The US ambassador to Afghanistan has dramatically intervened in the debate about troop reinforcements, warning President Obama against committing tens of thousands of extra troops to the country.Karl Eikenberry, a retired army general who commanded US forces in Afghanistan from 2005-2007, detailed his concerns in two classified cables last week.
Yesterday President Obama questioned Mr Eikenberry about his views by video-link during a meeting of his White House war cabinet, as he continues his lengthy deliberations on the question of troop numbers for Afghanistan.
Mr Eikenberry's concerns reportedly focused on the behaviour of Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president recently re-elected for a five-year term in a poll tainted by allegations of systematic fraud. He is said to have questioned Mr Karzai's suitability as a long-term strategic partner, because of widespread corruption in his first administration and the presence of warlords and drugs smugglers in positions of influence.
The warnings are being seen by analysts as a shot across Mr Karzai's bows, as he puts together his government before he is inaugurated for his second term on November 19.
The timing and content of Mr Eikenberry's intervention has reportedly infuriated General Stanley McChrystal, the Nato and US commander in Afghanistan, who had asked for an extra 40,000 troops to avert a looming military defeat.
Note that Amb. Eikenberry is a retired general -- in fact, the general who used to run our Afghan operation -- not a State Department desk jockey. What he seems to be saying here is that our troops are fighting and dying for a worthless government, and that's a waste.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
The people in Afghanistan recognized them as such.
"detailed his concerns in two classified cables last week."
Last week it was classified and today it is on a BLOG! Good grief!
AML
At least it took a week! ;)
Khan may have some good ideas. Or, a deal with the Taliban to isolate al Qaeda may be possible. When we first went into Afghanistan, not only were we in hot pursuit of people who actually attacked us on our own soil, but we had a ready made alliance on the ground with local people who knew the territory and had connections to turn various tribal leaderships, not to mention thirty years of military experience. Nobody is too clear on where the "Northern Alliance" vanished to, but Hamid Karzai is not worth one American life. On the other hand, if we leave, and al Qaeda becomes a little bolder, there will be a chorus from the Republicans that we cut and ran. Right now, they are free to ask why we are there. Which is a good question. I'm encouraged that Obama is taking his time. He needs to handle this very carefully. Hillary would have plunged in by now, as would McCain.
Joel
1) The Taliban was not the legitimate government of Afghanistan pre 9/11. Only two countries in the world (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) had diplomatic relations with the Taliban. Everyone else in the world ignored that country, believing that it had no legitimate government (like Somalia today).
Not having diplomatic relations with a country does not mean it is it not a legitimate government.
Governments have to a) be the sole provider of force in their territory, and b) call themselves a government.
That is it. If they do that, they are the government. Or at least the government of the area of in 'a'.
Please note, under this logic, the Taliban is currently the government of Afghanistan, as they control most of the territory.
Groups are a 'legitimate' government if either they rise to power via a 'legitimate' means, has popular support, or have been there long enough that they appear semi-permanent.
The Taliban was a nationwide attempt to seize power from warlords, which is generally considered a legitimate way for a government to start. It had popular support.
Not recognizing it doesn't make it 'illegitimate'. That just means we don't like it.
2) Al Qaeda did pay the Taliban for protecting them. That's what most of AQ's budget went towards. (The 9/11 plot actually cost less than $100k.) The Taliban has never concerned itself with the doings of the outside world, and agreed to protect AQ only because they saw the arrangement as a source of (badly needed) income.
Erm, I'd like some evidence of this. At all.
The same money that helped set up Al Qaeda's money helped set up the Taliban. Namely, the CIA's money.
But once set up, Pakistan was the Taliban's main sponsor.
By the time bin Laden ended up back in Afghanistan (He'd been there before the Taliban, happily helping fight off the USSR.), he was almost entirely broke and hence unable to fund anything.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.