It's the corruption, stupid!

In recent weeks, prominent American politicians and columnists have begun debating troop levels in Afghanistan. Some call for a complete withdrawal, while others favor increasing the number of U.S. troops.

The size of U.S. forces in Afghanistan is a critical issue, but a debate about troop strength misses the point. Unless and until one other problem is addressed, neither more troops nor fewer troops will reverse the tide of terrorism being fomented in Afghanistan or improve our national security.

It's the corruption, stupid.

Eliminating corruption in Afghanistan is in both that nation's interest and ours. From the Afghan perspective, an honest government would give the people a genuine say in the direction of their country. For us, it would dramatically increase our national security, both because it would increase the effectiveness of our efforts to fight the Taliban and because the end result would be an Afghan population more invested in taking on the fight themselves. That is our real objective.

When I traveled to Afghanistan in April with Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, we were warned by opposition candidates that the country's presidential election would be marred by widespread fraud. They were right. On top of everything else that we have learned about the Afghan government, the vote that took place on Aug. 20 was a sham. Every indication is that the election results have been completely skewed by widespread, systematic fraud.

Afghan politics have never been particularly clean -- money, power and position traditionally have been traded for support from tribal and ethnic blocs. But evidence of fraud in last month's election is colossally disturbing: Voter cards were bought and sold freely in the run-up to the vote, precinct workers arrived at dawn to find ballot boxes stuffed full, some districts recorded more votes than there were registered voters, and nationwide voter registration surpassed the number of eligible voters by as much as 5 million. The Electoral Complaints Commission, appointed by President Hamid Karzai, has received more than 2,000 reports of violations, hundreds of which would have the potential to alter the election's outcome if proved true.

But electoral fraud is merely a symptom of a much graver problem plaguing the country -- the failure to establish good governance. Pervasive corruption infects all levels of the Afghan government. Tribal elders in Kandahar told us they were so fed up with the Karzai government that they would join the Taliban if better governance could not be achieved.

This election is a chilling reminder of what's at stake. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal appears to understand this. His emphasis on joint civilian-military efforts to improve governance is much needed, but the American people deserve some accountability. Congress should not even be asked about more troops without first being shown evidence that some anti-corruption metrics have been achieved, not just announced.

The U.S. military's mission will be undermined so long as the Afghan government fails to govern. That's what's happening right now.

A recent poll found 83 percent of Afghans think their country needs to change direction. Lowering that disapproval number should be a key ingredient in any measure of governance; public opinion is essential in judging whether the government has earned the people's trust. That's what a successful counterinsurgency effort is really about: giving Afghans faith in their institutions and developing a willingness to cooperate with and protect them. Public opinion should be gauged on a province-by-province basis to help assess where government is succeeding and where it is not.

But change must start at the top. If the sham election stands and Mr. Karzai remains president, he must drastically change his personal politics. He has preserved his position of power through a series of politically expedient but morally repugnant alliances. This includes turning a blind eye to Helmand province, where his brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, has become a legendary and detested figure. The Karzais deny Ahmed Wali's involvement in the heroin trade -- Helmand is the world's primary producer -- but don't quarrel that he is in the "transportation business."

Hamid Karzai also cut a deal that reimposed Shariah law on Afghanistan's Shi'ite population, which returned women to their traditional role as property, with girls sold as brides and women legally required to "submit" to their husbands' sexual needs.

In his bid to win re-election, Mr. Karzai welcomed back from exile the warlord -- and accused war criminal -- Abdul Rashid Dostum and chose as a running mate Mohammad Qasim Fahim, one of Afghanistan's major narco-traffickers.

Mr. Karzai cannot be allowed to run his government as a "family business." Distancing himself from these relationships no doubt will cost him politically, but failure to implement reforms will produce a far worse outcome.

Success in Afghanistan is essential; the United States has invested too many troops and too much treasure to fail. But raising troop levels is the wrong place to start the discussion of how to move forward. Better governance is the right place. That way the additional troops will be Afghans. It is their fight, and they should constitute the overwhelming majority of the forces fighting to protect their country.

Rep. Jane Harman, California Democrat, chairs the House Homeland Security subcommittee on intelligence and terrorism risk assessment.

 

Comments

[sheaintsayin]

Chilling... The only 'must' is defeat in her next quest for re-election.

[Balzac]

Yeah, she's perfectly wrong. The opium is not bad, in fact it is good. Karzai needs to make peace with more of the region's warlords, not fewer of them. The world is trying to attain a "post-angstivist" state of geopolitical affairs. We're almost there with President Obama in office. We just need to keep dousing the "angstivists" with water when they work themselves into a lather about something.

[gbrooks]

Hey Jane! Still subverting this country's laws to favor Israeli spies?

So glad you're in our government.

In regards to Afghanistan:

1. We can't win
2. War is a racket that uses our young men as pawns to make corporations richer
3. We are killing civilians
4. Spreading democracy by force is now, and always has been, a huge mistake and a logical error
5. I hope you get voted out

[popart]

we live in a world of propaganda...we are told what to think but never to ask why we must think that way....we come to believe things that are not true because we hear them so often....we don't question anything but acccept everything. we have been brainwashed by so many for so many reasons and for so long that we have lost the ability to think!

[fusionfan]

What foolish thoughts you have. Why do we need to fight the Taliban? What did they ever do to us? Why is our responsibility to school others in corruption, when our own government just bailed out the biggest crooks in the globe, who not only took down the U.S. economy but that of the whole world.

Why are we in Afghanistan in the first place? On the basis of what evidence? Some specially prepared videos obtained under never-explained circumstances from sources that were never clarified.

[NCAV2]

"Success in Afghanistan is essential; the United States has invested too many troops and too much treasure to fail."


This is the mindset of a compulsive gambler. "I've lost way too much money to give up now!"

[who38]

Or the mindset of a person who receives big dividends from continued war. Remember last month when she was running interference for Isra.el? And her aid told me yesterday that she supports a public option. This woman is an abomination.

[research]

"Can't pull out now.." Next stop is Vietnam...

[arktig]

Gee, lobbying is legalized corruption. If we eliminated OUR corruption, may be the Afghans would have a positive example to follow. As of now, they've got none.

Just look at this "family values" guy Mike Duvall. Having "fun" with a lobbyist? Boy, that's serious corruption right there.

[Hiphopcrates]

Asking the Bush imposed Afghan Gov't. to be a little less corrupt is kinda like asking Wall St. to be a little less greedy - fat chance!
The Afghan War is being continued to maintain plan B for saving the U.S. economy in the event that the Treasury and Fed moves collapse in failure when the commercial real estate and consumer credit card markets implode.
Hide your sons and daughters, the draft is not too far off.

[who38]

If Jane wants less corruption, maybe she needs to lead by example.

[faith]

Ms. Harman states,.. "Mr. Karzai cannot be allowed to run the government as a family business"....
It is NOT for the USA to tell the world how they should run their governments, how they should vote, nor what political philosophy they should embrace. We are not God. We are not the leader of the world. We are a nation that has chosen a particular path - democracy and it works well for us. Other nations have the right to choose their own way. As research asserted, we do not have the moral authority to continue warring on other soil. We have allowed the war profiteers and lobbyists to actually run this country. We citizens must take it back. Reconsider whom we place in office to represent us. We need to regain our moral compass and demonstrate that we will aid with food, medicine, and education. No more guns. No more war.

[clevelandchick]

Ms. Harman,

If the US lends support to the Bush Admin installed puppet Karzai after such a blatant fraudulent election..­.Afghanist­an will remain unstable and we will be forced to stay in Afghanistan longer.

Afghanis want us out. The bombs we drop kill 20 citizens to take out 1 Taliban. How long are we going to keep making enemies for ourselves there to take out one extremist group?

We do not need to train the Afghanis to fight....they've been doing a pretty good job against our sophisticated military operation. If or when we eventually leave, either the population will fight the Taliban or they will join them. That's their decision.

Unfortunately our decision to occupy their country has only made the population more sympathetic to a group they generally detest. As most native citizens will do, they side with their countrymen (evil as they may be) over an invader.

As in Iraq, no hearts and minds have been won...we've only created a terrorist problem for ourselves that will last generations. We've been there 7 years for Pete's sake and we're no farther ahead than we were after the first 6 months. Other empires have made the mistake of trying to remain there to "fix" the country, only to leave poorer both fiscally and in global reputation. It's their country, it's their sovereignty.

We need to leave.

[Americafirst2008]

Rep Harman , will want America to fight as many wars as necessary to keep Israel safe, even if that hurts America.

AIPAC pulls her strings, take a look at the recordings. It's shameful.

[ProfessorDuh]

We must pretend, dance a little dance for the fools, to make sure they don't find out what's been done to them and by whom. Right, Jane?

[Academic]

A nice anodyne statement characteristic of career politicians with little or no imagination; like one saying I hope to marry and have a long and successful family life.

Meaningless - but it sounds good.

Professor Dr. Stanley Collymore.

[sandzw007]

How can we fight corruption in Afghanistan when it is rampant in our own government & country.
We reward corruption here (example: giving money to the corrupt banks that tanked our own economy). Why should we expect it to be different there?
This is an un-winnable war of choice. I suggest we all just buy weapons stocks and sit back
and count the change. We need to evolve into what we say we want everyone else to be.
We must work at home to become a non-corrupt, for the good of everyone stellar example
to the world before we can even hope to help others achieve the same goal.
Time to concentrate on our home and let others take care of their own. If it wasn't for our corrupt
leaders wanting to control everything in the world... non of this would be happening.

[Rog49Thomas]

Before embarking on an excellent overseas adventure, it's wise to make sure that the elements for success exist.

Clearly, the US and its allies were capable of removing the Taliban regime from control of the government.

What everyone seemed to overlook is that if we want to go home at some point, there will have to be a replacement government - staffed by locals - capable of managing the country.

We've only been there a few short years (since 2001) and perhaps it's early to require that these leaders take control.

But is there any sign that such leaders exist now who might take over the job in another short 8 years?

At this point, we've barely found a guy to be Mayor of Kabul - though I have to admit he dresses elegantly and gives a nice press conference.

Nation building - helping a local leadership establish the mechanisms of government - is difficult.

Manufacturing leaders is even more difficult.

[arvay]

This is possibly the stupidest thing said all week, and that includes Republican comment on healthcare.

To enforce effective anti-corruption, we'd need to assume control of the country, maybe 300,000 troops, and run the place for a generation.

[ProfessorDuh]

You're assuming we are free of corruption. We are not.
Remember the billions that simply "disappeared" in Iraq?

[who38]

Good point. And certainly Lady Jane is no one to call anybody else corrupt. She almost lost her seat during the last primary. We will try harder next time.