the British and French ambassadors.
Fast forward two weeks. Last Sunday, Karzai's challenger, Dr Abdullah Abdullah, played exquisite politics. Baling out of the second vote which was to be held today, he left a wounded Karzai to claim the presidency, knowing that the stench of a million stolen votes would cling to him for the next five years.
On Tuesday, Karzai was back on the presidential dais, this time to claim his prize. But lest he make any reckless promises - say, to eject some of the more odorous among his cronies from office - the enforcers came from among the cronies, his vice presidents Karim Khalil and Mohammad Qasim Fahim, both former warlords from the ranks of Afghanistan's looting class.
Arguably, the first of these appearances by Karzai was humiliating; the second intimidating. As elections go, few have been as absurd. The President set out to steal the election and got away with it in broad daylight. The UN knew what he was up to and did nothing about it. Led by Washington, the diplomatic corps in Kabul insisted that for the sake of the legitimacy of the office, there had to be a second poll - only to say it was never really needed once Abdullah pulled the rug from under Karzai.
After Karzai's vote was discounted for fraud, he gained 2.3 million of the 4.8 million votes cast on August 20. But both his share and the total vote paled beside the ''vote'' won by the Taliban - more than 10 million registered voters stayed away.
In the aftermath, Peter Galbraith - a senior UN official in Kabul who was sacked after pushing for the UN to reveal the extent of the preparation for fraud before the first vote, wrote that before the election, Karzai was seen as ineffectual and corrupt. Now he was ineffectual, corrupt and illegitimate.
In the process, something else in Karzai the man was revealed. Last March the US President, Barack Obama, sent an extra 21,000 American troops to Afghanistan to help secure this election - and while some of them were dying or suffering hideous wounds in battle, Karzai's campaign was happily rorting the process that the young Americans and troops from around the world were attempting to protect.
The unreality of Karzai's return to office was underscored midweek, when a senior Obama aide told The New York Times: "We're going to know in the next three to six months whether he's doing anything differently - whether he can seriously address corruption, whether he can raise an army that ultimately can take over from us."
That's not a lot of time for redemption. At his tent-office off the shoulder of a crowded highway near the Kabul parliamentary complex, the man who got the third highest vote on August 20, the maverick Ramazan Bashardost, likened it to a bad movie, telling the Herald that Charlie Chaplin was playing Karzai and Mr Bean was Abdullah.
As the election drama climaxed, Obama was in the eighth week of a huddle at the White House, trying to work out Afghanistan before making a decision on a call by General Stanley McChrystal, his top general in Afghanistan, for an extra 40,000 troops.
Tactical leaks on these internal deliberations suggest a radical repositioning of US policy, the result of which will be that McChrystal will not get all that he is asking for.
The objective is being wound back - from the Jeffersonian democracy sought by the former president George Bush to the creation of a state that is capable of protecting itself.
There is a realisation that the Taliban, like drugs, are a feature of the Afghan landscape and that instead of eliminating it, the best Washington can hope for is to create circumstances in which the insurgents cannot take control of the country.
So the thinking is turning to the protection of less than a dozen key population centres. Inverting the Vietnam War theory that every village was strategically important, it relies on the Iraq experience of holding the big centres.
The sparsely populated but volatile southern province of Helmand is an example. There, 20 per cent of the foreign forces are waging a relentless war to protect 3 per cent of the population whose day-to-day existence would not be greatly altered if the Taliban were among them - but with no foreign forces to shoot at.
The public critique of Obama's private critique of the McChrystal plan for the war is intense. Last week Kerry asked, if al-Qaeda's cross-border shift into nuclear-armed Pakistan and the Islamist crisis confronting Islamabad create a much bigger threat to US interests, why was it that Washington was devoting 30 times the time and resources that Pakistan got to Afghanistan?
Stuck with Karzai, Obama is figuring how to work around him. He has called for a study of the individual Afghan provinces and the men who govern them - could they, along with tribal elders and even the local militias, be trusted to be more effective allies in managing development funds? Could elements of the Taliban be trusted to help run things in areas from which the Americans might pull back?
"How much of the country can we just leave to be run by the locals?" a senior US official asked a Washington Post reporter. "How do you separate those who have taken up arms because they oppose the presence of foreigners in their area because they are getting paid to fight us ... from those who want to restore a Taliban government?"
The answer to his question seemed to be - remove the foreign forces.
It all points to a White House acceptance of the oft-stated advice that in Afghanistan, the presence of foreign forces is as much a core issue as is what the Taliban might or might not do. Unlike Iraq, where US forces were caught between warring factions, most of the violence in Afghanistan is targeted at the foreign forces.
Observing that most of the areas of Afghanistan that were stable were under local control, the official asked two more questions - "Can you get benign local control in more places? Will that be easier to achieve, [will it be] more effective than trying to establish more central government control?"
Think-tanks around the world are in Afghan overdrive.
In a report published by the Centre for a New American Security, a former US army officer, Andrew Exum, rated three likely scenarios.
Rating it as ''frightening as it is unlikely,'' his worst case sees Afghanistan returning to its pre-September 11 nadir - Taliban back in control, hosting training camps for terrorist groups.
"Most likely," he says is that most countries in the US-led coalition will peel away, leaving American and Afghan security forces to wage a more narrowly focused long-term struggle.
His third option is the emergence of a ''functioning Afghan state'' which is "inhospitable to transnational terror groups''. This he says is possible, but would ''require a further commitment of precious US time and resources''.
Meanwhile, the White House deliberations drag on. If more troops are to be sent, it will be well into next year before they arrive in Afghanistan - and in that time, many beyond Afghanistan will wonder at the jaundice revealed by ordinary Afghans.
"Democracy?" asked a Kabul cabbie during a local television phone-in. "That's an American euphemism for occupation. We don't have patriotic leaders either - so, the people's hands are tied behind their backs."
28 Comments so far
Show AllHow about being fed up with proping up big business, big corporations, big oil, big banks, big arms manufacturers, all of which have their bloody hands in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Yep.
War is a business.
Make it revenue-neutral and it would stop.
Well; we have a history of supporting whichever dictator best suits our purposes, and then changing him when our agenda alters. One upon a time Saddam was a good guy because he kept communists out and fought the evil Iranian revolutionaries who toppled 'our' Shah. So we gave him whatever he wanted and turned a blind eye to his massacres. Then he tried to grab 'our' Kuwaiti oil so we turned on him and devastated Iraq in order to replace his oppressive regime (crocodile tears here please) with a new 'democratic' one of our making. The mass of the people have never mattered to us. This is the history of all the middle east.
Now Afghanistan has 'our' democratic (joke) leader, who has control over no more than his back garden, and I'll bet the gardener has other ideas there when the time comes. So our soldiers are dying and being maimed for, er, what exactly?
Not that long ago Afghanistan had a very successful government which educated all children and didn't discriminate against women, but it was communist, so we destabilised it and supported its Taliban enemies, who, with our aid, kicked out a legitimate Russian backed government, closed the schools and put the women back under dust sheets.
Now we grudgingly have to admit Karzai is a crook, and Afghanistan is a tribal mess where we can never impose an alien political system. One which barely works for us by the way.
We have been at war there for longer then the second world war lasted. Why? Because we don't know what we are trying to achieve, that's why. And even if we did we wouldn't be able to do it. One day we will leave. In fact, I'll bet the politicos are right now devoting most of their time to framing a set of words which will best disguise our fruitless withdrawl.
'So our soldiers are dying and being maimed for, er, what exactly?'
This is propaganda. They are not your soldiers. They are not a citizen's army. They are mercenaries, first financially depressed in the streets by corporate theft, then lured off the streets with your tax money, and finally used as cannon fodder by the corporations making huge profits out of war.
The idea comes from, or has been heartily embraced by the Pentagon, in the end making galley-slaves, albeit cosseted, of 'your' soldiers. Come to think of it, your poor 'President' is in the same boat.
By the time America has finished, the English language will mean nothing.
They are not your soldiers, but they are an American creation: a sign of fundamental corruption.
At this point during Viet Nam, the fragging began.
McGeouh should note what US he's talking about.
Surely it is not the US government that is fed up with backing despots, and not the US government that is fed up with squandering troops for such nonsense.
Karzai made his petty apologies, and he did so with Kerry at one side and the rest of the Coattail Contingent flanking alongside.
This shows the US renewing its ownership and directorship of Karzai and its claimed ownership of Afghanistan and of American soldiers, not any kind of fatigue with same.
Now, if we're talking about the American population tiring . . .
"US Fed Up With Troops Dying to Prop Up Karzai"
Is this title a belated or early April's Fool Day joke or are they doing this to see if we're paying attention?
Dude, if anybody doesn't give a rat's ass about troops - or people - dying anywhere, that would be the US Fed. And that's a fact Jack!
Kerry, aka Kohn, should admit that Karzai cannot protect the building of the pipeline and then to protect it.
Time to call in Halliburton and KBR, if they are not there already.
'Rating it as ''frightening as it is unlikely,'' his worst case sees Afghanistan returning to its pre-September 11 nadir - Taliban back in control, hosting training camps for terrorist groups.'
Typical propaganda.
As in Vietnam, the local thinker, the Taliban, back in control and reparations from America is the best option. It is not frightening other than to a Bushy. To properly encounter people their fundamental validities must be understood/respected. Only a child or an impaired/mad intellect, as in Bush, denies all validity in the other. As elsewhere, America and all who have supported its idiocy now has not to lead but to to serve Afghanistan. Any other arrangement is perpetuating the problem.
Ever since the colonial expansion, the Anglo-Saxon despite some profound and valuable insights has been creating and perpetuating the problems we now face. The American Anglo-Saxon, initially a somewhat attractive child, is now grown into an impaired/mad adult, and although never the only, he is the major problem.
If it's critical enough to ask our soldiers for their lives, limbs,and sanity, it's important enough to demand that all war industries give up their profits and executive pay (above what the President makes) to make our nation financially robust and defensively strong. We should plow those profits back into the war effort and the care of our troops for as long as hostilities last.
It's either true "national interests" or it's propaganda and deadly scam for the MIC.
We have more pressing matters to face with energy and climate.
CORP IS BORG.
Agreed. AND, it should be illegal to borrow money to finance wars. Every taxpayer should be subject to a surcharge on his/her income taxes every year so that we pay as we go. Think this would be harsh? Think people would complain? Do people ever wonder how these war debts are going to be repaid -- with interest? Would you rather pay three or four thousand a year now, or would you rather pay three or four thousand a year in interest for the next 50 years? No more borrowing for war. Pay as we go.
"The objective is being wound back - from the Jeffersonian democracy sought by the former president George Bush to the creation of a state that is capable of protecting itself."
Jeffersonian Democracy, my butt, or a state that is capable of protecting itself, my butt.
The only relevant factor here is the money recently provided to the Pentagon to enlarge the Bagram prison area to a mammoth corporate/living facility for U.S. soldiers and personnel, airport and all, to protect the work on building the multi number of gas/oil pipelines coming out of Ubekistan [our new friend who boils people in oil as a prime torture after the C.I.A. does one of its extraordinary rendition numbers on hapless suspects] and Turkmenistan [haven't checked to find out whether they use oil or water], and to secure a portion of the Caspian Sea area for shipping the loot out. [And of course, this puts us back in a tricky position with Russia, and stirs the future world's seething broth all over again. ]
Monies have been allocated for a Green Zone-style facility, similar to the mega-embassy in Iraq, inside the Pakistan border. Just a little more control to secure an area, and I'm sure give our kind of "help" to the Pakistanis.
Yeah, sure we really are interested in all of these "local" people getting interested in democracy, changing their life styles, taking care of themselves, etcetera, after we spend inordinate amounts of money killing and wounding them "to protect them" and then "rebuild and reconstruct" that which we had turned into rubble.
It's really nice of us to supply crayons for the youngsters.
The U.S. is a combination of a psychopathic Big Daddy and brutal Battleaxe Mommy who always are making efforts for "the children's" own good, "the children" being any Afghan adult or child [or substitute the name of any number of countries or areas where we turned up to "help" and "set things right."].
In the meantime the U.S., led by corrupted nincompoops and devious, greedy thieves in and outside of the nation, is going down like a stone. But that is certainly no accident, and if you think it is and some miraculous recovery and a return to normal is in the works, you're watching too much TV news where there really are no questions and no answers other than the programmed ones.
Democracy for the Afghans? We will be fortunate if we ever really come close to that model and process again for ourselves. It clearly doesn't seem that that's possible right now, unless the mega-$$$$ get banned from campaigns and the "democratic process" itself and the airwaves belong to the Public once again. Likely to happen? NO!
Sick, sick stuff. Jeffersonian Democracy, indeed, George W. Remember, The Constitution is just a bunch of old pieces of paper anyway, and I guess The Lady IS for Burning.
Just FOLLOW THE MONEY everytime to find out who's involved and who is benefitting.
/cm
'Sick, sick stuff.' indeed.
'Psychopathic' indeed.
Is there no shame?
Yet even here, most of what is written is concerned with Americans.
But who cares about them?
But Americans?
Well, we do too because we care about who Americans kill and even wish death upon the mercenary soldiers paid with your taxes; laugh at their video game killer cowardice; laugh at how they take the money, 'be a man' in body armour, while they kill naked others; laugh at how they pit an F-15 against a man on a camel; laugh at their sometimes anonymous homecoming in coffins; laugh as they cry like babies or howl like mad dogs once they are hurt; look uncomprehendingly at how the mothers grieve for their sons, but not for those their sons killed, while claiming to be against the war. But we also know that every American has to take responsibility for this debacle. It will cost a great deal and, once Americans realise this, hopefully we can ensure it is not paid with American deaths but with your lives. It should be paid with your future.
Then you will be with us.
Most of this item is trite trash. What CD ought to have posted in its place is Pepe Escobar's excellent two-part Asia Times Online analysis of AfPak, http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KK06Df01.html and http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KK07Df01.html
"The Pentagon well knows that AfPak is the key land bridge between Iran to the west and China and India to the east; and that Iran has all the energy that both China and India need."
It's all about the US Empire's wish to establish Full Spectrum Dominance as ennunciated by the Pentagon itself, not something conjured out of thin air.
Oh God karlof1,
You said the "P" word! Now the Beetlejuice-Max-Pain trolls are going to come out of the wood work for sure!
Title might better read
Troops fed up as they find themselves awakening human beings in uniform dying to prop up a delusion
Dying for oil company profits.
"[Karzai] was flanked by a high-powered international posse - lest he depart from the agreed script. On one side was the US senator John Kerry...."
Over time I have grown to suspect that Kerry's Skull and Bones role is to contain situations by appearing to participate, starting way back with the anti-war Vietnam Vets. His role in elections has been similarly baffling, fashioned to sidetrack enthusiasm and activism. This deadpan man gives me the cold shivers.
Joe
Good point, Joe.
Ever look at the list of Skull and Bones members from the beginning to now? Old-money families who made their original fortunes in the opium trade and slave trade. And then new names, with so many of them, old money and new, coinciding with the corporate and government names we are familiar with.
And if you don't know that "Kerry" is not his original family name, you might want to check that out. After endorsing him for President, Ted Kennedy was all set to sing "When Irish Eyes are Smiling" with him and discovered Kerry was not an Irishman at all.
One's true origins shouldn't really matter, except when we're in a situation now where honesty rather than deviousness would be so refreshing, and it matters who is allied with whom and what role they are actually serving and playing, other than the title, in this case, Senator, they answer to.
Trust your instincts.
best, cm
Yeah, the original name was Kohn and they were Jewish. After immigrating the grandparents changed their name out of fear of anti-semitism:
"According to family legend, Fritz and another family member opened an atlas at random and dropped a pencil on a map. It fell on County Kerry in Ireland, and thus a name was chosen" (from the wikipedia entry on John Kerry).
Not only that, he's actually a distant cousin of GWB!
I have to agree that there has always been something disconcerting about Kerry and he's also one of the supporters of the "prayer" inclusion in the health care bill.
Yeah,
That was one hell of an election in 04'. My choices were: Skull and Bones, or Skull and Bones. Just how the hell did that happen???????????????
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
well the problem with this article is - it runs along the SAME CLASSIC american story of
:
MEDDLING in the affairs of other places - for "national interest" which is really IMPERIAL interest - props up people, blah, blah
and ESCALATES or WORSENS situations
and THEN when something goes wrong puts a STRAIGHT FACE making JUDGEMENTAL pronouncements about how "unworthy" those places and people and leaders are for WASTING
american "taxpayer dollars".
it is like someone saying - after having just instigated chaos and murder and war and deprivation and their worse consequences because of initially imagined IMPERIAL ambitions - that "it's ALL THEIR FAULT".
and suddenly the HOLY "american taxpayer" seems to INNOCENT of COMPLICITY in being PART of the ENTIRE IMPERIAL PROJECT that has given birth to the VERY THINGS that such articles as THESE ...such as "corruption that wastes OUR american SOLDIERS"....
CONDEMN!
ooooo pppooooor ME - pooooor American "taxpayer"
"poooor american soldier fighting for freedom in afghanistan"....
"pooooor GOOD HEARTED america getting swindled by those corrupt barbarians"........
without EVER REMEMBERING just HOW it GOT THERE!!! which is because of America's IMPERIALISM..PERIOD!
it is like someone "manfully" jumping into a pit of SHIT and then when he gets worms in his belly - complains !!
The headline says it all.
Retired army officer Andrew Exum says it is frightening to turn Afghanistan back to the Taliban and the terrorists; what a crock! What is truely frightening is to keep on killing and putting our troops under a tremendous amount of stress in Afghanistan; in a war for strategic interests, oil, billions of $$ in illegal drugs and the proping up of that quisling Karzi one of the most corrupt puppets in the world! Yes, what American, foreign, fascist policy has become...THAT IS WHAT IS REALLY FRIGHTENING TO ME!
Corrupt dictators are how Big Oil maximizes profits.
Some people die for their country.
Some people die for their faith.
The rest die for EXXON.
Or even worse . . . they die for sheer, utter bullshit.
Dying for Exxon's way, way worse.
The utterest bull is in some ways fairly neutral: all one loses is one's life.