Posted on 05/06/2009 4:39:12 PM PDT by nickcarraway
In a strange reversal of fortunes, the United States on Wednesday appears to be distancing itself from Afghan President Hamid Karzai while expressing unflinching support to his Pakistani counterpart Asif Ali Zardari. ‘Today … skepticism drives the (Obama) administration's evolving policy toward Afghanistan and the battle against Taliban insurgents, a conflict whose outcome will in part define Barack Obama's presidency,’ says the Washington Post.
On Tuesday, US special envoy Richard Holbrooke told a congressional panel that the United States had ‘the highest strategic interests’ in supporting the Zardari government.
The US media reported that senior members of President Obama's national security team say Karzai has not done enough to address the grave challenges facing his nation. They deem him to be a ‘mercurial and vacillating chieftain’ who has tolerated corruption and failed to project his authority beyond the gates of Kabul.
Underlining America’s dilemma in dealing with the Afghan president, the Post notes that while the Americans distrust Mr Zardari, ‘the consensus view among State Department, Pentagon and CIA officials is that he almost certainly will win reelection to another five-year term this August.’
The new US strategy ‘takes Mr Karzai to task for not meeting even the most basic Afghan expectations,’ the report adds. ‘The implication is clear: Karzai is not our man in this upcoming election.’
Although the administration says it will make no endorsement in the Afghan elections, Ambassador Holbrooke has made little secret in diplomatic circles of his desire to see candidates challenge Mr Karzai.
Chief among them is former finance minister Ashraf Ghani, who has a doctorate from Columbia University and has worked at the World Bank. But Mr Ghani and others do not appear to have the support needed to trump Mr Karzai, who has installed governors and sub-governors who can help his get-out-the-vote efforts.
To deal with this situation, Mr Obama's advisers have crafted a two-pronged strategy: maintaining an arm's-length relationship with Mr Karzai while seeking to bypass Mr Karzai by working more closely with other members of his cabinet and by funneling more money to local governors.
Given the likelihood of a Karzai victory, the US administration is seeking to increase its engagement with local and tribal leaders —not to persuade them to forsake Mr Karzai but to get them to be more effective administrators.
The Post reports that earlier this spring, the Obama administration rebuffed Mr Karzai's request for a bilateral visit to Washington, telling him he could come only as part of this week's tripartite summit with President Zardari.
In a discussion at the Brookings Institution on Tuesday, Mr Karzai acknowledged ‘bumps and ups and downs’ in his relationship with the United States, but he insisted that ‘the fundamentals are strong and steady.’
The traits that made Karzai so appealing to the Bush administration are what the Obama administration now regards as his chief weaknesses.
‘What are now considered his flaws are the obverse of what had been considered his assets,’ said James Dobbins, the Bush's administration first special envoy for Afghanistan. ‘We were drawn to him, in part, because . . . he was not the sort of person who would force issues or take positions that would antagonize factions.’
In November 2003, the Bush administration dispatched Zalmay Khalilzad as ambassador to Kabul. This further weakened Mr Karzai. Mr Khalilzad was given the role of the country's chief executive —with Mr Karzai as the figurehead chairman —for the 19 months of his ambassadorship.
The Post reported that former US President George W. Bush’s frequent contacts – sometimes once a week – and the content of his videoconferences also weakened Mr Zardari.
‘The president of the United States had become the case officer for Afghanistan,’ said a senior Obama foreign policy adviser. ‘It was a profound misjudgment of how to handle the situation.’
Does anyone else get the impression our foreign policy is decided by flipping coins?
I doubt its that sophisticated.
I wonder how many ACORN sneakers are on the ground over there to help insure a "fair" election.
I’m guessing the feeling is kinda mutual.
It is worse than that. Much worse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.