How Obama Lost Karzai

The road out of Afghanistan runs through two presidents who just don't get along.

BY AHMED RASHID | MARCH/APRIL 2011

Friction between Karzai and Obama's team first came to a head during Afghanistan's 2009 presidential election. In the lead-up to the August vote, Karzai was convinced by his advisors that Richard Holbrooke, Obama's special envoy, was trying to get rid of him by encouraging other candidates, such as Northern Alliance leader Abdullah Abdullah and former Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani, to stand against him. The presidential palace buzzed with rumors that the CIA and Britain's MI6 had lined up massive resources to unseat Karzai.

In fact, Holbrooke was leading the charge in Washington to convince the administration and Congress to commit more resources to Afghanistan and Pakistan, but his good intentions did not seem to convince Karzai. When the election results were disputed amid claims of vote-rigging, Holbrooke intervened to try to salvage the results, asking Karzai to stand for a second round of polling. But the move seemed to confirm the worst suspicions of Karzai's aides about Holbrooke. It was left to Sen. John Kerry, rather than a member of Obama's own team, to smooth over the relations. Even today, Karzai still refuses to accept that the election was flawed, and he still thinks that the Americans were trying to unseat him. Months later, Karzai's senior aides told me repeatedly that they still believed the United States wanted Karzai to lose.

The botched election -- which cost some $150 million and two U.N. officials their careers -- and Karzai's worsening paranoia became a catalyst for the Obama administration's internal debates over its Afghanistan policy, which was subjected to a detailed review in the fall of 2009. Civilian officials, most notably Biden and Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, were unnerved by Karzai's mercurial behavior and a resurgent Taliban. They fought for scaling back the U.S. investment in a conflict that no longer seemed to have much prospect for success.

Karzai was "not an adequate strategic partner," Eikenberry wrote in a Nov. 6, 2009, cable to Washington later leaked to the New York Times, adding that the president and his advisors "assume we covet their territory for a never-ending 'war on terror' and for military bases to use against surrounding powers." Karzai and his aides, in turn, were furious that they were never asked to be full partners in Washington's policy review. Once again, they thought, the Americans were making decisions about Afghanistan without consulting the Afghans. When Obama declared in December 2009 that U.S. troops would start pulling out of Afghanistan by July 2011, Karzai -- who had not been consulted in the matter before the speech -- was shocked.

On the other side of the debate from Eikenberry was counterinsurgency guru Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, who reportedly wanted to double down on the war with a surge of as many as 50,000 troops. Karzai's aides told me they trusted McChrystal; the general seemed to truly understand the Afghan leader, deferring to him in decision-making and treating Afghan criticism of U.S. military tactics with respect and thoughtfulness rather than rejecting it out of hand.

When I met with McChrystal in Islamabad in early 2010, I was taken aback by his understanding of the Afghan environment. That this austere former special-operations commander understood how to demonstrate his respect for Afghan dignity and sense of sovereignty while still largely getting his own way was a revelation. Early on, McChrystal persuaded Karzai to travel around the country with him in an effort to enhance both U.S. and Afghan government prestige. The enduring picture of McChrystal in Afghan eyes is of the most powerful U.S. military officer in the country humbly sitting cross-legged on a carpet at Karzai's feet while Karzai addressed tribal elders. When McChrystal was forced to resign in June over his comments about top U.S. civilian officials in a Rolling Stone article, Karzai begged the White House not to sack him.

But it is Eikenberry who remains in office, though he has never quite recovered from the leak of his cable; it has damaged not only his own standing in Kabul, but also that of the State Department. More than a year later, some of Karzai's aides still can quote verbatim from the memo.

MARVIN JOSEPH/The Washington Post

 

Ahmed Rashid is the author of Descent into Chaos and a recently updated edition of Taliban.

SABBADOO32

8:37 PM ET

February 21, 2011

Lost Karzai

How much money has been squandered in Afghanistan? Granted, the previous administration lost focus on the country in order to prosecute Iraq; but in the meantime any efforts to reign in the corruption weren't taken seriously at either end of the relationship.

Toss in a fixed election, and anyone can understand the feeling that we need to get out sooner than later. Obama didn't lose Karzai. Karzai lost himself. Obama is the guy that wants to cut the US Federal Reserve ATM card in two.

 

BINKIS

2:00 PM ET

February 22, 2011

Karzai

Karzai and his brothers were always GHW Bushes toadies...President Obama never had him to lose...It is always the money with Karzai..You should see what is happening in Kabul now!

Once a crook always a crook!

 

MARTY MARTEL

10:22 AM ET

February 22, 2011

U. S. mollycoddles Pakistan at the expense of Afghanistan

Karzai’s problem is that US is less serious about stopping Taliban to come to power in Afghanistan than it is about stopping Taliban allies coming to power in Pakistan.

Bush neglected Afghanistan to wage his needless war in Iraq.

US Afghan mission was doomed the day Bush administration allowed Musharraf to spirit away by airlift hundreds, if not thousands, of Taliban operatives cornered by the advancing Northern Alliance in Kunduz in November, 2001. Pakistan relocated those Taliban cadres including Mullah Mohammed Omar in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan and Haqqani network (HQN) in North Waziristan from where Mullah Omar’s QST and Haqqani’s HQN have been planning raids in Afghanistan ever since.

US has been deliberately ignoring Taliban’s Pakistani connections in fueling and sustaining Afghan insurgency as reported by Matt Waldman in ‘The sun in the sky‘ on 6/13/2010, corroborated by WikiLeaks leaks on 7/25/2010 and then further corroborated by Chris Alexander, Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005 and Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Afghanistan from 2005 until 2009 in his article on 7/30/2010 titled ‘The huge scale of Pakistan‘s complicity‘.

As Karzai told a news conference in Kabul on 7/29/2010 after WikiLeaks leaks, “The time has come for our international allies to know that the war against terrorism is not in Afghanistan’s homes and villages. But rather this war is in the sanctuaries, funding centers and training places of terrorism which are in Pakistan. Our international allies have the ability to destroy these Pakistani sanctuaries, but the question is why they are not doing it?“

Even Afghanistan’s national security advisor Rangin Dadfar Spanta has asked a similar question in a Washington Post article on 8/23/2010: “While we are losing dozens of men and women to terrorist attacks every day, the terrorists’ main mentor (Pakistan) continues to receive billions of dollars in aid and assistance. How is this fundamental contradiction justified? Despite facing a growing domestic terror threat, Pakistan “continues to provide sanctuary and support to the Quetta Shura, the Haqqani network, the Hekmatyar group and Al Qaeda. Dismantling the terrorist infrastructure “requires confronting the state of Pakistan that still sees terrorism as a strategic asset and foreign policy tool”.

 

MARTYWAKE

12:44 PM ET

February 22, 2011

Well Said

Well said sir. Well said

 

CHUCK VEKERT

11:17 AM ET

February 23, 2011

Reverse of Usual Criticism of Obama

On the left Obama is generally criticized for being too willing to compromise and do deals with the Republican right wing. It is said that he caved on too many aspects of health care reform and the stimulus package for example.

So it seems strange that this author is criticizing him for being aloof and unwilling to try to find common ground with Karzai. Karzai visited Obama in the White house so there must have been some effort at least in the beginning. Perhaps it just comes down to the fact that both sides have good and valid reason to distrust the other. Or perhaps Obama, even if willing to compromise even to the extent of giving away the store, is just too cool emotionally to connect with Karzai. Bush was better with the warm and fuzzies--you got to give him that much.

It does not say much for Karzai that he was happy with Bush because of their personal relationship even though Bush was not much besides honeyed words. Our next ambassador should be more skilled in the hypocritical art of flattery.

 

CHAMSTICKS

7:15 PM ET

February 24, 2011

budget crisis

how we can afford this 10-year-long war against an adversary that was never a threat to us is beyond my comprehension.

each day it further drags out is an embarrassment to these keepers of the public purse

 

PEOTRE

12:08 PM ET

February 25, 2011

Full circle

"But talking to the Taliban is perhaps the only option now that can put them back on the same track as Karzai -- and that is the only road that leads out of this conflict." I'm delighted to think that we could cut a deal with the Taliban. After all, when they offered to give us Bin Laden under certain conditions, such as show that he had something to do with "9-11" (we would have liked to have seen the evidence too), they were rewarded with an invasion. My question is this: why did we go into the Middle East? What was this intervention really about? We know it wasn't about Bin Laden, and that plans were on the drawing board for invasions well before 9-11. Americans would love to receive a convincing answer to this very simple question. We will not get it from the government that represents us, but perhaps some of the astute readers of Foreign Policy would venture an opinion. No silly propaganda please.

 

NICHOLAS WIBBERLEY

6:20 PM ET

February 25, 2011

I'll try

I do not consider myself particularly astute, but:

Suppose the US achieves agreement for leaving permanent bases in Afghanistan, that is bases a spitting distance from China, Pakistan, and Iran, not to mention Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, would that not seem to justify .the efforts?

Google “permanent bases in afghanistan” and you will find much about this notion, which seems first to have been floated somewhat hypothetically by Sen. Lindsey Graham on CNN last December.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/lindsey-graham-suggests-permanent-bases-in-afghanistan-to-a-startled-eliot-spitzer/

but a week of so ago Karzai confirmed that the US has now put it forward formally.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/feb2011/afgh-f11.shtml

How long may this have been on the back boiler?

 

PEOTRE

7:36 PM ET

February 26, 2011

Thanks

Nicholas, sounds like a piece of the puzzle.

 

POPGIRL1987

7:52 PM ET

February 26, 2011

democratic solutions

Obama is an intelligent statesman. people hope wins.

Kombi Servisi

 

JAGUAR6CY

12:07 PM ET

March 10, 2011

Obama's only goal is "Anti Colonialism"

Obama's only policy is "Anti Colonialism" and, in his view, America is the enemy of the world. His policies are founded on three main goals. He wants to end American influence in the world, expand domestic government control and increase deficits that will impoverish the country for the next 100 years. He is not a liberal, he is far more than that. He wants to create a smaller, poorer and weaker nation. Did you vote for that? Many did. It is urgent to "vote him out". Unless of course you agree with his goals and his methods to achieve them.

 

ODYSSEY8

5:53 PM ET

March 10, 2011

Never get involved in a land war in Asia!

" Last fall he reportedly told top U.S. officials that of the three "main enemies" he faced -- the United States, the international community, and the Taliban -- he would side first with the Taliban".

I'm sorry, but aren't the Taliban supposed to be the same organization that killed Mr. Karzai's own father? Aren't the Taliban supposed to be the religious extremists that had a reign of terror over the people of Afghanistan for years until U.S. forces entered the country? Aren't the Taliban supposed to be "the enemy" in this war that U.S. soldiers have fought, bled and died fighting against?

It seems the old adage has been proved true yet again: Never get involved in a land war in Asia!

 

FAMULLA

3:14 AM ET

March 16, 2011

Never get involved in a land war in Asia

I agree to this Osama is never seen yet we see him posting the videos that scare us more. We need the hashish and the dope yet we deny we need these. We need oil but we are not prepared to drill this in USA and UK. We are known as the new land yet we act primitive I thank you Firozali A.Mulla Not Mullah I am from Africa

 

FAMULLA

3:11 AM ET

March 16, 2011

How Obama Lost Karzai

The Crisis In The Middle East Is Wreaking Havoc On Oil, Pushing Prices To Over $100 A Barrel! 2 Months from Now, American Oil May Be Our Only Option. Buy LBYE Now and Lock In
Your Explosive Profits Today!
Fellow Investor,
As we speak, the current conflicts in Egypt, Libya and Bahrain are spreading like wildfire, reshaping the world as we know it...
Riots and protests are ramping up throughout the Middle East, rumours are swirling that Iran and Saudi Arabia could be next and it's wreaking havoc across the global markets...
Pushing oil to over $100 a barrel for the first time since 2008.
Even more alarming, is the fact that this price spike could be just the beginning, because when this civil unrest hits Iran and Saudi Arabia, oil shipments could come to a screeching halt as the Straight of Hormuz and the Suez Canal are locked down, leaving the rest of the world stranded and dry.
This turn of events could make $100 a barrel oil look like chump change as prices soar through roof on the way to $400 by the time all is said and done...
And leaving American oil companies one of the last and only choices the crude dependent countries of the world can turn to.
A shocking statement, I know...
But luckily for us, we have advanced knowledge of the direction that this commodity juggernaut looks to be taking.
However, this may be our last chance to bank enormous gains as oil shoots to $150, $200 or even $400 a barrel. Oil will never go above 150$ but there are the ones who press the panic button.
If you're not already holding oil stocks, there has never been a better time than now to do so...
But even if you are - you could always use more - especially if that company has massive upside potential that we all look for as investors.
And that potential lies with Liberty Energy (LBYE).
Because not only does LBYE have the right pieces in play to profit in the future, but they're also ready to help you profit now as they bring more and more of their active wells online.
I'll get into this company's amazing story in my hot off the press special report, but first, I want you to realize that...While there are crises in the Middle East, Bahrain, Libya, Egypt, we still have fanatics at this time to cash on giving us the unpredicted garbage that we never wasn’t to see. At times I think reporters are making so much dean that they want us to get rich quick and fall faster later.
Contradistinguish
PRONUNCIATION:
(kon-truh-di-STING-gwish)
MEANING:
Verb tr.: To distinguish (one thing from another) by contrasting qualities.
ETYMOLOGY:
From Latin contra- (against) + distinguish, from Middle/Old French distinguer, from Latin distinguere (to pick or separate). Ultimately from the Indo-European root steig- (to stick; pointed), which is also the source of ticket, etiquette, instinct, stigma, thistle, tiger, and steak. Earliest documented use: 1622.
USAGE:
"Avni successfully contradistinguished the character of Menachem from the other men in uniform he has played."
Dan Williams; Aki Avni's Stellar Sincerity; the Jerusalem Post (Israel); Nov 29, 2000.
A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
There is nothing like desire for preventing the things one says from bearing any resemblance to what one has in one's mind. -Marcel Proust, novelist (1871-1922)The whole Japan issue is turned towards Middle East that was on the rise. Do you think we need more on these, I mean the Middle East after Bush and Tony Blaire created fiasco with the false trumpets. Do we not care more about the Japan that was had promised that she would fight no more after the Tora Tora I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA

 

SRJMSBND

10:19 AM ET

March 22, 2011

DR. KUCHBHI

"Give the dog a bad name and shoot him
Karzai "considers the Americans to be hopelessly fickle, represented by multiple military and civilian envoys who carry contradictory messages, work at cross-purposes, and wage their Washington turf battles in his drawing room, at his expense, while operating on short fuses and even shorter timetables."

He may be on to something..."

Right or wrong American domestic or foreign policies as fickle cliquish pompous and self-serving as any Washington DC social affair.