Barack Obama’s appalling habit of kicking his allies
So he flew 13 hours non-stop to Kabul to personally scold his host about not doing enough to tackle corruption in Afghanistan.
You will be forgiven for thinking that Barack Obama’s host, Hamid Karzai, didn’t have to worry about taliban types conducting brazen urban warfare right in the middle of Kabul city, or managing a tenuous web of relationships with warlords aligned against the Taliban. And you don’t have to condone corruption to understand that in a near-anarchic war-zone, with a barely visible state apparatus, the use of term ‘corruption’ itself is debatable. The fight in Afghanistan is about putting in place a state where it would make sense to use the word ‘corruption’ in the same manner as you would in Sweden or California, but for that to happen, one side—the desirable side—must prevail over the other, undesirable side. Until that time, it’s absurd to talk about anti-corruption.
What makes it worse is that President Obama, in the amateurish manner that has become his hallmark—witness the Netanyahu episode—chose to publicly undermine the credibility of the one person whose legitimacy is critical for the success of the US enterprise in Afghanistan. Lectures on tackling corruption need not have been released to the international media. Perhaps Mr Obama was playing to his home crowd. But then, it’s pretty easy to score points by kicking your ally in the groin. Pashtuns—and not just Mr Karzai—have long memories.
Mr Obama’s grandstanding is all the more ironic because, despite providing the funds, the United States is primarily responsible for the weakness of the Afghan government. By refusing to route funds through the Afghan government, not only did the Washington deprive the local government of capacity, it deprived it of legitimacy as well.
There is little on practical grounds to suggest that corruption is big enough an issue for Mr Obama to chastise Mr Karzai so publicly. What about principle, then? Well, if it is principle, it seems to be a very geography-specific type, constrained by the Durand Line. All that aid to Pakistan and no lectures on corruption at all? If Hamed Wardak’s NCL Holdings transports US military containers, so does Pakistani army’s NLC. If NCL finances shady types to ensure that the trucks reach their destination, so does the NLC. [See this post on how the racket works from Karachi to Khyber] Yet Mr Obama has not let it be known that he brought up the issue of corruption with President Asif Ali Zardari or General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani.
It is no secret that there is no love lost between Mr Obama and Mr Karzai (and there is none between Richard Holbrooke and Mr Karzai). But allowing personal chemistry to cloud an important relationship is a sign of political immaturity. Perhaps Mr Obama has decided that Mr Karzai is irrelevant to US policy in Afghanistan. If so, that would be an expensive mistake.
What’s absurd is your claim that it is easy to kick an ally in the groin. Netanyahu has the support of the entire Congress or so it is proclaimed by people in both parties. You have people calling essentially calling him anti-semitic. The easier thing would have been for him to condone the announcement of setttlement expansion or ignore it.
Rey de Vaqeueiros
Looks like US is back to the good old Dems ways. “Respecting” only thugs and bullies, and giving cold shoulder to “allies” and those who have common interests. What a policy. I’d take neocons any day over the current bunch of crooks.
FWIW Indian Americans in the US should vote Republican in the Congressional election. Jus to make sure Dems don’t get too adventurous with India and also it’s good for US!
But allowing personal chemistry to cloud an important relationship is a sign of political immaturity.
Right on.
Perhaps Mr Obama has decided that Mr Karzai is irrelevant to US policy in Afghanistan. If so, that would be an expensive mistake.
What Obama has decided is to do a phased cut and run – he does not have any patience with the AfPak corridor- frankly, no one would given the absolutely poor shape of the Afghan Army and more importantly its Police. And its going to be 9 year since 9.11.
Look at Iraq – what ever you may say about their political leaders, atleast their Army and Police have come to the point that they can police the country effectively enough and fight terrorists = Can any one say the same thing about AFghanistan?
Also,It is no secret that Obama thinks that Karzai’s re-election was heavily rigged – American press has been beating up on Karzai on this issue of corruption pretty heavily – of course, all this is silly but also serves as an exercise in rationale-finding to exit AfPak – ” these guys are so hopelessly corrupt, – we tried helping them but they are beyond help it is not worth spending any more American blood and treasure on this sordid mess after being there for a decade !!!”
It is pretty clear that the US now favors a Pakistani “solution” to the problem- all the events of the last two months point in that direction.
FWIW Indian Americans in the US should vote Republican in the Congressional election. Jus to make sure Dems don’t get too adventurous with India and also it’s good for US!
Indian Americans have traditionally been Democrats and have seen Republicans as any where between less than welcoming to downright racist. So that would be a pretty fantastic wish ,Arvi
Not to mention Obama is a rockstar among the Desis – the GOP is going to be out of favor with them for some time.
Nitin –
IMO this is the first naive post I have read on the Acorn in the last 5 years.
Obama and US military’s Afghanistan approach is through the lens of Iraq experience. While there is corruption in Iraq, top leaders like Allawi and Maliki are considered clean which gives them the moral authority to rule a country going through turbulence. US sorely lacks similar partners in Afghanistan.
And this is not because Karzai is forced into corruption. His own brother practices it brazenly. He rigged elections against what would be an easily defeated opponent. Yes this criticism should have been made in private first – you are assuming that it was not.
The reason this criticism is not extended to Pakistan is simply that United States does not exercise the same level of leverage in that country.
Finally getting to my biggest problem with your post. The Israel parallel is highly inappropriate. Obama’s biggest challenge at home and abroad has been a perception of being seen as weak. Friends and foes alike have delivered insults to him many times over.
Israel has been up there with the worst. For Netanyahu to openly lobby against the US president in Washington DC, deliver speeches that anchored his position far out from any compromise before even meeting Obama was nothing short of chutzpah. Either he had to pay for it or Obama had to look weak.
For every link you can find on people criticizing Obama, there are plenty who appreciate his show of muscle. Sample… 1 2 3
You seem to be overlooking one important fact – Karzai tried to rig the election. If he ran and won legitimately, Obama would have less reason to lecture him. Following so closely after the tainted election in Iran, Obama could not say that rigging an election in Iran is bad, but rigging an election in Afghanistan is OK. Karzai embarrassed his American benefactors, so he cannot start whining when those same benefactors demand better behavior. The U.S. is under no obligation to an open-ended military commitment in the region. Karzai may be a well-mannered crook, but he can’t be so stupid as to try and steal an election in broad daylight.
As far as Netanyahu goes, Obama extended far more courtesy to him that he deserved. Given that Israelis switch their PMs every 2 years or so, it does not make sense for America to get too attached to any one person.
Nitin –
Have the censorship standards gone up? Or are you becoming “competitively intolerant”?
Don’t see my 3-day old comment.
M
Agree with KXB above.
-Jai
I appears that people waxing eloquent about how “election fraud in Afghanisthan” has tainted the process in Afghanisthan are either reality-challenged or have some devious motives for making that claiom.
Consider the following: (a) Karzai is no overlording monarch with absolute control of Afghanisthan possessing the capability to run a clean election (by all reports he is boxed in a small region in afghanisthan) (b) holding elections repeatedly until the US is “satisfied of a pristine election process” does not mean that Afghanisthan will magically become governable after a “clean and lily white election”.
So the question is, why is the USA pretending that “if only” Karzai had run a clean election, Afghanisthan would be great shape now? Do these people selling this line even believe that themselves? If not, what is the agenda for trashing the only leader in Afghanisthan capable of bringing the Pashtuns together?
Furthermore, Indians are not idiots that they do not understand the series of “Balance of Power” games the USA is playing the region: Afghanisthan balancing Pakistan, Pakistan balancing India, and India balancing China. The USA’s “great game” in India’s neighbourhood needs to be be destroyed with extreme prejudice, not least because Pakistan is core part of the US’s asia strategy, which means that the USA’s core interest in the region is ensuring that Pakistan continues to possess nukes. This is an existential threat to India, and USA trumpeting itself as a nominal “strategic ally” of India serves only the USA, not India.
As for the US getting out of Af-Pak, I will believe it when that happens. There is no indication that the USA is about to leave their only foothold in Asia any time soon.
“So the question is, why is the USA pretending that “if only” Karzai had run a clean election, Afghanisthan would be great shape now? ”
No one suggested that. You’re putting up a strawman argument. A relatively clean election does not ensure 24 hr electricity, smooth roads, and peaceful neighborhoods. But, it does confer legitimacy. With Karzai caught, he lost that legitimacy, and put the U.S. at risk.
True, Obama does not care if Afghanistan is run by the Afghans, or Pakistanis, Indians, Iranians, etc. He does not have to. His only concern is making sure that the country is not used to launch another terrorist attack on the U.S.
If India is concerned about Afghanistan being used by the Pakistanis as a base of terrorist operations, it is up to India to devise an effective counter-strategy. If India wants to be treated as a rising power, it will have to handle its security like one, instead of looking to the West to solve its problems. It’s performance during the Mumbai attack does inspire much confidence.
KXB wrote:
“No one suggested that. You’re putting up a strawman argument.”
A strawman argument is when I make a claim and then beat it down myself. I was responding to your earlier claim that the election rigging was somehow relevant to the problem of stabilizing Af-Pak, because that is a load of twaddle.
You wrote earlier:
“Karzai tried to rig the election. If he ran and won legitimately, Obama would have less reason to lecture him. ”
This implies (a) If Karzai has not “tried to rig” the election, there would be better reason to support him. (b) This allegation of election-rigging is sufficient to destroy what little political stability that currently exists in Afghanisthan.
If the unstated assumption here is that the USA knows what’s good for the Afghans than the Afghan themselves…uh huh, sure, why not?
KXB wrote:
“If India is concerned about Afghanistan being used by the Pakistanis as a base of terrorist operations,,…blah blah”
No need to pretend that the USA is all concerned about Pakistan as a base against India when they are protecting a terrorist David Headley and his handlers in Pakistan. The USA has been aiding anti-India terrorism and now it has come out in the open, so stick to the topic of the USA and its problems with Karzai. Focus.
Hi,
What matters in the Afghan corruption issue is not what Barack Obama thinks, or what Indians think, but what the Afghans think. Since I haven’t seen any polls or articles addressing this issue, execpt for a few quotes from opposition leaders whose positions are predictable it doesn’t seem wise for me to take a position on this issue.
That said, the big problem is not whether Obama was rude to Karzai. After all Karzai is perfectly capable of being rude in return. The problem is, how much support does Karzai have in Afghaistan? If election fraud on the scale alleged occurred, Karzai’s support is pretty limited and the election fraud won’t help him expand it.
Also, it is possible that being in a fight with the Americans will increase support for Karzai in Afghanistan. The actions of the US forces in Afghanistan may have made the US some enemies. If Karzai is fighting Washington, maybe Afghans who are angry at the US will not conclude that their best option is to support the Taliban?
In short, yes Obama was rude. No, he probably shouldn’t have done what he did if he was trying to improve the situation in Afghanistan (it may have been just a gesture for the US public). But that doesn’t mean that Karzai’s popularity or lack thereof isn’t a serious problem. Also, it is not obvious that what Obama did reduces support for Karzai in Afghanistan.
Ray,
“If the unstated assumption here is that the USA knows what’s good for the Afghans than the Afghan themselves…uh huh, sure, why not?”
Obama, and the U.S. in general, is not arguing what is best for Afghanistan. Repetition is tiresome, but Obama really does not care about Afghanistan. But, Karzai rigging an election makes Obama’s job much more difficult. He is concerned about what is good for the USA – not a big surprise.
Should the U.S. have allowed India to interview David Headley? Yes – but that deal was reached with the U.S. Attorney’s office, not the White House. Keep in mind, the U.S. did warn India about a seaborne assault, which India ignored. Blaming America for Indian incompetence is a hobby that should be retired.
@KXB,
Your posts border on extreme naviete’ and are too simplistic to say the least – i do agree with you that it is the Indian Government’s responsibility to defend its citizens and that its response to 26/11 was nothing short of humilitating – of course the US behavior with David Headley is equally shameful, but let me not digress any more.
If you really think that Obama does not care about Afghanistan (quoting your own words), I have to ask you a question – what the hell are 100,000 US troops and allies doing in a region that their Commander in Chief does not give a damn about ? Are you some Rip Van Winkle character who slept through the last decade by some chance ?
9/11 happened when Taliban was in control of Afghanistan and gave safe refuge to Al Qaeda and its terrorist operations – ofcourse, the Taliban itself was a client state of Pakistan – the ISI created the Taliban, funded, trained and put them in power.
So your statement “Obama does not care if Afghanistan is run by the Afghans, or Pakistanis, Indians, Iranians, etc. He does not have to. His only concern is making sure that the country is not used to launch another terrorist attack on the U.S.” looks clumsy and rather callous – there ARE consequences as to who is in power in Afghanistan – if 9/11 does not give you a hint, nothing else can.
Do yourself a favor, pick up David Sanger’s book “Inheritance”, read the chapter on Pakistan and then reflect on the statement that you just made about Obama not caring about who rules Afghanistan.
It is also interesting that you bought up the sham Iranian elections and used it as an excuse for Obama not being able to look the other way with Karzai
For starters, Obama NEVER disputed the results of the Iranian election – he recognizes Ahmedinejad as the genuinely elected President of Iran – his only quibble was the way the Government treated the protest movement from the Opposition.
So, Obama already has made a decision to look the other way when it comes to Iran’s sham elections – so you cannot claim that as an excuse – even today Obama is READY to negotiate with Iran’s Govt on nukes IF the Iran Govt wants to do so, their sham elections and all, not withstanding.
How ever when it comes to Afghanistan Obama is using corruption as an EXCUSE, while he is really trying to do something that he thinks is in the best interests of the US – that is the point that Nitin is trying to make and the one that you cant seem to understand.
Also, Pakistan has literally walked away with billions of dollars of aid from the US in the name of fighting terrorism with very little accountability – we dont see the US not dealing with Pakistan for the sake of “corruption” do we ?
In short, stop using corruption as an excuse. and be frank – the US is now solidly pro-Pakistani when it comes to Afghanistan and is trying to get out of AfPak declaring that it has won and leave behind Pakistani military and ISI to handle Afghanistan like they did pre 9/11.
KXB writes:
“Blaming America for Indian incompetence is a hobby that should be retired.:”
America is being blamed for openly supporting Pakistani terrorism because that is a fact, so cut your whining that “Everyone is blaming poor old USA”, because the USA’s arming and funding of the Pakistani Army is a bigger reason for the continuing instability in Afghanisthan than any other group of people in Afghanisthan/Pakistan or Karzai’s alleged electoral fraud that is the focus of US attention.
If the USA supports terrorist groups and their mentors in the Pakistani Army, then it stands to reason that the USA is directly responsible for arming and funding an army and its associated terrorist groups who have openly stated their goal of keeping Af-Pak, India and the entire region destabilized.
Now consider that the USA has blamed anyone opposed to this destabilizing Pak Army as someone that is bad for Afghanisthan, as Gen McChrystal and other US figureheads have stated openly that Indian missions in Afghanisthan are a bigger problem in stabilizing Afghanisthan than anything the Pakistani army has done. Is this so-called “War on Terror” about stabilizing the region or destabilizing it?
As for “sea borne warnings given to India”, perhaps you should pull out a map and take a look at India’s coastline, and whether it is possible to put into place a system to monitor the coastline without sufficient time and resources, not to mention that security and Law and Order are state subjects under the Indian constitution. This means getting all the state-level leadership to assist in getting things done…if only India would send its armies to terrorize its own citizens like Pakistan, eh?
There is always the issue of “what should India continue to do to manage Pakistan’s terrorist problem, but Pakistani terrorism would not exist if the Pakistani Army was not flush with funds year after year to run terrorist camps even as Pakistan’s living indices continue to decline. Last I heard the Indian security agencies are working on deploying balloons fitted with remote-controlled cameras to monitor the Indian coastline, so perhaps it is time you cut your droning about Indian incompetence and focus on Pakistani Army’s global terrorist shenanigans and the Pakistani Army’s primary benefactor, the shining beacon on the hill of democracy, the USA.
It is pretty clear that this American “war on terror”‘s single-point focus is to leave Af-Pak under the control of the biggest bunch of terrorists on the planet, the Pakistani army.