Patrick Cockburn: Bush's 'puppet in Kabul' will not go quietly
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Hamid Karzai is fighting for his political life. He has often been written off as "the mayor of Kabul", but he does not intend to go quietly just because the Pentagon has increasingly seen him as an obstacle to its plans for a "surge" or increase in US troop strength by 20,000 or 30,000 to try to turn the corner in the Afghan war.
Karzai's weaknesses are well known. He did not have his own party and is dependent on the US. His younger brother is believed to be one of the leading figures in the drug business. In the early years of his presidency, the US cultivated the Afghan warlords as allies, ignoring the fact that popular hostility to the warlords had been one of the causes of the rise of the Taliban in the 1990s. No doubt Karzai has been ineffectual, but would anybody else do any better?
In response to what he deems to be moves to replace him or make sure that he does not stand again for the presidency in elections later this year, Karzai has been burnishing his nationalist credentials. At the opening session of the Afghan parliament, he criticised the US-led coalition for its conduct of the war, disregard for Afghan casualties of air strikes, its bypassing of the government, links to warlords and tolerance of drug traffickers. All this is strange behaviour for a man seen by many Afghans as a puppet of the US.
Overall, Karzai is critical of the "surge" and with good reason. It will probably lead to intensified fighting in Afghanistan. The US-led coalition may be able to hold more ground but a greater foreign military presence may also lead to an Afghan nationalist backlash. A new US-backed candidate put forward for election might simply further discredit the government in Kabul as a foreign pawn.
Karzai has been demanding greater control over allied operations. The Pentagon's enthusiasm for a surge in US troop numbers may be based on a false belief that it was this which transformed the war in Iraq. What really brought Iraq's Sunni insurgency to an end was not extra US troops but fear on the part of the Sunni that they were being ethnically cleansed by the Shia majority. It is difficult to see the Taliban being defeated so long as they are able to base themselves across the border in Pakistan. It is also unlikely that the Pakistani army will ever abandon the Taliban as one of its few assets in the region, particularly at a time of increased tension with India. Karzai has become increasingly close to Delhi and the US has not relished his denunciations of Pakistan.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
I hope Mr. Obama think wisely and do not repeat mistakes of Mr Bush in Afghanistan. My advice is for him do not soppurt Mr. Ghani Ahmad zai, Mr Jalali , both of them are not better than Mr Karzai. They were also part of Karzais governmemnt and they are responsible for parts of Mr. Karzai failure.
Best wishes
Dr. HAROON AMIRZADA
Ex President Bush used these people as an excuse for the 9/11 attacks saying that they receive their training their. Which is bogus, the training they received to fly the planes into the trade towers, came from right there in the United States. That's where they learned to fly.
And let's not forget that most of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, where they also have extreme religious fanatics, but we aren't bombing of them. We're not killing their women and children.
Before 9/11 the United States was trying to make pipe line deals with the Taliban. We didn't see them as evil then. In fact there is a film and many photos of Taliban leaders at a party with congressional members. It's interesting that when the United States realize the Taliban was not going to make a pipeline deal with us, they suddenly become terrorists.
Explain why we are murdering and killing these people?
So their religious extremists, so what!
It's their country if the people that live in that country want to change things then they will shed their blood to do it.
So we must be there for some other reason?
This is exactly the kind of thing the United States has got to stop.
Kharzai like all those US appointees will not go quietly; he will put as much of a fight as much as Abbas will do. The US will find it hard to dislodge him because as stated by Mr Cockburn: Kharzai already had started playing the regional card to save his position by portraying himself as a patriot by criticising the US. He might temporrarly succeed in staying put for a while unlessObama is in ernest to get rid of him or limit him again to his original cermonial role.
And what ground is there to hold for the US-led coalition anyhow? Whose ground? Held how? And for whom precisely? It's become quite a muddle.
I advocate a new form of Shock and Awe. Here's how it works.
Under dead secrecy a massive withdrawal of everyone and everything is set up like workings of a watch of grand complications. Then when the day of Shock and Awe dawns in Afghanistan, the sun rises on a land without one single stitch of foreign military or media presence. Just a vast silence.
No statements made before or after. Simply nothing at all. Nothing said, nor implied.
That would indeed be shocking and awesome enough to effect some kind of change in this souring cesspool of a situation.
Of course the results would be unpredictible. But experience shows that anything one does or doesn't do in situations like this has rather unpredictible results. So whiy not?
I'm actually not stupid or flippant. I'm seriously pondering this notion. If it doesnt' transpire in reality it certainly would make a lovely work of fiction or a fine film. Perhaps both.
Off to see my agent then . . .
This to me shows that despite what everyone calls a mistake to increase troop presence in Afghanistan, that Obama does 'get it' on a much deeper level than Bush or even Patraes. Increasing the troop numbers a few brigades is meant to improve the security, which is imperative for civilians to have any trust in government. This is essential should the US hope to have Afghanistan not go back to Taliban rule, which could again resume its role as an Al Qaeda haven. Getting rid of Karzai is essential. But also listening to the Afghan people and their concerns should be paramount. I believe Obama has the temperament and good sense to recognize this.
I disagree with your opinions and the opinion of the writer. The problem is that whenever a leader improves himself and criticize the West for their failure, they start calling him puppet. Until yesterday, Mr.Karzai was the hero and an elected Afghan president for the West. Now he is a puppet because he oppose the NATO style of operation and he criticize the civilian casualties.
I do not understand, Why the West should choose who is better for Afghanistan? It is the Afghan people who choose their leader.
As an Afghan who lived all his life in Afghanistan, I warn the US and their allies that they will not succeed unless they listen to people and act honestly.
Cheers,
If anyone have any comment contact me on Waheedsahak@gmail.com
If you are as you say, an Afghan that has lived your entire life in Afghanistan, I wish to apologize as I did not mean to try and speak of you. I had thought that Karzai must go because I got the sense that the consensus amongst AFGHANS was one of seeing Karzai as a weak leader with a government fraught with corruption.
If in fact that is not the case, then I absolutely support whatever choice Afghans like yourself choose to make. If you have confidence that as troops arrive to bolster security and Karzai's support that he deserves to stay then all the better. Nor do I believe it is productive for the West to constantly condemn Afghanistan for its primary poppy export. It's the one product Afghans produce that has universal world demand, and with farmers forced to stave for themselves and their families, subject to the warlord taxation of whatever fiefdom they happen to be in, you can't blame a single farmer for engaging in its growth. Opiates have legitimate uses the world over in the medical and pharmaceutical industries, primarily as the best way to alleviate major pain. Why not allow Afghans the right to dream of prosperity, which should be a fundamental right to pursue? The war on drugs is as feeble as the stated war on terrorism. As long as demand keeps poppy as the most profitable cash cow by far, there's no way in a free society that Afghans will abandon their dreams of upward mobility out of principle. Only the return to draconian governments like the Taliban can coerce a return to zero tolerance. And that type of society, I think, is not appealing to most Afghans.
Sahak007, I welcome you to tell me if you feel my assumptions of Afghans is wrong. Is there growing sentimental appeal towards the Taliban these days because Mullah Omar provided a secure society?