Afghanistan, in Trust

This week’s must-read on the Afghan file, I think, is Brian Stewart’s column about…

by Andrew Potter on Friday, March 12, 2010 5:24pm - 12 Comments

This week’s must-read on the Afghan file, I think, is Brian Stewart’s column about the growing sense that Karzai is more a part of the problem than he is a partner in a lasting solution. He’s fantastically corrupt, questionably loyal, and poor (if not completely uninterested) in actual governance. And while there’s no question that Karzai is a genius at political survival, he’s abetted by a very general but-he’s-our-bastard attitude in the West.

But maybe Karzai is neither solution nor problem, but simply irrelevant. That seems to be Robert Kaplan’s attitude in his long piece about the Afghan mission in the latest issue of the Atlantic.  The piece is framed in a pretty useless theoretical superstructure about how the fight in Afghanistan is between “historical determinists” against men who believe in “individual moral responsibility”.

But set that aside and what you have is a pretty typical Kaplan article: smart, well-reporter, and nicely written analysis that is perhaps overly-credulous when it comes to the optimisms of the military guys.  The general narrative though is familiar now: The counterinsurgency strategy will be followed by government-in-a-box solutions with a rebuilt ANSF at the forefront of the security situation, with ongoing peace solidified by a peace bargain with major elements of the insurgency. Karzai himself is hardly necessary.

As Kaplan puts it in the concluding graphs:

Again, the resemblance to the 1980s is telling, with leading anti-Soviet combatants like Haqqani and Hekmatyar central to the military equation, and a partially irrelevant Karzai: today ISAF officials talk quietly about working around Karzai by dealing directly with the ministries of interior and defense, and with the offices of the provincial governors, all of which they are fortifying with Western advisers.

The upshot: In 15 months or so, say the generals, ISAF will have the security situation under control.

But the central problem, the one that Kaplan foregrounds in his essay but pretty much drops as an issue by the end, is that there is no way in fifteen months we can hand the keys to the place over to the Afghans. Kaplan goes so far as to say that in a different time the country would have been an “obvious candidate for trusteeship” — run under a mandate by a major western power.

But this is the 21st century and we don’t do that now. Instead, we pursue imperial policies abroad and practice liberal politics at home, and pray that no one who matters notices the contradiction.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

    Is anybody ready to take Karzai's place who is NOT corrupt, disloyal, and lousy at governance?

    What a mess.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Iccyh Iccyh

    Hard to do anything about the guy when he's just won an election.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

    I believe there is not a worldwide consensus on the fair-and-square winning of that election.

  • kcm

    "But this is the 21st century and we don’t do that now. Instead, we pursue imperial policies abroad and practice liberal politics at home, and pray that no one who matters notices the contradiction"

    At the risk of appearing dense, in what specific ways ar we pursing imperial policies abroad? Does just our being there qualify? Or are you referring to the fact we are trying to reform and remake a country in a way that is more palatable to our liberal sensibilities. I haven't had a chance to read the links, perhaps i'll find some answers there?

  • guest
  • kcm

    Isn't this a half measure? It's not what parliament has rightly asked for, neither is it a full reference to the supreme court, where there are dissenting opinions. And presumably a requirement to reach consensus; not to mention having the full authority of the court behind them.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    "…Karzai is more a part of the problem than he is a partner in a lasting solution. He’s fantastically corrupt, questionably loyal, and poor (if not completely uninterested) in actual governance. And while there’s no question that Karzai is a genius at political survival, he’s abetted by a very general but-he’s-our-bastard attitude in the West."

    Essentially, he's an Afghan version of Chretien, but without a stable democracy to use as his own personal (or his hometown's) ATM.

    • kcm

      Assuming your weren't making a poor joke.

      Conflating the corruption of Chretien and Karzai is highly distasteful. Chretien will probably not go down as a great PM [ let's face it he was a hack, a party bagman for 40years or more] but he was certainly a very good one. I've always held the view his third term was his gravest error. In any case Karzai's a front man for the warlords – he'd not likely survive a week without their backing- lord knows what he's turned a blind eye to. "Central Canada" – it shouldn't be necessary to point out under our disproportionate electoral system Chretien's majorities merely reflected the will of the country…simple math, if you could take Ontario and a chunk of Quebec you were in. Switch the west and central canada and you have Harper as Chretien, using many of his methods. He's not yet at Chretien's level of corruption…but give him time, give him time.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/AJR79 AJR79

        I think it was a joke, but I find your analysis, (Re:Chretien), very interesting.

        Why is it that you've never gotten an account here?

        Even Iccyh is in on the action.

        It's not difficult.

        • kcm

          Because i'm truly a IT idiot. i know any 10year old could do it but i've failed at it at least twice. I'm also not that hot about the thumbs up or down system. It seems to encourage some to simply thumb an opinin down, where there might have given an opinion for disagreeing in the past. I'll get there eventually.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

            I think you're exactly right about the thumbs system. It's pretty badly misused.

  • CAPS

    Canadians have died in Kandahar as part of the effort to bring stability and some form of democracy to Afghanistan (in the hope that it will no longer be a failed state and serve as a base for terrorist groups who seek to attack us and/or our allies).

    There was a a coordinated attack this weekend in Kandahar City and a report that a bridge was blown up while our soldiers were watching the Gold Medal hockey game.

    Can we please have some reporting on the situation going on there that isn't flag-waving and cheerleading ( e.g. – hey the Stanley Cup made a visit to our troops or a Tim's was opened for our troops to get a double-double) or just telling us that sadly another soldier has died.

    A woefully uniformed Canadian public cries out for some full reporting, in-depth analysis on what we are doing on a daily basis and a truthfull look at what has been achieved (or at least those who are interested in this sort of stuff do, anyway).

From Macleans