I refer to Mr Traub's "President George W. Bush, of course, didn't believe in nation-building -- one of the few mistakes to which he confesses in his memoirs. Much of the civilian assistance under Bush consisted of funds doled out by military commanders to local warlords and to jobs programs designed to keep young men busy building roads and irrigation canals -- at least until the American troops moved on."

We now have the word of former close Bush associates that the former president was able to ask out loud why he had agreed to things that he didn't understand, although that particular phrase was addressed to his bungling when the financial catastrophe of 2007 was coming into sight (and Wall Street smoothies started selling down within 15 minutes of the opening of any nationally telecast Bush addresses from the White House started: knowledge of his foolishness was by 2007 widespread).

What Mr Traub points to is the president seeming to understand thathis tragic ignorance was broader. In things such as taking over the government of Afghanistan, an unnecessary and certainly mistaken action, the president led a massive and fabulously expensive program which he didn't understand at all. His own widely known ignorance of international affairs in 2001-2 part explains why this was so; matters such as using the military to hand out large slabs of cash rather than the State department, much more experienced in such matters, suggested that members of the Bush cabinet were united in cheerfully pulling the wool over the president's eyes, confident that he wouldn't pick this up.

Calling what is happening in Afghanistan "nation building" seems a major mangling of commonsense and the English language.

Mr Karzai is in office because he speaks excellent English and had professional experience in working as a consultant for an American oil company. Other, probably more suitable rivals for the presidency seem to have been bribed to stand down during the original presidential campaign. The most likely briber: Washington. The current Afghan form of government was foretold by smug Washington publicists as the dawn of a new and wonderful age that Washington now seems to detest and mistrust, and Americans bleed and die to support.

If Mr Karzai is indeed to be replaced, there's excellent reason to believe that no American should choose his replacement, and that the replacement should be chosen solely by Afghan processes. If that happens, then a nation will have, to some degree, been built. What reason is there to believe we'd like it much more than the present setup? Or that the present setup is the best of all possible achievements from American nationwhatevering over the past ten years and two months?

His runner up in the last election (howsoever marred by fraud) is even less acceptable to Pakistan.

Its clear that Pakistan would much rather dispense with this democracy thing in Afghanistan (much as their army that runs the country holds their own democratic facade with disdain) and just gift the country to the Taliban who will do the bidding of their ISI and Paki army masters.

Not too many great options, are there?

I agree that Karzai is not the most competent and honest person in Afghanistan. However, it will be unfair to put the entire blame on his shoulders.As the author has pointed out that Bush administration laid down the foundation of an Afghan state that was supposed to be run by warlords and mafias. Much of the aid that came to Afghanistan, was awarded to these warlords who subsequently abused it in destabilising the state and eording any civil insititutes which were not allowed to flourish in first place.Americans gifted Afghanistan what we can call as warlord democracy which is devoid of any values or accountability. Ten years down the line, we should not be surprised to see a state run by warlords and over run by various mafias. IT sounds very naive to expect a strong stable government in Afghanistan under Karzai when Americans spent all thier bags of dollars and resources in funding and strengthing warlords so that they can kill more Afghans. Americans were in full control in 2002 and they could set up a war tribunal whereby Afghan war criminals could have been tried along the same lines as Nazi killers were punished and power be given to Public and their representatives whose hands were not stained with civilian blood!!BUT America didn't want this to happen, so here you got what you sowed in Afghan soil!!!!!!!!! No surprises...No complaints...

Firing one corrupt Afghan politician and replacing him with another will not help West much when the roots of Afghan insurgency are safely ensconced in neighboring Pakistan.

No amount of digression over Afghan corruption will change fundamental equation when US/West’s hands are tied by Pakistani government’s shelter/support of all the forces fighting US/NATO troops.

Adm Mike Mullen had following to say about America’s primary ally in its fight against terrorism, to the foreign news media on 1/13/2011: “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, it [Pakistan] is the epicenter of terrorism in the world right now. It is absolutely critical that the safe havens in Pakistan get shut down. We cannot succeed in Afghanistan without that. It’s not just Haqqani Network anymore, or Al Qaeda or TTP (Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan), the Afghan Taliban, or LeT (Lashkar-e-Tayyeba), it’s all of them working together.”

Following are verbatim quotes from what Gen (rtd) Jack Keane (a former Pentagon official) said at a discussion on Afghanistan organized by the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based think-tank on June 30, 2011:
1. "The truth is, the ISI aids and abets the sanctuaries in Pakistan that the Afghan (Taliban) operate out of. They (ISI) provide training for them, they provide resources for them and they provide intelligence for them. From those sanctuaries, every single day Afghan fighters come into Afghanistan and kill and maim us".
2. "There's a direct relationship of ISI's complicity and the deaths of American soldiers and the catastrophic wounding of those soldiers. The chief of staff (General Kayani) of the Pakistani military is complicit. He used to be the director of ISI. He put the guy (General Ahmed Pasha) in there who is in charge now and he has full knowledge of what I'm just describing".
3. "There are two ammonium nitrate factories in Pakistan . 80 per cent of the explosive devices that are used to kill our soldiers, kill Afghan security forces and kill Afghan people come from Pakistan ."
4. "All of what I just said to you, when we confront them with this, they lie to us.”

Previous US ambassador Anne Patterson to Pakistan, wrote in a secret review in 2009 that ‘Pakistan's Army and ISI are covertly SPONSORING four militant groups - Haqqani‘s HQN, Mullah Omar‘s QST, Al Qaeda and LeT - and will not abandon them for any amount of US money‘, as diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show.

Ambassador Patterson had NO reason to mislead her own State Department and U. S. government.

Picture this: You terminate an employee and decide, without legal obligation, to offer the individual severance pay. In response, the employee asks you to make the check out to the lawyer he has just hired to sue you.

It sounds crazy, but, if you don't make sure that you trade severance pay for some sort of legal protection, you may actually be helping to fuel litigation against your organization. The only difference is that in real life the employee might--just might--not have the nerve to make his intentions so obvious.

To avoid the risk of funding a lawsuit, secure a general release of claims against the company in exchange for the severance amounts, as well as for any other discretionary payments you make upon termination. (Note, however, that to secure a release, employers cannot withhold non-discretionary amounts such as vacation pay or other paid time off benefits to which the employee is entitled.)

Making a release the quid pro quo for severance pay is both lawful and wise. As 2003 comes to a close, many companies continue to grapple with the arduous task of implementing major layoffs. The same economic climate that contributes to that trend may prompt employees to challenge even the most apparently well-founded employment terminations.

All in all, it's a good time to dust off some basic principles for drafting and securing releases that are not only enforceable, but also provide the broadest spectrum of protection for the employer. This article covers how to secure an enforceable release--focusing specifically on the issue of "consideration"--and discusses some essential, basic provisions. The second article, to appear in next month's Legal Trends, will address some procedural and additional substantive concerns involved in the execution of releases, particularly as governed by the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA).

To be sure, you normally will have your employment counsel draft releases for your organization. However, it's important to understand not only the practical value of having a release, but also what provisions to include in the release and why, what kind of release to use for particular situations and how to carry out the transaction. And, with an educated eye, you can review and, if necessary, question any legal document that you put forth on the employer's behalf.

Careful! Consideration Required

For a release to be enforceable, it must be supported by "consideration." That does not mean kindness or thoughtfulness. It means you have given employees something of value--and something to which they would not otherwise have been entitled--in exchange for surrendering their right to sue you.

In simplest terms, you are buying protection. And, just as in the grocery store, you can't pay once and get two items.

So, your first step in securing a valid release of claims is to determine if employees are already entitled to severance pay. If they are, and you ask them to surrender their right to sue without giving them some additional compensation, the release will not be enforceable.

As a general rule, employees have no right to severance pay. But they may be entitled to it by virtue of a state law, an employer's unilaterally adopted severance plan, a collective bargaining agreement or an individual employment contract.

A few jurisdictions mandate severance pay upon the termination of employment in limited circumstances. In Maine, for example, employees who lose their jobs as a result of a plant relocation, as broadly defined by state law, are entitled to one week of severance pay for each year of employment. The severance requirement does not apply if the employee has worked for the company for fewer than three years. In addition, there are a number of other exceptions to Maine's severance pay requirement. Other states that mandate the payment of severance in limited circumstances include Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

An employer generally cannot impose an added condition--a release of claims--on employees who already are entitled to severance pay by law or by agreement. Attempting to do so would expose the employer to a suit for breach of the applicable plan or agreement. In any case, such releases would be unenforceable without additional consideration.

To avoid this problem, it is recommended that severance plans state expressly that employees are not entitled to any severance unless they sign a general release upon the termination of employment. Similar language can be included in an individual employment agreement that provides for severance in limited circumstances. In both cases, the language makes clear that the employee is not entitled to the severance without the release so that the severance can serve as the consideration to support the release.

In the absence of language stating expressly that severance is conditional on the employee's execution of a general release, there are still two ways employers may be able to obtain a valid release from employees who are in some way already entitled to severance pay.

First, many plans and agreements provide that an employee is eligible for severance only if the employee is terminated without "cause." When there is a good faith dispute as to whether there is cause, the employer can waive the for-cause argument in exchange for the release.

Second, the employer can obtain a binding release by providing additional compensation or other benefits--such as job placement assistance--beyond what the employee already is entitled to.

Employers must be careful when they select which benefits to offer, however, because some can bring legal complications.

For example, in exchange for a release, some employers offer to keep terminated employees on the group health plan during the severance period, thus postponing the start of the employee-paid COBRA health care continuation coverage. But this approach may violate health plan documents and insurance contracts. And, if the insurance company denies coverage during the severance period, the employer could end up self-insuring. (Of course, this is only a problem if the employer is not self-insured.)

A less risky approach would be to acknowledge the termination as the qualifying event and to pay the individual's COBRA premiums during the severance period.

The same self-insurance risk applies if the employer continues group life or disability insurance coverage during the severance period. However, the employer can offer to pay the premiums for a defined period, but only if the plan allows the employee to convert from group to individual coverage on termination of employment.

Some employers allow employees to continue to contribute to their 401(k) or other retirement plan during the severance period and/or make contributions on their behalf. However, this may run afoul of Treasury Regulation 1.401(k)-1(a)(3), which generally has been interpreted to prohibit employers from allowing former employees to direct severance payments into a 401(k) plan.

If there might be any possible ambiguity about what constitutes the consideration for a release of claims, address the issue expressly in the agreement and require the employee to acknowledge the adequacy of the consideration supporting the release.

Note, however, that courts generally do not assess the adequacy of consideration. At the same time, if the amount of severance or other consideration the employer is offering is so small that it offends a judge's sense of fairness, a judge might hold there is not adequate consideration.

Release Terms

Obviously, the release waives only those claims that it covers. As simple as that sounds, drafting a release that effectively protects the employer against a broad range of possible claims is somewhat more involved. To that end, you will need to take into account several factors:

Who is covered. The release should be drafted broadly, protecting not only the legal entity that employed the worker, but also any related, affiliated, parent or subsidiary entities. If such entities are not mentioned, they may not be covered.
Picture this: You terminate an employee and decide, without legal obligation, to offer the individual severance pay. In response, the employee asks you to make the check out to the lawyer he has just hired to sue you.

It sounds crazy, but, if you don't make sure that you trade severance pay for some sort of legal protection, you may actually be helping to fuel litigation against your organization. The only difference is that in real life the employee might--just might--not have the nerve to make his intentions so obvious.

To avoid the risk of funding a lawsuit, secure a general release of claims against the company in exchange for the severance amounts, as well as for any other discretionary payments you make upon termination. (Note, however, that to secure a release, employers cannot withhold non-discretionary amounts such as vacation pay or other paid time off benefits to which the employee is entitled.)

Making a release the quid pro quo for severance pay is both lawful and wise. As 2003 comes to a close, many companies continue to grapple with the arduous task of implementing major layoffs. The same economic climate that contributes to that trend may prompt employees to challenge even the most apparently well-founded employment terminations.

All in all, it's a good time to dust off some basic principles for drafting and securing releases that are not only enforceable, but also provide the broadest spectrum of protection for the employer. This article covers how to secure an enforceable release--focusing specifically on the issue of "consideration"--and discusses some essential, basic provisions. The second article, to appear in next month's Legal Trends, will address some procedural and additional substantive concerns involved in the execution of releases, particularly as governed by the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA).

To be sure, you normally will have your employment counsel draft releases for your organization. However, it's important to understand not only the practical value of having a release, but also what provisions to include in the release and why, what kind of release to use for particular situations and how to carry out the transaction. And, with an educated eye, you can review and, if necessary, question any legal document that you put forth on the employer's behalf.

Careful! Consideration Required

For a release to be enforceable, it must be supported by "consideration." That does not mean kindness or thoughtfulness. It means you have given employees something of value--and something to which they would not otherwise have been entitled--in exchange for surrendering their right to sue you.

In simplest terms, you are buying protection. And, just as in the grocery store, you can't pay once and get two items.

So, your first step in securing a valid release of claims is to determine if employees are already entitled to severance pay. If they are, and you ask them to surrender their right to sue without giving them some additional compensation, the release will not be enforceable.

As a general rule, employees have no right to severance pay. But they may be entitled to it by virtue of a state law, an employer's unilaterally adopted severance plan, a collective bargaining agreement or an individual employment contract.

A few jurisdictions mandate severance pay upon the termination of employment in limited circumstances. In Maine, for example, employees who lose their jobs as a result of a plant relocation, as broadly defined by state law, are entitled to one week of severance pay for each year of employment. The severance requirement does not apply if the employee has worked for the company for fewer than three years. In addition, there are a number of other exceptions to Maine's severance pay requirement. Other states that mandate the payment of severance in limited circumstances include Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

An employer generally cannot impose an added condition--a release of claims--on employees who already are entitled to severance pay by law or by agreement. Attempting to do so would expose the employer to a suit for breach of the applicable plan or agreement. In any case, such releases would be unenforceable without additional consideration.

To avoid this problem, it is recommended that severance plans state expressly that employees are not entitled to any severance unless they sign a general release upon the termination of employment. Similar language can be included in an individual employment agreement that provides for severance in limited circumstances. In both cases, the language makes clear that the employee is not entitled to the severance without the release so that the severance can serve as the consideration to support the release.

In the absence of language stating expressly that severance is conditional on the employee's execution of a general release, there are still two ways employers may be able to obtain a valid release from employees who are in some way already entitled to severance pay.

First, many plans and agreements provide that an employee is eligible for severance only if the employee is terminated without "cause." When there is a good faith dispute as to whether there is cause, the employer can waive the for-cause argument in exchange for the release.

Second, the employer can obtain a binding release by providing additional compensation or other benefits--such as job placement assistance--beyond what the employee already is entitled to.

Employers must be careful when they select which benefits to offer, however, because some can bring legal complications.

For example, in exchange for a release, some employers offer to keep terminated employees on the group health plan during the severance period, thus postponing the start of the employee-paid COBRA health care continuation coverage. But this approach may violate health plan documents and insurance contracts. And, if the insurance company denies coverage during the severance period, the employer could end up self-insuring. (Of course, this is only a problem if the employer is not self-insured.)

A less risky approach would be to acknowledge the termination as the qualifying event and to pay the individual's COBRA premiums during the severance period.

The same self-insurance risk applies if the employer continues group life or disability insurance coverage during the severance period. However, the employer can offer to pay the premiums for a defined period, but only if the plan allows the employee to convert from group to individual coverage on termination of employment.

Some employers allow employees to continue to contribute to their 401(k) or other retirement plan during the severance period and/or make contributions on their behalf. However, this may run afoul of Treasury Regulation 1.401(k)-1(a)(3), which generally has been interpreted to prohibit employers from allowing former employees to direct severance payments into a 401(k) plan.

If there might be any possible ambiguity about what constitutes the consideration for a release of claims, address the issue expressly in the agreement and require the employee to acknowledge the adequacy of the consideration supporting the release.

Note, however, that courts generally do not assess the adequacy of consideration. At the same time, if the amount of severance or other consideration the employer is offering is so small that it offends a judge's sense of fairness, a judge might hold there is not adequate consideration.

Release Terms

Obviously, the release waives only those claims that it covers. As simple as that sounds, drafting a release that effectively protects the employer against a broad range of possible claims is somewhat more involved. To that end, you will need to take into account several factors:

Who is covered. The release should be drafted broadly, protecting not only the legal entity that employed the worker, but also any related, affiliated, parent or subsidiary entities. If such entities are not mentioned, they may not be covered.

Thanks

pro travel

Shame on you RAW Agent!!!!!!

People like Zalmay Khalilzad merit to be awarded the greatest award like 'Legion of Honor' for gifting the Afghan people and US taxpayers with a hypocrite like Karzai.
Karzai and his family were sheltered by Pakistan for years as Afghan refugees in Quetta and look at the attitude of this man towards Pakistan.
What you sow, so shall you reap! US Administration should keep this maxim in mind.
I agree with the motion! Dump him; earlier the better. Else, be ready to waste additional billions of US taxpayers.

i Agree in More incisive commentary from the commentariat..... The next Pashtun is no different from the next American....thanks ! massagistas

Karzai isn't likely to meekly ride off into the sunset. An ex-leader is a big inviting target for foes, so he can see the dangers of leaving. Plus despite the dangers, he more than likely enjoys her perks. Look for him to cling to power.

Afghanistan and the middle east is always the same thing. All about money, oil and corruption, and guess who gets the most benefits... Uncle S.
marbella apartments

I'm not sure why everyone seems so surprised that things are taking a long time to come together in Afghanistan. You can't take a country that has been impoverished andwar-torn for decades, ruled by militaristic renegade fundamentalists, and has no stable government or any kind of lasting infrastructure and expect it to become the next USA in a period of ten years. It will take many decades for Afghanistan to become a stable, democratically-self-governed nation--give it time.

Patrick from headrest dvd player site

Much of the aid that came to Afghanistan, was awarded to these warlords who subsequently abused it in destabilising the state and eording any civil insititutes which were not allowed to flourish in first place.Americans gifted Afghanistan what we can call as warlord democracy which is devoid of any values or sazkove kancelare accountability. Ten years down the line, we should not be surprised to see a state run by warlords and over run by various mafias. IT sounds very naive to expect a strong stable government in Afghanistan under Karzai when Americans spent all thier bags of dollars and resources in funding and strengthing warlords so that they can kill more Afghans. If there might be any possible ambiguity about what constitutes the consideration for a release of claims, address the issue expressly in the agreement and require the employee to acknowledge the adequacy of the consideration supporting the release.