Der Spiegel has interesting tidbit of Kerry's meeting w/ Karzai

[beachmom]

I swear I have read many accounts of Kerry's negotiations with Karzai, but never read it this way:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,657874,00.html

Sen. John Kerry, the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, recently got a taste of just how stubborn and undemocratic Karzai can be when he visited Kabul as a White House emissary. Kerry's job was to get Karzai to agree to the runoff election. It eventually happened, but not without a bit of arm-twisting. After chats over endless pots of tea that went nowhere, Kerry finally spelled things out to Karzai in less diplomatic terms: If Karzai said no to the runoff, the US was pulling out of Afghanistan. The threat did the trick. And the fact that the US praised Karzai as a great statesman for his decision was the most poisonous compliment the White House had uttered in quite some time.

In the end, all the Western governments -- including Germany's -- agreed to a dirty deal. Chancellor Angela Merkel even got so carried away as to publicly praise Karzai for merely following the most basic of the country's election laws. It's rare for a leading politician as careful as Merkel to come out in open support of a politician who has made it clear that, for him and his clan, democracy is just one annoying intermediate stop on the path to power. In his many speeches, he has also made a point of saying that the West doesn't want the second election to cause any commotion and that it wants him to be the "clear" winner.

There were hints of this in the U.S. press, but if true, maybe it would have been better if Kerry's diplomatic mission had failed. Then we could withdraw. Instead we are in this pergatory hell where Karzai moved one inch, and now we're stuck there, most likely sending more troops there.

I hope Kerry can start formulating a withdrawal plan following the next disastrous phase. I do not think a COIN strategy will work; nor do I think a counterterrorism strategy will work either, but it would at least mean less American casualties. I AM afraid of al Qaeda reconstituting in Afghanistan. That is my #1 fear. But I think no matter what we do, we cannot create a stable Afghanistan, and therefore, we will be at risk no matter what that AQ comes back and digs in. After all, with Kerry's plan, we are not going to be everywhere, so that means AQ could go to those areas.

The revelation about Karzai's brother and my subsequent research on him has convinced me that I cannot support any kind of escalation in Afghanistan. We do not have partners who will do their part. Perhaps a "pilot" program with locals (a la Tal Afar in Iraq) like Kerry laid out can be tried, but not some big new endeavor. It is not going to work. Karzai is simply not up to the task.

[beachmom]

1. Kerry's middle ground approach has been polled and is the most popular:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/parsing-the-nbcwsj-poll.html#more

On the biggest foreign policy question - Afghanistan - the most popular position (10,000 more troops and a civilian based surge in a geographically limited counter-insurgency) is also the one Obama seems to be leaning toward. But the public is persuadable on a range of options - including swift withdrawal of occupation forces, which commands a whopping 45 percent backing.

I guarantee that 45% number will go up in the next year. But it seems that Obama will be given the leeway by the public to do the Kerry approach. One last shot, if you will.

[karynnj]

2. I think the paper may have over stated what was was said

a little more ambiguously in the many US articles. Several spoke of the US needing a stable government for any policy to make sense.

I doubt Kerry said point blank, that if you don't have the election, we leave - as I don't think this was the US or UK position. The fact is that before Galbraith took a strong stand, The administration had conceded he would be President:

"Mrs Clinton told Rangin Dadfar Spanta, the Afghan Foreign Minister, that she and her Nato colleagues — including David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary — had reached a consensus that Mr Karzai would remain President even if investigations now under way cut his share of the first-round vote to below 50 per cent. The meeting took place last Friday but details emerged yesterday. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6853123.ece

There is still enormous pressure on Obama to give McChrystal what he asked for. The real threat may have been more along the lines of shifting just to counter terrorism - not protecting his government. I wish there were support to leave, but that doesn't exist yet. (http://pollingreport.com/afghan.htm ) These numbers look more pro-war than Iraq did as late as 2005.

[TayTay]

3. This actually makes more wiggle room

for action in Afghanistan. Deception lowers the bar of what we can do, after all.

[beachmom]

4. Christine Amanpour:

She articulates why I can't be "Anti-War"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/10/29/amanpour.afghanistan.pakistan/index.html

But the next time there is a major terrorist attack, in all likelihood it will have been generated by an organization somewhere near the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Again, people will ask: Why weren't our leaders and the media there to warn us of the dangers?

As a member of the media I believe that's our job: to report the facts.

[wisteria]

5. Exactly. She sums it up very well. I am definitely keeping this opinion piece handy.

Some people will never be convinced of anything other than pull out. But, sometimes wars are necessary to fight for our security concerns.

[fedupinBushcountry]

9. My husband always

told me, since he served for 20 years, that the military are more peacekeepers then warriors. As he said, war is a last resort, it is their main job to be humanitarions and keep the peace. It also takes awhile to bring our troops home it doesn't happen overnight and there will be some kind of military on the ground for quite a length of time, but not as warriors.

[wisteria]

6. Here is another perspective on our role in Afghanistan.

I don't agree with his assessment of Senator Kerry, but this writer makes some valid points about our role there and suggests we need help the Afghanistan people help themselves. This is something I know Senator Kerry has spoken about as part of making Afghanistan secure and a partner.




"Rather than sending more troops and more security guards to trot alongside the small army of "experts" now in the country, what needs to be done is to help the local population build schools, roads and bridges, and produce the textbooks needed to return to the moderate Pashtunwali – the local code of honor and behavior – that was stunted by the CIA's backing of the most fanatic elements of the community in its war against the Soviet Union.

No, General McChrystal, you don’t need more troops to win. The Afghan people need more schools, clean water, housing, medical help and electricity. Soldiers cannot do this job, only the people of that country can. Help them to defeat the Taliban, rather than be deluded into believing you can do the job yourself."


http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2009/10/29/ensuring_the_return_of_the_taliban/6577/

[beachmom]

7. Nicholas Kristoff in the NYT said about the same thing.

But there are three legs to the chair: security, development, and good governance. These folks can't ignore the security aspect.

[wisteria]

8. You're right! n/t