I met Hamid Karzai in 2003 and admittedly was taken by the caped crusader. He had a Nelson Mandela quality to him at the time -- an urbane, polished and thoughtful leader who seemed to represent the best aspirations of his beleaguered Afghani people.
But alas, Hamid Karzai is no Nelson Mandela.
The Hamid Karzai of 2010 has a distasteful "Yassir Arafat" quality to him. Mercurial, corrupt, and prone to surrounding himself with klepto-cronies -- Karzai's vanity is legendary -- right up there in league with the likes of Arafat and similar pseudo-dictators. He is alienating the very international community on which he is so dependent -- some would call this suicidal. To push the historical analogies to the extreme, Karzai seems to be fiddling while Kabul is burning.
Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke was spot on to read Karzai the riot act several months ago about his affliction to corruption and a propensity to play with ballot boxes.
For doing the right thing when no one else was prepared to do so, Holbrooke was unfairly sent to the White House dog house for challenging Karzai with the truth. In return, Karzai made it clear to Secretary of State Clinton that he would no longer deal with Holbrooke. Clinton stuck by Holbrooke -- a justifiable vote of confidence by the Secretary of State in her emissary who also knows what it's like trying to reason with the likes of Karzai.
But with each new antagonistic statement against the U.S. we are running out of officials who can deal with Karzai.
The problem runs much deeper than Karzai himself. Under Afghanistan's Constitution, Karzai has the power to appoint virtually all of the provincial governors, local judges and district officials -- none of whom accordingly have independent power bases, much less any local allegiance. Karzai cuts their paychecks, and many of them are paid handsomely for their obsequiousness. That leaves Karzai in complete control in an opaque central government that is an alien entity to many Afghanis. We have hardly anyone else to deal with who has an independent power base of support.
None of this is good news for U.S. and NATO forces who rightfully wonder why they are fighting on behalf of a Karzai regime that is biting the hands that feed him.
Part of the reason Karzai is playing fast and loose is that he fears a looming U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in the summer of 2011 and what it means to him and his regime. With NATO forces shortly departing despite the momentary surge of U.S. forces, Karzai wrongly believes he can reinvent himself as a new gang member in the "hood" (think of Iran, the Taliban, Pakistan's ISI, etc.). But the neighborhood toughs will never give him the secret handshake. Not even Iran's Ahmadinejad who Karzai recently feted.
There are no illusions nor should there have been about Karzai within team Obama. It was inevitable that Karzai would view Obama as a fair weather friend once Obama announced his attention to withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan lock, stock and barrel next summer. And in Diplomacy 101, announcements of withdrawal deadlines = loss of leverage.
I want to believe that Karzai is more Machiavellian than mischievous. That his outbursts against the U.S. and NATO are clumsy camouflage masking potentially fruitful secret negotiations with more "moderate" elements of the Taliban that could transform the political situation in Afghanistan and provide the U.S. a graceful exit with Al Qaeda leaders handcuffed or killed.
There have been sporadic press reports that Karzai is feverishly trying to strike deals with Taliban emissaries for Mullah Omar while NATO forces remain on the ground. But why would the Taliban make a deal with Karzai... they too are not going anywhere after next summer despite military setbacks.
Herein lies the rub. Putting aside his outbursts for the moment, Karzai apparently decided he must use the remaining months before US and NATO forces depart to push reconciliation with the Taliban. Yet Washington wants to inflict as much military damage on the Taliban as possible before U.S. forces depart. Accordingly, attempts at reconciliation under fire are so far proving to be an irreconcilable policy -- driving an ever growing wedge between Karzai and Obama.
Perhaps some elements of the loosely-federated Taliban forces will be hammered enough before next summer to want to strike a deal with Karzai -- we can pray for miracles, can't we?
In the meantime, the U.S. has few options:
1. Deny Karzai a visit to the White House: symbolically a useless gesture.
2. Threaten an accelerated withdrawal of U.S. forces: I thought our mission was to capture Bin Laden and eradicate Al Qaeda's command structure and its Taliban supporters.
3. Demand a quid pro quo for the billions propping up his regime: time to put strings on those reconstruction funds.
4. Ignore Karzai as much as possible and forge ahead till our withdrawal deadline while hammering Al Qaeda and Taliban supporters: the Afghani people deserve more than being abandoned to the likes of the Taliban. The U.S. abandoned the Afghani people once before to the likes of the Taliban and look where it got us and them.
I myself opt for options #3 and #4.
Mr. Ginsberg, you Are Not Entitled to use the title: "Ambassador" .
You no longer hold that title, and haven't for a long time.
The United States does not recognize Any Form of "life peerage".
We doubt that it's an unintentional mistake.
More likely it's just an arrogant affectation.
It's time to curb your ego, Mister Ginsberg!
What about The Earl of Scheib?
Those few exceptions having been duly noted, can anyone show us where Mr. Ginsbergs' supposed entitlement to a lifetime title is enshrined in Law?
"Common usage", and the brown-nosing proclivities of journalists and pundits, is no excuse. We can almost forgive the Third Estate for their groveling, it's second nature to them.
Mr Ginsberg, however, has no excuse, and evidently, no shame.
Former officeholders, hanging desperately to their previous rank, are pathetic.
.
You are wrong. Ambassador Ginsberg may continue to use the title because the United States and quite a few other nations continue to honor the service of these individuals, in the same way that former governors are still entitled "Governor", former presidents are still addressed as "Mr. President:", etc.
Whatever you may think of this man's political views, there is no need to be rude. He has given of his time and expertise in the service of his country and deserves as much respect for that as any office holder or service member.
GET OUT NOW. END THESE WARS.
Karzai is our perfect creation..corrupt, unrepentent and prone to election cheating. he is modeling himself after his benefactors in Washington. It's no secret he's hanging around for the oil pipeline $$, always the reason we invaded the country that kills empires. The oil dough will make the opium biz look like an appetizer.
Is this what we want our sons and daughters to give their beautiful lives for ? We need to push for a draft to engage the public in policy. When America's sons and daughters all face the peril, we will prioritize our perils better.
The US is just suffering from a little buyer's remorse.
I think? it was Kissinger that made the observation that "being America's friend can be more dangerous than it's ally"
Karzai was Installed by the US and I'm confident if they had a better alternative to him, they would have replaced the man by now.
If you or the US really wanted a true representative leader they would not have restricted the so-called elections to the occupation armies "approved individuals" and allowed political parties to field candidates. But that was too risky as the result might not favour the US's interests.
There's the way things ought to be and there's the way it is.
1. Deny Bibi a visit to the White House: symbolically a useless gesture.
2. Demand a quid pro quo for the billions propping up his regime: time to put strings on those .
3. Ignore Bibi as much as possible and forge ahead with an independent Palestinian state.
The paragraphs about Mad Mullahs, Neville Chamberlain, and Hugo Chavez were apparently deleted by the hacking attack.
Karzai is more like Netenyahu a sneaky quality in him.
The people who got us into this mess should stay out we do not need their advice.
Bring our Troops home!!
Puppets do nothing more than mimic the actions of the string pullers.
That is precisely why the Afghani people do not want him in power.
And that is why this current script he is following was handed to him; to keep him in power.
The Shah of Afghanistan.
Bin Laden acted without consulting Mullah Omar. I hate to say this but, it is very likely that in the near future, it will be Mullah Omar who will receive heads of state in Afghanistan. If we get really lucky, he might even hand us over OBL. Bin Laden was one guest that ended up destroying Omar's home.
Karzai is nothing more than the "Jack" popping out of that so-called "government in a box" we insist on imposing on a country we do not understand, will never and should never control.
As long as we live by the "governing by pinata syndrome" where we go in blindly, armed with a stick, beating the local pinata looking for a prize, we are doomed to failure, over and over again.
Ultimately, and against all odds, the US will have to accept that after all this death and destruction, raping, pillaging and plundering of an entire nation just to "defeat" a couple of hundred terrorists (which were foreign to Afghanistan to begin with!), we will have to break bread with the Taliban, after all.
As we say in my hometown: "To swim so hard, only to drown at the shore".
"With the 2001 US/Northern Alliance expulsion of the Taliban, opium cultivation has increased in the southern provinces liberated from the Taliban control, and by 2005 production was 87% of the world's opium supply, rising to 90% in 2006."
and ask why?
In the end, history will not be kind to this war, just like it has not been to the one we waged, under the same methods, in Vietnam.
I hope that a deal is made that will allow us to leave.
Since Karzai detests the U. S., remove U. S. security from his detail and he can arrange his own security. I would give him 72 hours until he goes bye,, bye.