-
My Rahm Reunion
May 16, 2013 | 16 comments
-
The Left Hates Us
May 9, 2013 | 143 comments
-
Such a Dynamic Duo
May 2, 2013 | 49 comments
-
The Continuing Crisis
May 1, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Calvin Coolidge: His Times Are Our Times
April 26, 2013 | 22 comments
The Current Crisis
Static in the Air
Is Hamid Karzai to go the way of Ngo Dinh Diem?
WASHINGTON — The increasing static in the air between Kabul and the White House brings to mind other dicey episodes in American diplomacy. Even dealing with allies can be tricky. Recall de Gaulle. He was heartburn for five American presidents. Even Churchill could be difficult, and he was half-American. Yet for Roosevelt and Truman he could be a trial, particularly when the question of the British Empire was on the table and the future of its colonies.
President Barack Obama’s rows with President Hamid Karzai may not put you in mind of de Gaulle or the passing of the British Empire, but there is a troubling analogy, to wit: the Kennedys’ treatment of the President of South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem. It did not end prettily. In the early days of the Vietnam conflict President John F. Kennedy was increasingly critical of Diem for his apparent ineptitude, corruption, and brutality. Our Ambassador to Saigon, Henry Cabot Lodge, snubbed the South Vietnamese president. When word reached Washington that officers in the South Vietnamese army were going to overthrow Diem, the Kennedys pointedly looked the other way. The coup took place, and to the administration’s embarrassment President Diem was not left an exile but a well-photographed corpse. His was to be the last stable South Vietnamese government. Sometimes foreigners know more about the governance of their countries than Americans do.
Is the Diem scenario to be the scenario for Afghanistan? The country is probably even more ungovernable than South Vietnam. It has never in modern times had a strong central government. There have always been rivalries and by our standards much corruption. From this backward country has emerged President Hamid Karzai, another difficult ally. It is not too soon to ask whether President Obama will handle him as his White House predecessors handled de Gaulle or as Diem was handled.
For several months the Obama administration has made it clear through leaks and public statements that it does not approve of Karzai’s fraught election and his laxness in dealing with corruption. The consequence has been a growing hostility between Kabul and Washington that may now be reaching a crisis.
Though not very well reported, the crisis appears to have begun in early March when President Obama refused Karzai’s request for a meeting in Washington. Karzai’s response was to invite Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit Kabul. There the Iranian in his trademark dirty windbreaker delivered a series of snipes at President Obama. Late in the month when President Obama visited Kabul on his whirlwind trip to visit our troops he did sit down with Karzai but then allowed it to be leaked worldwide that at his sententious best he treated Karzai to a lecture on the essentials of Good Government.
That indignity apparently provoked Karzai to let it be leaked that he has told Afghan colleagues that if the static continues between Washington and Kabul he might consider joining the Taliban! Not to be outdone, the administration through its spokesman Robert Gibbs has now let it be known that when Karzai arrives in Washington for a May 12 meeting he may not get to see President Obama. “We certainly would evaluate whatever continued or further remarks President Karzai makes,” said Gibbs, “as to whether it is constructive to have that meeting.”
Readers of this column may recall that I had a little fun at Karzai’s expense in February when I took exception to his demagoguery in parliament over the issue of Afghan civilians being killed by our troops. Usually they were put in harm’s way by the Taliban. I also joked about an election monitoring board that Karzai packed with allies. “Hamid Karzai (D-Chicago)” I called him to make an obvious point.
After the column appeared I got a sobering call from a friend who had played a significant role in the Bush administration’s conduct of war in Afghanistan and Iraq. During the call he/she reminded me that a change in leadership in those faraway parts does not necessarily end in improved leadership. Moreover, Karzai has achieved more than any of his rivals is likely to achieve towards peace and security in the region and with no evidence that he is himself corrupt.
Lay off, said my friend, and so I have. That picture I once beheld of Diem sobered me up too. I wonder if President Obama has seen it.
About the Author
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (29) | Leave a comment
More Articles by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
More Articles From The Current Crisis
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/08/static-in-the-air
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- The Continuing Crisis
- Consternated Conferences
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Stuart Koehl| 4.8.10 @ 7:50AM
So, the Afgan government is corrupt. Big surprise--but by Afghan standards, it's pretty clean, which is more than can be said about Chicago government by U.S. standards.
The Obama administration's ham-fisted diplomatic style is largely responsible for the current situation, by forcing Karzai into intemperate remarks to show he is not a tool of the Americans--or any other foreigners, for that matter.
Karzai knows perfectly well he would not last a week without U.S. and NATO support, but he cannot afford to be seen as a supplicant, or kowtowing to Obama's every whim, because he would lose the respect of the tribal leaders and people whose support he needs to survive (and which we need to win). So, we insult him, he insults us back.
A clever American approach would allow Karzai considerable leeway in his relationship with us. Let him complain about collateral damage (even if it isn't our fault--although in many instances, our use of airpower IS inappropriate, but unavoidable, because NATO troops are so casualty-averse). Let him defy us in the little things, so long as he complies with the really important stuff.
And, in fact, that's what Karzai has done--he's replaced a lot of the most objectionable provincial governors and eased out the corrupt, inefficient or disloyal from key positions in the ministry of defense, the army and the national police. His reforms must, of necessity, move slowly, but they are moving forward.
I suspect the Obami want to rush the process in order to comply with their own artificial deadline. In so doing, they are likely to set the stage for their own failure.
Like Diem, Karzai is far from perfect. Like Diem, he's the best of a bad lot, and just about the only man who has the capacity to hold the country together long enough for the counterinsurgency to succeed.
American diplomats and generals have a nasty tendency to let their personal feelings about foreign leaders interfere with their strategic judgment. If they dislike the man personally, they allow that dislike to override higher strategic considerations. That happened with Diem in Vietnam. It happened with Chiang in China. It could still happen with Karzai in Afghanistan, but let's hope that we have developed enough maturity to treat him with the same degree of respect and deference applied to Iraqi leader Nuri al-Malaki. He's no angel, either, but he delivered the goods for us.
Jim O'Brien| 4.8.10 @ 8:16AM
Good analysis, Mr. Koehl. Does anyone seriously think Karzai became Afghanistan's leader by being a Boy Scout? Is the Acorn Administration any better? How much damage did Obama do on his recent trip to Afghanistan? Did he arrogantly lecture Karzai, as if Karzai were a member of the U.S. Supreme Court?
Melvin| 4.8.10 @ 8:32AM
How do you catch a murderer? You send a murderer after the murderer.
A government doesn't appoint a boyscout to do a job fit for a serial killer.
James R. reid| 4.8.10 @ 7:39PM
Right on! There are "Evil" people in this world that can only be dealt with by using distasteful means. One wins over it's enemy by becoming more viscous than their enemy.
Howard| 4.8.10 @ 8:42AM
Sometimes you regret what you wish for. I am old enough to remember the turnstile governments that came and went after Diem was murdered. One result was additional US troops sent to South Vietnam to prop up the weak government. David Halberstam wrote his opus 'The Best and Brightest' based in part on these events. I notice similarities between the JFK Ivy League educated geniuses who had all of the answers for Vietnam, and the Ivy League educated geniuses of the Obama administration who know what to do. Be scared, be very scared.
DAC| 4.8.10 @ 10:13AM
Folks, anyone who thinks that Maobama's pattern of urinating on our allies, and treating the Karzais of the world (who at least can be temporary instruments to advance U.S. interests) like stray dogs, is NOT part of a larger strategy to weaken and destroy the U.S. itself, is smoking crack, part of the "Acorn Administration" (great term, by the way), or on the dole from it.
The goal--everywhere--is to put the U.S. and its military men and women in untenable positions, where as many of them as possible can be wasted for hopeless causes. Once the military morale is broken, and the state-run media drums up enough "let's bring them all home because they're dying for nothing" sentiment, Maobama will have achieved the "reset" of the military back to 1975, and weakened resistance at home to his continued fascist (literally--this is 1920s Mussolini to a tee) takeover of the country.
The bonus for Maobama is that more dead soliders means fewer of them to garrison their factories, farms and fields in states that resist or start the secession process. Barack Mugabe knows precisely what this means--as did the original Mugabe in late 1970s Rhodesia.
I agree--be scared.
tom| 4.8.10 @ 12:01PM
That is a great analysis if you are for nation building. At first going into Afghanistan made some sense. Now I have to ask myself why are we there?
To go after the 100 Al Qaeda the CIA says is in Afghanistan?
I have come to the conclusion that our nation building, our empire of bases spanning 140 countries does very little for the American people. It does do a lot for the masters of Wall Street and that top 1% who controls 98% of our nations wealth but not the other 99% of us. As an example of this all we have to do is look at oil. We can all remember how we were told that we would have cheaper oil from the Iraq war. How the oil alone would pay for the war. In reality the oil companies made historic profits, Wall Street made huge profits and the American people paid $4 a gallon for gas. Oh and as a side note we also helped the spread of Al Qaeda by the invasion.
Here are the hard facts:
We are currently over $12 Trillion dollars in debt.
We have an additional $50 Trillion of unfunded mandates (debt) coming due very soon.
The U.S. is about to lose it's credit rating because of our debt.
The IMF is already working on a plan to replace the U.S. as the reserve currency with one of there own. Add in the Global Green Deal to raise $45 Trillion a year and that makes the U.N/IMF a very powerful organization.
The U.S. spends over a Trillion dollars a year to maintain our empire.
Our Navy alone is 10 times bigger that the 2nd largest navy in the world.
We can not maintain what we are doing. I cannot believe that if we really, really wanted to that we as a nation could not monitor every plane, boat, ship or car that entered our boarders. Protecting America is about protecting the American people and our borders. It is not about protecting our International Corporate interest that bring no benefit to the American people.
Howard| 4.8.10 @ 5:49PM
During the 1930's it was said that the Oceans and Seas protected us from harm. The events of Dec. 7, 1941 proved otherwise. 9/11 was a similar jolt. I agree with you about the debt. That could be a third jolt. We need a balanced, common sense approach to foreign and domestic issues.
Margie| 4.8.10 @ 6:22PM
"It is not about protecting our International Corporate interest that bring no benefit to the American people."
It's about doing both. I smell an isolationist.
Stuart Koehl| 4.9.10 @ 6:37AM
Nation building may look expensive, but it is cheap as compared to the alternative, Throwing a few billion preemptively into stabilizing a failing state by strengthening its civil institutions and improving infrastructure is preferable to large-scale military operations, which can cause a billion a day.
Of course, you can let the situation fester, as we did in Afghanistan after the Soviets left, but we know what that bought us. Nation building in Afghanistan during the 1990s could have prevented 9/11--it most certainly could have prevented the Taliban from coming to power and giving haven to al Qaeda after it was kicked out of Sudan--another failing state where our preemptive, non-military intervention could have yielded huge dividends.
Nature abhors a political vacuum, and when states collapse, non-state actors, the fancy-pants word for terrorists, drug gangs, pirates and assorted riff-raff move in.
Jim Wilson | 4.8.10 @ 12:31PM
For all the lip-service to diplomacy the Obama's crew really isn't very good at it. I cannot believe they are actually engaging in this kind of juvenile sniping, but then I ought to have expected it. Obama and HRH Hilary and a goodly portion of the entire crew haven't learned anything since they were teenagers. Why would you expect maturity from a pack of Peter Pans who refuse to grow past an obviously childish and obsolete worldview? We need a new word to describe these frozen-in-time juveniles, though Mr. Tyrrell once called the ball quite aptly in "Boy Clinton."
Gotta think of a new term that is both pointed and descriptive. I don't believe in magic words like ancient Egyptians and present-day Leftists, but they can still have power. If only I were a linguistic genius!
Cpm| 4.8.10 @ 2:28PM
Maybe Obama sees the leaders of our allies as 'Bush's guys', and therefore worthy of contempt. The ego of this strutting peacock is staggering and terribly corrosive.
Following closely| 4.8.10 @ 3:09PM
Not sure who obsesses over the corruption of Afghan officials more, the mainstream media or the current administration. If we are pursuing an effective counter insurgency strategy in Afghanistan, then what should be most important to us is what Afghans think, and most data I have seen say that Afghans rank jobs, economy and security ahead of corruption as more important priorities. No one wants money wasted or lining the pockets of the wrong people, but thinking that engrained corruption is a switch that can be turned on or off on U.S. orders is ridiculous, naive, or both. Could we please keep our eyes on the prize: Successful accomplishment of the mission?
Margie| 4.8.10 @ 6:19PM
Mr. Tyrrell has a wise friend and I'm glad he took heed, if I may say that, respectfully.
Reading this article just serves to enrage me once again toward Obama. I despise his arrogance, and that of his mouthpiece, Mr. Gibbs.
May God bless and protect President Karzai, who I believe wants to do the right thing. Personally, I used to get really encouraged when I used to see him and President Bush together at the White House, and was thankful for the progress they were making.
Now, I find myself angry at our President and wanting to cheer on President Karzai. I wonder, who is more corrupt???????
Tyrrell| 4.8.10 @ 9:20PM
I have come to the conclusion that our nation building, our empire of bases spanning 140 countries does very little for the American people. It does do a lot for the masters of Wall Street and that top 1% who controls 98% of our nations wealth but not the other 99% of us. As an example of this all we have to do is look at oil. reebok easytone shoes reebok easytone shoes
Stuart Koehl| 4.9.10 @ 6:39AM
We could test your hypothesis by bringing everybody home, but suppose you were wrong--how would you reestablish the position we had lost? If the United States, the world's only superpower, does not maintain the international order, who will? Without international order, how long do you think our prosperity and security will last?
Yosemeti Sam| 4.9.10 @ 2:21AM
" ... Late in the month when President Obama visited Kabul on his whirlwind trip to visit our troops he did sit down with Karzai but then allowed it to be leaked worldwide that at his sententious best he treated Karzai to a lecture on the essentials of Good Government...."
LOL.
Indeed - sententious best!
A skill acquired osmotically while blissfully sleeping through sermons for 20 years in Wrights' Anti-America barker chamber.
Richard Baker| 4.11.10 @ 4:20PM
If Karzai were stupid enough to actually join with the Taliban, I do believe that the connection between his head and neck would be in jeopardy. Remember, the Koran (the action manual for the Religion of Peace) says that this sort of action is OK!
bartlees| 4.12.10 @ 12:16PM
Sadly,Fareed Zakaria allowed Peter Galbraith to repeat his charges of Karzai drug use. Previously, Galbraith had suggested on Morning Joe that he was using opium. This time he said it wasn't opium, but marijuana, or maybe marijuana. Whether the charges are true or not, Zakaria should have gone beyond saying in his introduction that Galbraith had worked as a private citizen towards making the Kurds an autonomous region. He should have said that Galbraith was promoting the Biden approach of basically dividing Iraq into three countries; and that Galbraith was planning on $100 million in profit from a Kurd oil contract; and that he was suing, together with an Iraqi arms smuggler, to get the money he eventually lost, while saying it wasn't really that much money, but he wished it were even more than that; and that he was accused of trying to get the U.S. to depose Karzai after the elections. This may be what Karzai actually means by foreign meddling, not that foreigners got him elected.
bartlees| 4.12.10 @ 12:51PM
I should have said that Galbraith had made his suggestion of drug use by Karzai on MSNBC's The Daily Rundown, April 6, 2010. His revised version was on the Fareed Zakaria show of Sunday, April 11, 2010. I apologize for the error which I have just corrected.