Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama's Afghan trip may be too late

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
CHIMO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 06:59 PM
Original message
Obama's Afghan trip may be too late
President Obama's recent visit to Kabul was in tune with local traditions of hospitality: the guest arrived late and unannounced. But unlike his first visit, in 2008, Obama's departure this time did not leave behind a silence filled with hope. Instead, rumours began to circulate in a vain attempt to make sense of this unexpected nocturnal visit. The notion that President Karzai had been kept in the dark about the visit until a mere hour before Obama's arrival was particularly embarrassing, and was immediately dismissed by the government spokesman who reassured the public that they had three full days to prepare for Obama.

Be that as it may, the exact words exchanged at the meeting were not made public, leaving local media outlets with little choice but to interpret the visit in the absence of confirmed facts. A striking interpretation that emerged in the media and blogosphere linked Obama's visit to President Karzai's new, provocative foreign policy, which was on full display during his recent trips to Tehran and Beijing, – Washington's key rivals in the region. Karzai's visit to China resulted in the signing of three major trade and economic deals, putting Sino-Afghan relations on solid ground. His Nowruz visit to Tehran had little economic impact, but was loaded with the symbolic meaning of a shared culture and history, linking Kabul to Tehran.

Karzai's intention to forge new regional alliances in preference to relying solely on US patronage could not have been made more clear, but this change of heart is in part also a result of Washington's own policy. After all, in its eagerness to distance itself from Bush's legacy of "US leniency" in Afghanistan, the Obama administration repeatedly humiliated President Karzai, treating him like a disobedient schoolboy rather than the leader of a country. In theory, such pressure should have resulted in a more efficient, corruption-free administration in Kabul. In reality, the move has driven the Afghan leader straight into the arms of US's rivals in the region. President Karzai's critics in the media have labelled his new, provocative foreign policy "an act of adventurism, reeking of political immaturity," but the fact remains that by contrast to the US, regional powers such as India, China, and even Iran, are capable of delivering more efficient and less-costly reconstruction work in Afghanistan. More importantly, they can do so without the patronising democracy and reform sermons that recently accompanied US reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan.

Obama's visit may have been triggered by Washington's realisation that Kabul is in danger of slipping away from the US orbit of influence, and instead entering the sphere of influence occupied by US rivals. If this is true, then, the realisation is quite likely to have occurred too late. In the words of one newspaper, "there is little doubt that these days, Karzai is no longer a politician who measures himself against the benchmark of US priorities. He has gained sufficient political self-confidence to allow him to choose his government's direction by himself."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/mar/30/obama-belated-afghan-visit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rgbecker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. I say let the Chinese and Iranians have at it. Russia too for that matter.
We don't need to be there. Its miles away and no one in that country presents a threat to the USA any more than the state of Texas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walk away Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. In fact, I would say the state of Texas is quite a lot more dangerous at this point.
But what about Pakistan and that border? isn't that what this is all about anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
2. how dare that rascal Karzai make some sweeping deals with China -
Edited on Tue Mar-30-10 07:26 PM by truedelphi
That is not allowable under the Bush/Obama doctrine of war.

Remember those heady days proceeding the Iraq War shock and awe campaign? The San Francisco Chronicle ran a full paragraph detailing - in advance - exactly what targets our shock and awe campaign would render into rubble. The local telephone provider would be knocked out. The local Iraqi manufacturers and producers of everything from cement to toasters would be knocked out. And on and on, with a full listing of each category of commerce, and how it's destruction was at hand.

Then in a following paragraph the Chronicle let us know that we shouldn't worry about the citizens of Iraq - no indeedy. Motorola alraeady had in place contracts allowing it to become the new telephone carrier. And on and on. Ahead of time. For every industry that our bombs laid waste to, another American enterprise was set up to to go in and get its share of profits.

It will be such a shame if the same heart-warming startegy of American commerce cannot be carried out in Afghanistan because Karzai is willing to deal with other nations.<sarcasm meant>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beartracks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-10 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
3. Wasn't this, sort of, the goal?
"He has gained sufficient political self-confidence to allow him to choose his government's direction by himself."

Wasn't self-sufficiency and self-determination the goal of all those purple-stained fingers?

Although, associating with non-democracies could perhaps hamper the country's democratic aspirations...?

---------------------------
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jan 20th 2025, 04:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC