• NOVEMBER 21, 2009
INTERVIEW PRINT  |   TEXT SIZE        |  EMAIL  |  SINGLE PAGE

Interview: Zalmay Khalilzad

The former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan speaks about Hamid Karzai, General McChrystal's report, and the Obama administration's mistakes.

BY BLAKE HOUNSHELL | SEPTEMBER 22, 2009

Zalmay Khalilzad, the former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan who now runs a private consulting business and is affiliated with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Monday that the Obama administration, and the Bush administration before it, had made "mistakes" in dealing with incumbent Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who is now facing widespread allegations of electoral fraud.

COMMENTS (4) SHARE:
Digg
 
Facebook
 
Reddit
 
Bookmark and Share More...

In a talk at the Foreign Policy Initiative's 2009 Forum on democracy, Khalilzad said he supported Gen. Stanley McChrystal's call for more U.S. troops in Afghanistan and said that "leaving and cutting our losses would be a huge victory for al Qaeda and the Taliban." Afghanistan, he said, would go back to the way it was before the September 11 attacks. He called instead for a counterinsurgency approach focused on protecting the Afghan people.

In a follow-up interview, I asked him if he thought, given how Karzai seems to have tilted away from the United States in recent years and allied himself with a number of unsavory characters such as Uzbek warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum, that the U.S. had made mistake in moving away from the Afghan leader, and whether the Obama administration had compounded that mistake.

"Karzai understands, I am sure, that he needs the United States," Khalilzad responded. "Afghanistan cannot succeed without the United States. I think that he would be making a mistake if he believed no matter what, the United States will be there forever."

But "we have made mistakes in dealing with him," he admitted. "So much so that now it looks like we have very limited ability to do even the things we think are right for his own country."

"I don't want to say anything I am saying as a partisan comment," he stressed. "We have one government at one time. But I believe that there was a mistake in terms of dealing with Karzai. Clear indications were given as least as Karzai saw it that the administration, some key members of the administration, did not like him and wanted to get rid of him and was encouraging others to run against him. And the meetings with him were quite contentious."

"At the same time the administration did not have a realistic plan about how to get another leader elected by the Afghan people. And so that in turn has been a factor in getting Karzai to hedge against the U.S. being administratively against him by assuring his prospects by making deals with others."

"I think that at the end of the day if he is reelected as president then the United States has no choice but to work with him as the leader of Afghanistan if we want to help Afghanistan succeed," Khalilzad said, "and I think that Karazi has no choice but to work with the United States because without the United States his country cannot succeed."

Asked about the growing concerns over Karzai's legitimacy, Khalilzad said, "I think that there is no question that the election has done damage." But he emphasized that the best way forward was to address the complaints of fraud, which are quite widespread, within the context of Afghan law and procedures.

"At the end of the day, if that council decides that Karzai has won," he said, referring to the independent Afghan commission that was set up to review election-related grievances, "I think that would bestow legitimacy in a fundamental way. If not, then there would be another round perhaps."

Could Karzai turn his government, which is widely described as corrupt and incapable of providing basic services to the Afghan people, into something more effective?

"I think he has got to do it if the international assistance is to be sustained," Khalilzad said. "This is sort of his last chance if he gets elected to be president."

Save over 50% when you subscribe to FP.

File Photo by Brent Stirton/Getty Images

 

Blake Hounshell is managing editor of Foreign Policy.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE: Facebook|Twitter|Digg
  • The Al Qaeda Diaries

  • Boring Summits Are Better for Everyone

  • D.C.'s New Game: Who's Paying Your Pundit?

  • Lowering the Bar: The ABA's Ties to Despots

 (4)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

EMRYS56

2:05 PM ET

September 23, 2009

Support who?

If the Karzai government is so corrupt, how can we support it? If, by supporting the Karzai government, we actually push the Afghans into the Taliban camp, then what is the point? The national Afghan army appears to be going no where -- so why are we even trying? What we likely need to do is find responsible local actors at all levels in Afghanistan and support them. If at some local level, the Afghan people see that we are serious about improving there lot, then maybe there is a small chance of success. Bur even this is fraught with difficult as even local actors need some element of security in order to operate. So how is that to be accomplished? Bribe local militias, as we attempted to do in Iraq? Do local militias exist in sufficient strength to oppose the Taliban? Of course, local militias will likely be backed by local warlords, so we end up supporting another despised element of Afghan society. I'm not confident that there is any good way forward. Show us how it will succeed, Mr. Khalilzad.

 

PG1923

2:09 PM ET

September 23, 2009

Karzai

Karzai may only serve as a way for Obama to get himself out of this mess. If LBJ was still around he would tell Obama to get out now, or he will never get out.

Obama must know by now that he made a mistake when he made this his war by sending more troops. It was a mistake because he didn't know that the kind of mission he wanted took a minimum of 150,000 troops, and even that wouldn't do the mission in less then ten years.

My guess is that Obama won't send more troops but he can't just get out. Of course he looks bad no matter what he does, but guess what he will look like two years from now and 100,000 more troops. This means that Congress can spend endless hours debating Obama's war. That's not good but at least he makes a decision that his people will like and one that delays the real decision.

This should all coincide with the Taliban doing something horrific, like a kidnapping, and putting the whole mess on the front page. It will just get worse in the short term as the Taliban ramp up their attacks before winter. Winter is not good for our boys or their equipment giving the Taliban a slight advantage in the current type of mission.

Blame it on Karzai and quit talking about more troops. What you have is what you got. Make a mission out of that. That will get Obama to springtime and nothing can be done until then anyway. We need to kill the real bad guys and figure out a way to live with the Taliban. Afghanistan is not a place for foreigners and that is not about to change. Isn't this the "Domino" thing again?

The question for Obama is, do you take the pain now or spread it out over the next four years? There are no good answers, just like there is no good way out.

 

KUNINO

11:24 PM ET

September 23, 2009

America's man in the first place

The ambassador's suggestion that things went wrong when the US government was dealing with the Karzai government is a gallant piece of misdirection. Mr Karzai initially stood for election against a former president of Afghanistan and a former king of the nation. Both mysteriously withdrew from the campaign leaving this man comparatively unknown to the Afghan people an easy winner.

Whether Washington paid his rivals to quit is still open to conjecture. Certainly, Washington supplied him with a 100% American bodyguard after he won office, somewhat reminiscent of what the British used to do with some of its puppet princelings in colonial nations. His main charms even at the time seemed to have been that he spoke English well, and had been a consultant for a US oil firm.

How these things qualified him to be the president of Afghanistan post-9/11 is something that only some US neocons could be expected to explain. How even Washington could ever have expected him to be a worthy president of his nation is also mysterious -- he presented a puppet image which more or less guaranteed that Afghans would see him as the tool of a foreign nation.

In any case, many of the franker reporters covering Afghanistan since 2002 have suggested a more accurate title for his position would be that he's mayor of the city of Kabul, and not necessarily all of that. Under these circumstances, any attempt to nail the misdoings of Mr Karzai and his government on whatever President Obama has done, is doing, will do about Afghanistan is pure nonsense. The rot set in even before Mr Karzai was first elected president, and was on florid display years before President Obama was elected..

 

MARXMARVELOUS

7:12 AM ET

October 5, 2009

clear

Kunino, nice to see someone on the planet is awake. You don't claim to have the answer but you appear to have seen the problem clearly.

 
TODAY | PAST WEEK

MOST
READ

MOST
COMMENTED

  1. The Terrorists Among Us
  2. Karzai's Cronies
  3. Planet Slum
  4. The Real Shock of Fort Hood
  5. Is There a Palin Doctrine?
TODAY | PAST WEEK

MOST
READ

MOST
COMMENTED

  1. Nobel Peace Prize Also-Rans
  2. Edward Burtynsky's Oil
  3. Think Again: God
  4. Bolivia's Lithium-Powered Future
  5. Planet Slum
TODAY | PAST WEEK

MOST
READ

MOST
COMMENTED

  1. Afghanistan Is Not Making Americans Safer
  2. The Real Shock of Fort Hood
  3. Is There a Palin Doctrine?
  4. Zardari in the Crosshairs
  5. The Terrorists Among Us
TODAY | PAST WEEK

MOST
READ

MOST
COMMENTED

  1. The President, the Professor, and the Wide Receiver
  2. The Real Shock of Fort Hood
  3. Is There a Palin Doctrine?
  4. The Only Hope Left?
  5. The Terrorists Among Us
  • NET EFFECT

    Why are people creating Facebook profiles for Holocaust victims?

    BY EVGENY MOROZOV

  • PASSPORT

    North Africa's escalating soccer war

    BY JOSHUA KEATING

  • ARGUMENT

    How the Chinese media covered Obama's visit

    BY WILLIAM MOSS

  • SMALL WARS

    The U.S. and Pakistan are heading for a bad breakup

    BY ROBERT HADDICK

  • DANIEL DREZNER

    Time's not-so-shocking Obamaland expose

  • BEST DEFENSE

    What would George Marshall think of today's generals?

    BY THOMAS E. RICKS

  • SHADOW GOVT.

    What does containing North Korea actually mean?

    BY JAMIE FLY

  • THE CABLE

    How the Chinese government censored Obama's visit

    BY JOSH ROGIN



  • 1. Aligning on Afghanistan? President Obama and PM Brown Turn Focus on Exit Strategy
  • 2. R.I.P.: Russia to Continue Ban on the Death Penalty
  • 3. All for One: Jailed Fatah Leader Implores Palestinian Unity
  • 4. Global Warming Time Out: Stagnating Temperatures Baffle Climate Experts
 See All Photo Essays
  • Planet slum: From Nairobi to Caracas, Mumbai, and Jakarta

  • Falling Like It's 1989

November/December 2009
  • Feature

    Revolution in a Box

  • Feature

    Plague, by Robin Cook

  • Opening Gambit

    My Plan to Overthrow the Mullahs

  •  See Entire Issue

     Preview Digital Edition

  • Why Sarah Palin is unlikely to be the future of the Republican Party.
  • What to drink on Thanksgiving: Napa cabernet.
  • How to score chicks on the Disney Channel.
  • Geithner Is Not Going Anywhere
  • GM Customers Give Back
  • Ron Paul Wins Lifelong Fight, Now May Be Forced To Vote Against Everything He Believes
  • What Would the Pilgrims Say About Tofu?
  • What Kobe, LeBron and Dwyane Owe Spencer Haywood
  • What Kobe, LeBron and Dwyane Owe Spencer Haywood

About FP: Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Corporate Programs | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP

Services: Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues

Subscribe to FP | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | RSS Feeds | Contact Us

FP Logo


1899 L Street NW, Suite 550 | Washington, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group, a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.