Looking Past Karzai

Is the White House thinking about getting out of Afghanistan?

Just as Hamlet's mother and his murderous uncle rushed to marry with unseemly haste, even before his slain father's body was cold, the United States is hastily pretending that the Afghan election is over and done with. It was, President Obama admits, "messy." Now it's time to look ahead, and to deal with the reelected President Karzai, warts and all, they say.

But the United States, and the world community, is going to have to look past Karzai.

Here, to start with, is a partial transcript of an exchange between George Stephanopoulos of ABC's This Week and Valerie Jarrett, one of Obama's top political advisers, in which Jarrett talks about bringing the war "to a close":

STEPHANOPOULOS: OK. Let's talk about Afghanistan for a second. We see today the opposition candidate to President Karzai, Abdullah Abdullah, has said he's not going to run in the run-off. Is this a welcome development or is the White House worried the questions about this election will cast a cloud over President Karzai and make it more difficult for the president to implement his strategy?

JARRETT: We don't think that it's going to add a complication to the strategy. It's up to the Afghan people and their authorities to decide how to proceed going forward. We watched the election very carefully. And we're going to work with the leader of the Afghan government and hopefully that's going to improve the state of conditions for the people in Afghanistan, and also help us as we try to bring this war to a close.

Let's hope that Jarrett is reflecting inside-the-White-House discussions that center not on escalating the war, a la General McChrystal and his COIN cult, but on ending it. If so, and in that limited sense, Karzai might be one piece of the puzzle. But as I wrote in my Nation piece last week, "How to Get Out," any solution for Afghanistan will require a wholesale effort to remake the Afghan political compact to include lots more Pashtuns, the Taliban, and many other insurgents. I wrote:

"Then comes the tricky part: the president should encourage the convening of an international Bonn II conference involving the UN, the major world powers and Afghanistan's neighbors--including Iran, India and Pakistan--to support the renegotiation of the Afghanistan compact. At the table must be representatives of all of Afghanistan's stakeholders, including the Taliban and their allies. In advance of that, the United States should join other nations and the UN to persuade President Karzai, his main electoral opponents and other Afghan politicians to form a coalition that would create an interim caretaker regime until the establishment of a more broadly based government."

Karzai, who referred to his "brothers" in the Taliban during his vitctory speech this week, probably understands that the Taliban has to be included. But Karzai seems unwilling to give up the privileges and power (including the power to rake in corrupt profits) that go along with being Afghanistan's president.

The Washington Post provides a blow-by-blow account of efforts by Karzai and his main challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, to divide up the spoils in the wake of the election. Reading that piece, it seems unlikely that Karzai can be the vehicle for any real change.

The London Times reports that Obama has given Karzai a six-month deadline, after which the United States will withdraw from Afghanistan. Here's the money quote, from an Afghan official close to Karzai:

"If he doesn't meet the conditions within six months, Obama has told him America will pull out. Obama said they don't want their soldiers' lives wasted for nothing. They want changes in Cabinet, and changes in his personal staff."

As Jarrett hinted (if, indeed, that is what she meant), the Karzai crisis is the key to unlock the Afghan exit door. Politically, it gives Obama the excuse he needs to pack up and leave.

Comments (24)

1. oh, i'm sure they'll find a way to squiggle along with karzai.....

   until a replacement can be installed.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/04/2009 @ 08:43am

2. No up-side to staying in Afghanistan for Obama.

   He's never going to get any support from the Right, even if he gives them everything they want. They'll attack him for "too little, too late", even if McChrystal gets 40,000 new troops.

   The Left and Middle will abandon him, as majorities of Americans don't want us there anymore.

   Pull-out? The Right screams "Cut & Run!" and "He GAVE Afghanistan back to the Taliban. If we had only stayed 'a little bit' longer, General McChrystal would have won it!"...but most of the country will just be glad it's over.

   BTW, as I've said before, if Obama does stay to the bitter end....his Republican successor will pull a "Nixon '73" and pull out within weeks of Inauguration Day 2013, declare "peace with honor", and those same Right-wing critics will say "We won it!" under the exact same circumstances as pulling out in 2011 under Obama.

   No doubt in my mind.

   Posted by Mask at 11/04/2009 @ 09:08am

3. I just absolutely love it when dumb politicians, in the US I mean, who make their own bed comfortable in the short term, share said bed with new groupies, and when the party is over, realizes that it's still his bed and it's really, really, messy.....now, the bloodstains belong to him.

   Regardless what Magic does, he better do it soon! The man-child needs to grow some balls, fast!

   Posted by Happy at 11/04/2009 @ 10:02am

4. >>>Let's hope that Jarrett is reflecting inside-the-White-House discussions that center not on escalating the war, a la General McChrystal and his COIN cult, but on ending it.<<<

   I have ALWAYS said on these threads that Obama "wants" to withdraw from Afghanistan but that the "conditions" for such a withdrawal are simply not there yet to ensure that Afghanistan does not once again become a haven for terrorists.

   6 months sounds WAY too short, and seems to be the language of bargaining to get Karzai to move on a number of issues.

   I don't think anyone likes the election process there, but there are other more serious political issues that have to be solved outside of Kabul to make it safe for a US withdrawal.

   My best guess is January 1, 2013 for the conditions to be in place that would warrant withdrawal from Afghanistan.

   Posted by Metteyya at 11/04/2009 @ 10:56am

5. The Obamanation's and Demoncrats handling of foreign relations and diplomacy is an abject failure on all fronts as best illustrated by Afghanistan and Clintons failures in Pakistan! They have a perchant for alienating our allies and giving aid and comfort to our enemies and those who hate us for no reason.

   No doubt the Obamanation and Demoncrats are looking for any excuse to defund, cut, and run from Afghanistan as is the history of Demoncrat run war since WWII!

   Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 11:15am

6. Happy, Rio...will never even find a Rasmussen poll (theor only "good pollster")...

   that shows a majority of Americans want us to stay in Afghanistan "until we get victory".

   They'll complain, bitch, and scream "cut and run" all day....but cannot admit that they're in the minority.

   Posted by Mask at 11/04/2009 @ 12:34pm

7. No doubt the Obamanation and Demoncrats are looking for any excuse to defund, cut, and run from Afghanistan as is the history of Demoncrat run war since WWII! Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 11:15am

   Time to launder the drool rags.

   It's always someone else's fault, right Big? All the conservatives were patriots, all the liberals were traitors. Oh, I meant Demoncrats! Mask pegged you from the first post.

   Your Manichean view of the universe could use some tweaking, to put it mildly. The situation over there has been so complicated for so long that blaming someone else... in advance... is your idea of astute political commentary.

   Princess Sarah will kill them all when she gets in... yeah, that's right! Drop the nukes! Armageddon! I guess your reference to cut and run relating to WWII means... what? The Russians? East Germany? Enlighten us between beers.

   Quote: "There goes a man with an open mind... you can feel the breeze from here!"

   Posted by ficheye at 11/04/2009 @ 12:45pm

8. Dreyfuss:

   The London Times reports that Obama has given Karzai a six-month deadline, after which the United States will withdraw from Afghanistan. Here's the money quote, from an Afghan official close to Karzai:

   "If he doesn't meet the conditions within six months, Obama has told him America will pull out...."

   End quote.

   I'll believe it when I see it. That being said, there can be virtually no doubt that the linchpin around which the Obama presidency must save itself will center on the excruciating need for a dramatic drawdown of our overseas occupations. It's difficult to see that happening based on the sheer strength of our "defense" establishment.

   Chris Hedges latest Truthdig offering illustrates the stark raving madness that reigns supreme in Afghanistan these days.

   tinyurl.com/ygx8326

   Excerpt:

   "We need to tear the mask off of the fundamentalist warlords who after the tragedy of 9/11 replaced the Taliban," Malalai Joya, who was expelled from the Afghan parliament two years ago for denouncing government corruption and the Western occupation, told me during her visit to New York last week. "They used the mask of democracy to take power. They continue this deception. These warlords are mentally the same as the Taliban. The only change is physical. These warlords during the civil war in Afghanistan from 1992 to 1996 killed 65,000 innocent people. They have committed human rights violations, like the Taliban, against women and many others."

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/04/2009 @ 1:29pm

9. cont.

   "In eight years less than 2,000 Talib have been killed and more than 8,000 innocent civilians has been killed," she went on. "We believe that this is not war on terror. This is war on innocent civilians. Look at the massacres carried out by NATO forces in Afghanistan. Look what they did in May in the Farah province, where more than 150 civilians were killed, most of them women and children. They used white phosphorus and cluster bombs. There were 200 civilians on 9th of September killed in the Kunduz province, again most of them women and children...."

   End quote.

   I've previously posted this incredibly fascinating gem, "The Lost History of Helmand", from the British historical documentarian, Adam Curtis, as well:

   www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23777.htm

   But the reality that we should be heeding is a multilayered one, of course. It's as if we live in the center of an onion of thickening layers of conundrums and the only solution is to start at the center and work our way out, one layer at a time. Yes, Afghanistan is itself a virtually insoluble disaster. I wish we could do more for the average citizen of that forlorn place. Unfortunately, it is our very presence that is the proximate cause of the worst of that unspooling debacle that is threatening the stability of Pakistan as well.

   There is not enough time or space here to elaborate fully on all the pressures that are building on the US in particular from all of the poor choices that have been made, particularly in the last decade roughly (we must include Bill Clinton's oversight of the declawing of financial regulation).

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/04/2009 @ 1:29pm

10. Finally, last night's episode from Charlie Rose last night with the Harvard professor, Niall Ferguson, was another strong word of warning. Ferguson, who has gotten some well deserved exposure via his PBS shows on financial history, is saying what Rose and the vast majority of our establishment refuse to acknowledge. A perfect storm is brewing and the political reality in America is leaving us unable to properly address the coming catastophe.

    When Ferguson's conversation with Rose becomes available, I'll post a link.

    Peace, ~B

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/04/2009 @ 1:29pm

11. Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/04/2009 @ 1:29pm

    Warning of what, specifically?

    Posted by Mask at 11/04/2009 @ 1:36pm

12. Why would we want to be in Afghanistan ? We have had a failed policy there for 8 years. Is it going to be a "new" forward base for America? It has a corrupt President,a drug boss President's brother,and the Taliban are their allies. This is one of the worst foreign involvements in our nation's history. Maybe Cliff May and his fellow neo-cons can twist some arms to keep us there. Pakistan is another group of thieves that are our allies as long as we pay them. This area is a disaster for our country. But, we don't dare leave this mess and help our own economy out. What a concept.

    Posted by whatozz at 11/04/2009 @ 5:15pm

13. the history of Demoncrat run war since WWII!

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 11:15am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Who was President during the Paris Peace Talks of 1973?

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/04/2009 @ 7:41pm

14. Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/04/2009 @ 7:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    The guy busy bombing Hanoi and the enemy, whose Demoncrat controlled congress voted to defund, cut, and run from the war leaving the American servicemen hanging out to dry after JFK and LBJ killed off 58,000 Americans!

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 10:55pm

15. BP, Nixon was a mass murderer and a lunatic and a sociopath and a war criminal.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 12:19am

16. BP, Nixon was a mass murderer and a lunatic and a sociopath and a war criminal.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 12:19am

    He can't hear you... he's trying to get the wastebasket off of his head.

    What do you think he was referring to when he mentions cutting and running after WWII? Maybe he meant that WWII was 'the good war' and everyone cut and ran AFTER that. Guess that would work.

    Posted by ficheye at 11/05/2009 @ 02:04am

17. Posted by BigPasture at 11/04/2009 @ 10:55pm

    Anybody EVER thinks of buying into Rio's claim of "Not a Republican, I'm an independent"...just keep that response in mind.

    Nixon wasn't even that conservative, but he was GOP....and therefore Rio has to defend him.

    Notice? He couldn't even bring himself to use Nixon's NAME...just leaped to his "Demoncrats lost Vietnam by forcing 'that guy' to sign a peace treaty!"

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 07:34am

18. BP, Nixon was a mass murderer and a lunatic and a sociopath and a war criminal.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/05/2009 @ 12:19am | ignore this person | warn this person

    So I guess we know just what JFK and LBJ are since one started and the other finished the escalation of the killing of vietnamese and deaths of American Servicemen if that is what you call the guy attempting to clean up their mess!

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/05/2009 @ 07:39am

19. Notice how easy it is for the myopic self denying leftist to overlook JFK and LBJ the warmongers and mass murderers of the Demoncrat party! What fools!

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/05/2009 @ 07:41am

20. WITH OR WITHOUT KARZAI, U S WILL NEVER WIN THIS ILLEGAL WAR.IT IS GOING TO BE OBAMA'S VIETNAM.

    Posted by Dastu11 at 11/05/2009 @ 08:17am

21. Posted by Dastu11 at 11/05/2009 @ 08:17am | ignore this person | warn this person

    You LIE about the war being illegal, unless you totally disreguard the constitution of the U.S.A. and Presidential powers. Hard to believe after 9 years there is anyone still this stupid about our laws!

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/05/2009 @ 08:33am

22. Posted by BigPasture at 11/05/2009 @ 07:41am

    Notice how the "independent" can't even bring himself to criticize even Nixon, not even a "Reagan conservative" (EPA, OSHA, Clean Air Act)???

    Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 08:46am

23. WHY US ATTACKED AFGHANISTAN? IS ANY AFGHANI INVOLVED IN 9/11 ATTACKS? USA IS NOT THE COUNTRY IN THIS WORLD.IS THE IRAQ WAR WAS LEGAL?US SEARCHED EVEN THE MOUTH OF SADDAM IN SEARCH OF WMD.WHY THE US IS NOT WINNING THE AFGHAN WAR, EVEN AFTER 9 YEARS.IN THIS CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY IT'S NATO ALLIES ARE ALSO BECAME PARTNERS OF US.WORLD'S BEST ARMIES WITH THE BEST WEAPONS ARE IN DEEP TROUBLE THERE. WHAT A SHAME.

    Posted by Dastu11 at 11/05/2009 @ 08:48am

24. Dastu....WHY do you have to use all caps?

    Are you afraid nobody will pay attention to your rants if you don't?

    Cuz you're bucking for the Ignore Pile, if you don't tap that Caps Lock.

    Posted by Mask at 11/05/2009 @ 09:52am