Karzai visits Washington, nobody cares

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


With the warlords running around, that the government is not obeyed outside of Kabul, there's not really a country is it?

Afghanistan has never really been a functioning country, so it's going to be a while (if ever) before it's made into one now.

I am not so sure. At least under the Taliban, 95% of the country had law and order. Maybe it wasn't the kind of law you like, but law nevertheless.

So what's the difference? Yes, men were beaten for not wearing beards, women died of treatable medical conditions because they couldn't be examined by male doctors who weren't related to them, war widows were executed for prostitution, when it was the only way they had to make a living, since women were prohibited from working outside the home, etc. How is that superior "law" to the sort of thuggery of Dostum, et al?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
So what's the difference? Yes, men were beaten for not wearing beards, women died of treatable medical conditions because they couldn't be examined by male doctors who weren't related to them, war widows were executed for prostitution, when it was the only way they had to make a living, since women were prohibited from working outside the home, etc. How is that superior "law" to the sort of thuggery of Dostum, et al?

The difference is stability. Iran used to be extremist too, but it has been moderating. I reckon Afghanistan will follow a similar path.

But I don't think you believe that the US invaded Afghanistan because of their oppresive laws?

[MichaeltheGreat]

No, but I believe that when we do invade people, the lackeys we install should be more tolerable on average than the nasty bastards we happen to replace.

[DanS]

Actually, I understand that several Republican senators told him the same thing - that he couldn't sugarcoat things and ask for more aid money at the same time.

That created somewhat of a scandal. The Senate wanted to increase his stature by having a hearing with him being questioned--a rarity for a head of state. Instead of lobbing softballs like they should have done, they grilled him with some pretty tough questions for a couple of hours.

Oops.

[Sandman]

I saw a huge half hour piece which NPR did on him at the time. I have no idea where you got the idea he was ignored but it is obviously not a good source. As I recall there was some controversy during Karzai's visit because he asked for more money but several high ranking Democratic senitors told him he'd have to publicly admite that the Afghan state would be unable to proform its duties without more aid money.

Yes, shoddy source. But provocative threads tend to get more responses. Still, I'll be more careful next time. The main issue is the fate of Afghanistan, anyway.

I stopped reading after he called Karzai a "US puppet". Not worth my time...

Seriously, how is he not a puppet? I'll start by explaining why I think he is.

He depends almost entirely on US soldiers to protect him and to maintain his power.

He has no control outside of Kabul, with a tiny Afghan army and non-existant tax base.

There have been no elections in Afghanistan (granted there are difficulties doing this), so he does not answer to the people.

The countryside is controlled by warlords.

No, but I believe that when we do invade people, the lackeys we install should be more tolerable on average than the nasty bastards we happen to replace.

If it's on average, then you're allowed some leeway. Still, I would hardly consider Karzai installed as leader.

No-one's commented on the fact that Karzai used to be a consultant for Unacol, an oil company.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sandman
Seriously, how is he not a puppet? I'll start by explaining why I think he is.

He depends almost entirely on US soldiers to protect him and to maintain his power.

He has no control outside of Kabul, with a tiny Afghan army and non-existant tax base.

There have been no elections in Afghanistan (granted there are difficulties doing this), so he does not answer to the people.

The countryside is controlled by warlords.

Ok, here goes....

Since the Taleban were the only de facto cohesive military force in the country, and had Pakistani support, there's no way any current leader, interim or otherwise, could survive in power without foreign support. That is a problem that has to be resolved over time, but it is unavoidable - it wouldn't matter if it was Hekmatyar, because as soon as he "won", his current alliance of convenience with the Taleban would be over, and most Pashtun, along with all the northern ethnic groups, would never accept him.

To have control outside of Kabul, you need to have working transport infrastructure, a working government, a working army, and a sense of national identity. None of those conditions existed, and they take a long time to create, especially when you have a couple decades of warfare to undo - it's a lot worse than the "typical" third world ****hole.

Afghanistan has no history of elections, period, and no cultural concept of representative government. He was chosen by a Loya Jirga of Afghan tribal leaders from all over the country and all ethnic groups.

If it's on average, then you're allowed some leeway. Still, I would hardly consider Karzai installed as leader.

He's a placeholder, more or less, while Afghanistan hopefully gets turned into a functioning country.

No-one's commented on the fact that Karzai used to be a consultant for Unacol, an oil company.

It's Unocal, but it's also a non-issue. Karzai is one of those types of people any foreign company hires if it wants to do business in a particular country. Karzai isn't an oil man, and he's not somebody's boy - he's well connected all over Afghanistan, and has relationships with all sorts of people, so if you want to do business, you hire guys like him to tell you who's who, to provide introductions, to lobby for you, and to give your company a credible face.

He was approached to be interim President not because he was an oil company consultant - but for the same reason he was hired as an oil company consultant - his contacts and connections and favorable reputation with as large a meaningful segment of the Afghani tribal leaders as possible. In a social and cultural system that's based on blood ties and personal relationships, you need somebody like a Karzai to open doors that would never be open otherwise.

[Arrian]

To have control outside of Kabul, you need to have working transport infrastructure, a working government, a working army, and a sense of national identity. None of those conditions existed, and they take a long time to create, especially when you have a couple decades of warfare to undo - it's a lot worse than the "typical" third world ****hole.

Amen to that. The place is a disaster. Expecting it to magically transform into a functioning country in a year or two is unrealistic.

Not that I have a problem with people trying to keep Afganistan "on the radar" so-to-speak. That's a good thing. I don't know how long it's gonna take, but I would imagine Afganistan's (re)building will outlast Dubya and Dubya's successor too.

-Arrian

[Drake Tungsten]

Thanks for taking care of my light work for me, MtG.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Thanks for taking care of my light work for me, MtG.

ditto, nice post MtG

[monkspider]

Do you really not think he's a puppet MtG? Your post brought to light some info that I wasn't aware of, but it more or less backs up my impression that he is essentially a tentacle of American policy in the region. Perhaps not a puppet in the classical, textbook sense, but without question a de facto puppet. I find it interesting that some genuinely do not share this view, which I always thought was more or less was a given.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by monkspider
Do you really not think he's a puppet MtG? Your post brought to light some info that I wasn't aware of, but it more or less backs up my impression that he is essentially a tentacle of American policy in the region. Perhaps not a puppet in the classical, textbook sense, but without question a de facto puppet. I find it interesting that some genuinely do not share this view, which I always thought was more or less was a given.

If he is a puppet, what advantage would this present the US, and what disadvantage would this put Afghanistan in? Perhaps there is some perk for him being a puppet for the US that Im missing, but regardless, is that a bad thing? I cannot think of any negative thing that Karzai being a puppet for the US would bring upon that country... so who cares if he is a puppet or not, if everyone is better off for it? Just becasue one i a puppet, doesnt necessarily be a bad thing, like communism and empire arent necessarily bad things

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Kramerman


If he is a puppet, what advantage would this present the US, and what disadvantage would this put Afghanistan in? Perhaps there is some perk for him being a puppet for the US that Im missing, but regardless, is that a bad thing? I cannot think of any negative thing that Karzai being a puppet for the US would bring upon that country... so who cares if he is a puppet or not, if everyone is better off for it? Just becasue one i a puppet, doesnt necessarily be a bad thing, like communism and empire arent necessarily bad things

Well it would obviously give the US a more free hand in the region, which is preferrable given the nature of the current war. As far as it being a good or bad thing (in terms of benefiting the Afghan people), it's too difficult to really gauge at this point.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
To have control outside of Kabul, you need to have working transport infrastructure, a working government, a working army, and a sense of national identity.

All you need is an army, or rather, the only army in the country. Other things help, but are not mandatory.