By GARY BAUMGARTEN
Paltalk News Network
Afghan President Hamid Karzai says the announced timetable for U.S. withdrawal is, in essence,strengthening the Taliban. A sure sign that he is worrying about the mortality of his government.
His words translate into this:
What will I do when the Americans leave? If not for the American presence I'd not be in power today. When they go I'm done.
What he should be doing now is looking for an exit strategy. I.e. a country that will take him in when this is all over. Because if he remains in Afghanistan after U.S. troops depart, he is done. Literally.
If I were Karzai I'd take all that money collected through government corruption and send it offshore. In fact, if he hasn't done that already, I'd be really surprised.
If Karzai is right - that when the U.S. leaves the Taliban will move in to fill the void - then one has to ask, what the hell are we doing in Afghanistan?
Like President George W. Bush - who went into Iraq to find WMDs and then when he couldn't he changed the mission and stayed - President Obama has changed the mission in Afghanistan.
The war he inherited - but the one he said was just because its mission was to get those responsible for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, has nothing to do with Osama bin Laden and his cronies. Not anymore and perhaps not ever.
As with George W. Bush's war, the mission of Obama's has changed.
The United States is "nation building." Propping up one corrupt government as a better alternative for another more repressive regime waiting in the wings. But is this a good use of the U.S. military?
Surely not, if the mission fails. And Karzai is signaling that when the troops withdraw - the mission will - in fact - be an official failure. Because, more than likely, his government will collapse. The few gains in human rights for women and children will be erased.
If this analysis is correct (and I acknowledge not everyone will agree with it) then what is, as George H.W. Bush might say, the prudent thing to do? Remaining in Afghanistan - staving off the inevitable while losing more American lives - doesn't sound too prudent to me.
And where is the anti-war movement, so vocal when W. was in office?
Largely silent - because - of course - a Democrat is commander-in-chief. And we wouldn't want to do or say anything too damaging to Obama, would we? That might weaken him and lead to a loss of the White House in 2012.
Which, in the view of the Democratic Party faithful, would be a far greater failure than the loss of Kabul to the Taliban.
U.S. Army photo
Gary Baumgarten
Host - News Talk Online
Director of News and Programming Paltalk News Network
Join the News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network at 5 PM NY time weekdays
Twitter: http://twitter.com/garybaumgarten
Chat with me: http://gary.superim.me
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Julie Morse
Ande Bliss
Barbara Joanne
Marilyn Sands
Susie Lindau
RomanticPoetess
Salon.com
Comments
To be fair to President Obama, the theory is that by sending the message that we are not staying forever, it forces people to think abuot the future and make deals. I am not sure that is wise, because the deals on the table are Russia and China, under the surface, but interesting piece as usual.
He knows it and has nothing other than an incognito life as an ex-patriate that can change it.
No U.S. presence means no Karzai.
the american king will not commit over-whelming force because that is counter-productive to his personal objective: getting re-elected. illiterate afghan farmers have figured this out, it's amusing how few american pundits can match them.
Like I said, C.I.A.+Poppies+ Heat= Karzai. Ahahahchoo...
We seem to have done everything that a foreign power can do to a country.
Total, existential wars like WWII don't need timetables. We were willing and able to simply kill our way out of them.
With these counter insurgency guys, they eschew traditional firebombing of cities and general rape and pillaging of the locals.
A limited war NEEDS a plan, with time deadlines. More particularly, our generals need a budget and time limits. The notion that we are going "all in" in these things is simply not true.
If we were willing to kill 1,000,000 people, we could win in 6 months (never mind what win means).
Since we aren't, it is just like any government project and needs the same controls, etc on its execution.
This is destined to end in a deal or series of deals. The notion that we should fund endless campaigning including subsidized killing as part of the process is idiotic.
Its very reminiscent of the Diep gvt in South Vietnam. The US has a habit of picking highly corrupt, weak, unrepresentative gvts to represent our interests in highly volatile, strategic regions. We have the greatest military and tactical technology in the world, but our command of what Bismarck coined Realpolitik and Richelieu termed Raison d' Etat, is is egregiously lacking. We have no Grand Strategic sense whatsoever.
That would have told the Afghans, We don't put up with this corruption shit. And the next puppet we choose, better not do what Karzai did.
But no, we had Hillary and Obama stand up and say, Oh, what a great guy Karzai is. That said to the Afghans, the US is in on the corruption. (They're not dumb.) Same thing that was said among South Vietnamese about their government .. throughout the 1960s.
Speaking of which, the US eventually allowed multiple coups in Saigon, but nothing stuck. Nobody in South Vietnam trusted the government, and so who were they fighting for?
It would have been nice if we could have had a more honest-looking election that removed Karzai and replaced him with another, hopefully less corrupt, leader. Maybe it was impossible, but it was our only chance. And we blew it.
The rhyming echoes of Vietnam are getting louder. As is the echo of the old saw about forgetting aims and redoubling efforts.
Karzai needs to find some corrupt backwater willing to tolerate his presence in exchange for a large portion of his ill-gotten wealth, and the US needs to generate one or two very public "wins" so we can declare victory and leave.
As an old journo once said, Afghanistan wins all its home games.