Ever sensitive to the sorrows of empire, the Washington Post informs us that a “Karzai rift prompts U.S. to reevaluate anti-corruption strategy in Afghanistan“:
Senior Obama administration officials have concluded they need to step back from promoting American-style law enforcement as the main means of fighting corruption in Afghanistan because of the rift it has caused with President Hamid Karzai.
__
President Obama’s top national security advisers, who will meet with him this week to discuss the problem, do not yet agree on the contours of a new approach, according to U.S. civilian and military officials involved in Afghanistan policy. But the officials said there is a growing consensus that key corruption cases against people in Karzai’s government should be resolved with face-saving compromises behind closed doors instead of public prosecutions.
[…] __
Relations between Karzai and the United States have nosedived since the arrest of one of his palace aides on bribery charges six weeks ago. The arrest – made by an Afghan anti-graft task force that has received extensive financing, training, equipment and intelligence support from the FBI and other U.S. law enforcement agencies – proved embarrassing for the Afghan leader. Karzai responded by ordering the aide released and instructing his Justice Ministry to impose new rules limiting international involvement in corruption investigations.
[…] __
[T]he change almost certainly will draw fire from some in the military and diplomatic corps who believe a strong public push against high-level graft is key to reducing the culture of impunity that pervades the country, as well as from some members of Congress who deem such efforts essential to securing support for $3.9 billion in additional reconstruction funds sought by the Obama administration…
__
Some officials, principally at the staff level, contend that government venality and incompetence is the principal reason Afghans are joining, supporting or tolerating the Taliban. Other administration and military officials, particularly those at senior levels, maintain that graft is just one of many factors – along with sanctuaries in Pakistan, historical tribal grievances and anger at the presence of foreign forces on Afghan soil – that fuel the conflict.
__
Compounding the challenge is that many Afghan officials who are regarded as corrupt also provide valuable assistance to U.S. forces, including sensitive intelligence. Some, including the palace aide, are on the CIA’s payroll – a fact not initially known to investigators working on the case.
__
“There’s been the schizophrenia that we haven’t been able to resolve,” the administration official said. “We want to fight corruption, but we also want to use these guys.”
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
Doesn’t this sound exactly like the problem Obama has with Republicans?
Ash Can
Afghanistan = tar baby
General Stuck
Ancient Asian customs, meets modern western crime fighting. LOL. Maybe the FBI should focus on corruption in the good ole US of A. Maybe start with Tricky Dick Cheney and his Frank Nitty, David Addington, and the treasury theft from war contracting.
And stop meddling in the politics of feudal states on the other side of the planet.
c u n d gulag
We’ve supported horribly corrupt regimes for well over half a century all around the world.
It’s just that usually we had the good sense not to keep 100,000+ troops there in an area we destabilized.
Get them out.
Then, Karzai’s just another tinpot Marcos or Shah brutalizing his people and trying to get as much money out of his country before the shit hits the fan and we have to provide asylum for them.
joe from Lowell
We’re not in Afghanistan to turn it into a shining city on a hill. We’re in Afghanistan to keep a pro-bin Laden government from taking over and letting al Qaeda set up shop.
I don’t give a crap if Afghanistan is governed with typically-Afghan levels of corruption.
Uloborus
My reaction to this is that there are officials in Obama’s administration who will say ANYTHING, because he likes a wide variety of viewpoints around him. Plus, the media is not afraid to make up anonymous sources if none actually come forward.
Obama will listen to all the sides and pick whatever decision he thinks is best. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s ‘Sure, give him what he wants because we’re leaving and won’t be there to argue about it’ or ‘Put the screws to him.’ I’ll have to see what he decides and then try to judge.
But I’m sure the media can find an administration official to say that Obama’s going to harvest the organs of American babies. Using those sources to predict his moves ahead of time has not been particularly successful.
bkny
if mr hopey changey goes after the afghans for corruption, then the administration will be forced to go after halliburton, kbr, blackwater, er, xe ….
nice cover.
Montysano
@joe from Lowell:
Yeah…. and the “plan” is pure Underwear Gnomes. When asked what would constitute victory, Gen. MaChrystal said “We’ll know it when we see it”. Welcome to the graveyard of empires.
Al Qaeda has no particular need to “set up shop” anywhere. We’re now doing their work for them, rending the fabric of our nation and squandering our treasure.
@Dogsdoingthings
Dogs admitting, “We want to fight corruption, but we’re corrupt.”
joe from Lowell
ORLY? Then why do I keep seeing anti-war types, including you, trumpeting the fact that there are now fewer than 100 al Qaeda operatives in there? Seems like the gnomes managed to pull this one off, although I trust that you’ll be happy to explain how the almost complete absence of al Qaeda in that country proves that we failed in our effort to drive them out.
This ‘graveyard of empires’ line makes me weep for our educational system. Apparently, nobody knows any history beyond the Cold War.
That’s not what they think. Bin Laden gave millions of dollars to the Sudanese to let him operate freely in their country, and then did the same with the Taliban.
Joseph Nobles
So now we’re going to get American-style “Look Forward, Not Backward” corruption resolutions?
Zifnab
@joe from Lowell:
Then you’re going to lose the long game.
You want a stable and successful Afghan regime. You don’t want riots in the streets and rebels in the night lashing out at corrupt officials that refuse to perform their functions.
Imagine going to the DMV and being turned away because you can’t afford a $50 fee plus a $30 bribe to get a driver’s license. Imagine getting sued repeatedly by the agent of a rival local business, and losing every case because the judge got paid off to help run you out of town. Imagine having cops rough up your family and friends or molest your mother / wife / daughter because – hey, who is going to stop them?
Corruption breeds dissent. And in Afghanistan, if you’re a dissenter, the Taliban are always right around the corner waiting to take your fealty.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
So can we call this debasing the COINage?
Zifnab
@joe from Lowell:
The purpose of the Al-Qaeda network is to drain the US Military until it collapses and requires us to shut down military bases – specifically in Saudi Arabia.
Bid Laden invested half a million dollars in a terrorist attack that has provoked a multi-trillion dollar response. The War on Terror has helped skyrocket the national debt and seriously drained our ability domestically to stem the current recession. Ultimately, the US will have to embrace budget cuts even in the treasured and hallowed US military.
Al-Qaeda doesn’t need to build sprawling training complexes and develop long-term partnerships. It just needs to pop up in Africa or Asia and wave a banner, then sit back and wait for a thousand troops and a billion US dollars to come rolling through to carpet bomb the area. If they’re really lucky, the American response will trigger a local backlash and pretty soon you’ll have troops permanently camped out in a backwater hell-hole avenging the death of the soldier that died killing the local that killed the soldier that killed the local for another five or six years.
joe from Lowell
Zifnab,
That would be wonderful, but when was the last time there was a stable, successful, honest Afghan regime? The term “Greco-Bactrian” is running through my mind right now.
It’s a feudal land without a history of a strong central government. It seems to me that any policy that requires such a thing to succeed is a bad bet.
GregB
Looking the other way at corrupt government figureheads in a nation that you are occupying. How anti-colonial.
Damn you Kenyan anti-colonialist Obama!
joe from Lowell
Once again, that’s not what they think. The actual people who lead al Qaeda and determine its strategy don’t agree with you. I think you’re looking at your own politics, and then trying to reverse-engineer those of al Qaeda from them, rather than looking at al Qaeda itself. You have a nice explanation, based on our national debt and spending levels, but it has nothing to do with how al Qaeda operates.
You don’t need to re-explain the obvious point that terrorists seek to provoke overreactions; not only does everyone already understand that, but it’s completely irrelevant to the question here.
The last time al Qaeda was able to operate openly, in partnership with a sovereign government, for several years, it led to the 9/11 attacks. Bin Laden has invested huge amounts of his own money and al Qaeda’s fundraising money to buying national partnerships. They clearly see such a resource as having value, and it’s not difficult to understand why.
Stillwater
“There’s been the schizophrenia that we haven’t been able to resolve,” the administration official said. “We want to fight corruption, but we also want to use these guys.”
I think what he really meant to say is that we can’t find any non-corrupt, pro-American individuals to promote to leadership positions, so we’re stuck with the ones we can buy off.
joe from Lowell
Zifnab,
Being able to operate openly and work in partnership with a sovereign state enhances al Qaeda’s capability to carry out the types of attacks that provoke the overreaction they’re looking for. It enhances their capabilities across the board.
srv
The Notional Security Staffs behavior in this conflict does not remind me of Vietnam in the slightest. And the schizophrenic military policy swings of counter terrorism versus COIN is certainly going to fix Afghanistan…
Not to mention making Pakistan, that country with the huge army that is the obsession of so many concern trolls here, so much more stable. Jesus Barack, just replace Hillary with Henry Kissinger already and start carpet bombing it.
Hey, I’ve been gone for a few weeks, does Iraq have a government yet? We can’t measure failure by when Alberto Gonzales doesn’t have a job anymore…
cyd
The wrangling between the US and the Karzai government is awfully similar to the wrangling between the US government and the Ngo Dinh Diem government during the 60s. I don’t think that turned out well. (Though, it must be said, the Taliban don’t seem to be as well organized as the NLF, and there doesn’t seem to be an Afghan analog of Ho Chi Minh.)
joe from Lowell
@srv:
“Notional Security Staff”
Has a typo ever won a thread before, or is this the first?
Stillwater
@srv: The Notional Security Staffs behavior in this conflict does not remind me of Vietnam in the slightest.
I was thinking the same thing. In fact, when I read the OP, Vietnam came to my mind precisely because of how unlike it is to what’s going on in Afghanistan. The lack of parallels is uncanny.
@Joe From Lowell: one additional remark to make, which you haven’t yet, is that while our efforts in Afghanistan are the right thing to do to secure American’s safety, we are also engaging in a selfless and noble effort to help Afghanis. A statement like that really completes the argument. Just put a QED after it.
JohnR
@joe from Lowell:
I’m confused – you mean somebody before the Cold War managed to subdue and dominate the Afghans? Hell, Alex the Great had trouble with them, and he put the screws to the toughest guys around with fewer problems.
Anyway, the traditional problem is that it’s the corrupt guys who are most eager to work with the outside power for wealth and status (until they get a better offer, anyway). The struggle between dour moralists and the “negotiable-virtue” crowd is a constant in human affairs, and in the end everybody dies (especially those of us in the middle).
Zifnab
@joe from Lowell:
I would absolutely agree. However, it’s the bet we made. We invaded because we wanted to exterminate Al-Qaeda from the region permanently. So we tried to turn Afghanistan into South Korea, or at least Vietnam. If we leave now (or ever) it’s likely to devolve back into a theocratic fascist state more than happy to turn over land as a safe haven for terrorists willing to pay kickbacks. So… basically, it’ll turn into Pakistan.
@joe from Lowell: Absolutely. But it’s not necessary to fulfill their mission statement.
El Cid
Why do US forces have to be in Afghanistan in more or less an occupation backing a government stretching to the limits of Kabul in order to prevent Al Qa’ida from operating in open areas with the support of areas of Afghanistan outside Kabul? Or even to incapacitate or destroy any government which begins to do so?
A number of military analysts don’t seem to think this is required.
joe from Lowell
@Stillwater:
I haven’t the foggiest notion why you think the bullshit you just wrote has anything whatsoever to do with me, except a sense that you are incapable of discussing political issues on any level beyond the mouthing of talking points.
Srsly, wtf? I write, We’re not in Afghanistan to turn it into a shining city on a hill…I don’t give a crap if Afghanistan is governed with typically-Afghan levels of corruption. and somehow, your little brain manages to conclude that we are also engaging in a selfless and noble effort to help Afghanis is just like the point I’m making?
Congratulations: you fail at literacy.
joe from Lowell
@JohnR: Hell, Alex the Great had trouble with them
He “had trouble with them” before successfully conquering the country and installing the Grecro-Bacrtrian rulers who successfully ruled the country. As you might have read about, his empire didn’t exactly end up in the graveyard.
Nor did the Brits’, even after all the trouble they had there. Nor did the Khans’. Other than the Soviets, it’s difficult to come up with even a single example to support the “graveyard of empires” thesis, as beloved as it has become.
joe from Lowell
Zifnab,
I don’t agree. The method by which we leave, and the efforts we make to achieve a political solution on our way out, can make a big difference. Also, Afghanistan was never a fascist state – I don’t like using that term loosely. It’s also worth remembering that the only reason the Taliban were able to consolidate a strong central government was the support they were receiving from a larger, stronger foreign patron, Pakistan.
So… basically, it’ll turn into Pakistan. Pakistan is at war with al Qaeda and the Taliban. They’ve sacrificed how many thousands of their troops to fighting them, and lost how many of their own people to al Qaeda and Taliban terrorist attacks? You’re describing Pakistan before Musharrif stepped down and the democratic government took over.
joe from Lowell
@Zifnab:
I disagree. I’ll note that it was only after years of operating openly in Afghanistan that they were able to pull off an attack large enough to goad us into an overreaction.
El Cid
@joe from Lowell:
Well, that, and the fact that the population preferred the Taliban to the endless civil war among the remaining gangster warlords from the war against the Russian-allied secular government.
El Cid
@joe from Lowell: That does not contradict what I said.
[Never mind- wrong quote.]
joe from Lowell
@El Cid:
I don’t think they do. People forget, there were only about 1000 Americans in Afghanistan when the Taliban fell. It was the Northern Alliance that drove them from power – we just provided support.
Bush didn’t impose an occupation to drive the Taliban from power and rout al Qaeda. Those things had already been accomplished. He did so because he has an imperialist mindset, and believes that seizing and controlling territory, imposing puppet states, and basing troops there is, in and of itself, a great boon to our security and interests. Of course, he’s wrong. Had we left shortly after the rout, leaving only supporting forces in the region (the sort of thing John Murtha was talking about for Iraq in 2006, or the Biden option that was discussed in 2009), there probably never would have been this major Taliban resurgence, since there would have been no occupation to rally resistance.
But, Bush did, and did so for seven years, so now there is a big Taliban resurgence that we have to knock back before leaving.
joe from Lowell
@El Cid:
Absent the support from the ISI, the Taliban would have been merely one more set of gangster warlords in the civil war. It was only their unusual strength, and the promise it provided of a convincing end to the fighting, that made them an attractive option.
joe from Lowell
@El Cid:
Yeah, I like to do that every so often. Just to keep you on your toes.
;-)
Stillwater
@joe from Lowell:
You’re just flat out bullshitting, Joe, spouting talking-point, state sanctioned propaganda, and I’m just calling you out on it – suggesting how you can circle the square with empty platitudes and appeals to noble US efforts to make the world a better place. We effectively destroyed a country for no discernible reason, and are now struggling to rebuild it according to moral and ethical principles. That you can seriously believe that our purpose there – now or initially – is to prevent state sanctioned safe haven to terrorists is ludicrous. Even at the time of the invasion it was well known that AQ was holed up in locations far from governmental control or influence.
You’ve just bought the whole line that all these wars, and all the resulting nation building, are really about keeping Americans safer. I was just helping you become a complete fool by reminding you of another obvious and self-evident principle: that the US has only the noblest and most selfless of intentions when trying to shape the world into our vision of the way it should be.
joe from Lowell
Yawn.
I hope that little screed made you feel better. I’d hate to think it was entirely pointless.
You’re just flat out bullshitting, Joe, spouting talking-point, state sanctioned propaganda
Or maybe there are people who actually don’t agree with you. Naaaaaaaaahhhh, you’re the only honest man in the world. Poor Diogenes, born before your time.
joe from Lowell
That you can seriously believe that our purpose there – now or initially – is to prevent state sanctioned safe haven to terrorists is ludicrous.
Uh, yeah, how ludicrous to think that the reason we went from utterly ignoring Afghanistan to invading it immediately after 9/11 had something to do with al Qaeda being based there. Why, that’s crazy talk!
It must be quite awkward to find oneself with incredibly strong feelings like that, to where you’re just gotta write something, but find yourself utterly incapable of formulating anything coherent, relevant, or convincing.
I wouldn’t know.
Stillwater
@joe from Lowell:
It’s comments like
how ludicrous to think that the reason we went from utterly ignoring Afghanistan to invading it immediately after 9/11 had something to do with al Qaeda being based there.
which shows why I don’t agree with you. The above quote is just another example of the earlier mentioned spouting and bullshitting. It’s a matter of public record that we claim to have invaded Afghanistan because they harbored AQ terror cells. But, and this is important, there was never any evidence that AQ was harbored by the Taliban or received any support from the Taliban. There was evidence that AQ was based in a region far removed from government reach. Remember, Cheney also tried unsuccessfully to argue after that fact that Hussein was harboring terrorists, as if that was sufficient condition for the use of military force to overthrow a sovereign government. (And furthermore, you’re just wrong that Afghanistan suddenly popped in the US Govs consiousness only after 9/11, another instance of a self-serving denial of evidence and the facts.)
The whole premise upon which you defend the continued American presence in Afghanistan strikes me as willfully delusional on your part: which is the mental state of people who parrot official propaganda.
JohnR
@joe from Lowell:
I concede the point – the Afghans are a very troublesome and obstreperous people, but they have never, even considering the Russians, managed to bring down an Empire. In that sense, the expression “graveyard of Empires” is an obvious exaggeration. The expenses to an outside invader of keeping the area relatively calm are the cost of doing Empire business, and are borne as long as there is profit in it (even if the profit is only strategic) and it can be afforded. I would think that “inside” Empires, like the Bactrian one, might be a slightly different case, but I bow to your superior understanding.
Brachiator
@El Cid:
I don’t know that US troops have to be in Afghanistan in order to check Al Qaeda. Some of our presence there seems to be stupid face saving. The US can’t be seen to lose against a supposedly inferior foe, since this will upset conservatives and those who believe in American exceptionalism.
But the US also fears that failure in Afghanistan will lead to a resurgent Taliban, that a Taliban dominated Afghanistan will lend support to Al Qaeda and to other terrorist groups and that a Taliban dominated Afghanistan will be, as it was before, the religious equivalent of the Khmer Rouge, relentlessly and murderously backwards.
Also, I don’t know why people keep trying to separate Afghanistan from Pakistan. The Pakistan government, specifically, their intelligence services, support the Taliban. So do the Saudis. And yet, both the Saudis and the Pakistan government are our allies.
Some posters here assume that if we leave Afghanistan, it will revert to a harmless and largely ineffectual feudal territory. This totally ignores other governments that have an interest in the region, and the ambitions of the Taliban.
Ultimately, maybe it doesn’t matter. I don’t particularly care that the present Afghanistan government is corrupt, but I do care that it is inept. It is pointless to attempt to prop up a regime that cannot sustain itself.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
I don’t understand why they make President Obama acquiesce to governmental corruption and extrajudicial rendition, torture and murder both here and abroad.
Corner Stone
@Uncle Clarence Thomas: This is like orange sherbet, with a little sprig of mint on the side.
Or maybe lime? I can’t decide.
Corner Stone
AQ is no more dangerous in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Somalia or Wazirastan or any number of forsaken locations.
9/11 wasn’t hatched because AQ was in Afghanistan.
Only a fool thinks we can effectively police every hotspot in the world.
Corner Stone
@JohnR: You’ve got it right. The longer we can shift wealth from the commons to private mercs the better.
But please don’t make the mistake of naming this an Empire killer. No, Lord no.
We’ll be just fine propping up a corrupt government the citizenry despises, as well as bribing Pakistan so we can kill 5 or 6 people at a time with drone strikes.
We can continue that indefinitely my friend.
Corner Stone
Shocked! Shocked I am!
But I’m sure some can propose a reasonable argument for us to continue.