Will He? Or Will He Not?
More to the point, should he - or should he not? Isn't it anyone's guess? After all, the military academics, the military professionals, the political pundits, the war-games enthusiasts, diplomats, and the administration executives, let alone the secret service agencies all have their opinions, and they collide and smash and crash against one another in a paroxysm of violent disagreement.Most of the focus is on the very real, openly revealed - for the obtuse, non-astute onlooker whom that fact that previously eluded - fact of the current administration of Afghanistan's utter and abject failure as a trustworthy, reliable, able and workable ally. President Hamid Karzai's own war-weary people no longer have any trust in his capability let alone willingness to lead the country responsibly into the future.
The level of corruption, in a society well acquainted with corruption as a way of life has transcended the lowest of expectations of its citizens. The recent level of electoral mismanagement and vote-rigging in its entirety made a complete shambles of United Nations, U.S. and NATO expectations to advance to another level of achievement in the country.
Yet an unapologetic Hamid Karzai chose to move forward, thumbing his nose at the rumblings of foreign governments by appointing his previous defence minister whose corruption was infamous, and whose maintenance of his own armed militia poked a finger in the collective eye of NATO, to be one of his two Vice-Presidents.
It has been stressed and reiterated to Mr. Karzai that is fundamentally incumbent on him to meet international expectations. Modest enough by most democratic countries' standards, after all.
To initiate needed internal reforms, and by so doing regain some of the lost trust of his own tired and dispirited countrymen. Without the presence of NATO and primarily U.S. troops, Hamid Karzai would be removed from office with his international props gone. On the other hand, the international community cannot afford to surrender the country to Islamist fanatics.
To do so would be to abandon both Afghanistan and Pakistan to the inevitable; the takeover of the region by fundamentalist jihadists. Who are most certainly resolved to expand Islamism, not only in the region, but wherever their violent jihadist tentacles reach. Covert operatives installed in the West awaiting opportunities to act need no further encouragement to wreak their version of the Apocalypse.
So who will President Barak Obama listen to and accede to? His vice-president? His chief of staff? His secretary of state? The current U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, formerly head of the U.S. military there, whose opinion now counteracts that of his successor? Tellingly, General Abdul Rashid Dostum, a central military leader in the Northern Alliance that ousted the Taliban in 2001 with the support of U.S. special forces warns: don't.
He points to the fact that Afghans themselves, the military and the police, are simply not holding their own, not exerting themselves, sitting back , content to allow NATO forces to do the heavy lifting. Because they are there, the international forces, doing the work that Afghan forces should be doing. "The Afghan military failure", he states, "is a question of commitment and morale: the more foreign money and troops the less Afghans see this war as theirs.
"In the past six years, I have not heard of one Afghan officer of captain or major rank killed in battle. During this same period hundreds of Americans and other NATO soldiers have been killed. This is a major embarrassment for the Afghan government and its people." Despite which, General Dostum believes a military victory is possible.
Rejecting the contention inherent in the argument put forward by British and U.S. strategists claiming to favour a political reconciliation with 'non-ideological' Taliban. As a sign of conciliating gratitude toward foreign and international aid, President Karzai reveals his personal opinion in a PBS interview, claiming the West is to be blamed for bringing corruption to Afghanistan by operating poorly-managed aid programs.
As far as he - speaking for his country - is concerned, the fault lies with Western troops in Afghanistan more concerned with their own countries' interests than that of Afghanistan's. Furthermore, if it transpires that the hundreds of foreign staff associated with the United Nations - evacuated in the aftermath of an attack where five were killed - do not return, it will be of little concern to Afghanistan.
Now in all of this tortured mess of cognition and recognition of the state of affairs, who has the inside track?
Labels: NATO, Political Realities, United States
posted by Pieface @ Friday, November 13, 2009
<< Home