The American who could be President of Afghanistan

More British dead in Afghanistan and I suspect we have reached a tipping point.

Because the Afghan war was so much less controversial than the Iraq conflict when it started, deaths there have not made the same impact on the media and public opinion. When someone died in Iraq it was thought to prove someone right and someone else wrong, whereas in Afghanistan the killing just meant they were, you know, dead.

Thankfully this thinking is about to change. We are about, I am sure, to have a big debate about what we do in Afghanistan and, from some, about whether we should be there.

In this debate a central feature will concern President Karzai and his ability to govern.

There are broadly two schools of thought, although it is possible to belong to both of them.

The first is that Hamid Karzai has to go. He is weak and allows too much corruption. He needs to be replaced. A name often mentioned as a successor is that of Zalmay Khalilzad. He has, it is suggested, a real base of support and could get himself elected as President.

One little, little problem. He isn't actually a citizen of Afghanistan.

Khalilzad is the US ambassador to the United Nations. He is, however, an ethnic Pashtun born in Mazari Sharif in northern Afghanistan and he was popular and effective as special envoy and then US ambassador to the country for the four years leading up to the end of 2005.

The theory is that he could renounce his US citizenship, run and win.

The second school of thought says that Karzai himself isn't really the issue. The problem is our failure to create proper state institutions.

Clare Lockhart, in a superb piece in Prospect, argues that we have given all the cash to bureaucratic and disengaged NGOs and starved the government. No chief exective can succeed without an executive to be chief of.

If you haven't heard any of these names or idea, I suggest you get used to them. They are about to become a familiar part of the political landscape.

Comments

[Jonathan M. Scott]

Are you sure this isn't Henry Winkler, who played the Fonz in "Happy Days"? He would have my support, for one.

[max]

George Bush is about to leave office. To complete the farce in Afghanistan, he should put his name forward and let the Afghan people vote. Lets see how far democracy has got in Afghanistan.

[Clive]

It does not matter if it Hamid Karzai or
Zalmay Khalilzad or uncle Tom Cobbly who would be the president next Afghanistan, it is run on tribal lines so they have little love for the western style democracy. So lets pull out, let them have their civil war and then we just might have the basis for some years of peace

[Momand Omar]

Indeed the Mayor of Kabul needs to be replaced by someone who actually knows the Afghans - who better to rule or run Afghanistan Khalilzad the US ambassador to the United Nations!

Maybe also the proper name should be used to address his excellencey: The Governor of Afghanistan!

Bravo! you will certainly rule the Pasthuns very quickly...

[R McAuley]

The British Public reached the tipping point a long time ago. When you invade another mans country don't be surprised if they take exception to it. I support our troops, they are the creme de la creme. Our Govt however has a track record of starting wars with countries that did not attack us, therefore in my opinion our political leaders should be brought before the British People to answer for their crimes.

[Big John]

Afghanistan is on a cross road of invasion since 4000 years of recorded history. History which has not been read by the bumbling NATO commanders. all invaders of Afghanistan including the Aryans, Alexander, The Mongols, British, Russians and countless others, were kicked out, all of them were better and more fearless fighters. Comparatively present bunch soldiers are just a morsel for Afghans. Moral of the story 'TALK'

[Willie Macallum]

Like so many of us do we actually know why our military are in Afghanistan?

Is it because somebody effected regime change and then because the indigenous population fought back. Maybe a bit like iraq although our Government doesn't say so.

Moreover, the Government has just said they are increasing troop numbers because they are winning the war.

I wonder how many more fronts we can open up with these two successes under our belt,Pakistan, and Iran?

[Blanshard Meheux]

What a joke, the jackal no longer looks good as a mascot,lets replace it with a wild dog, at least it has longer canine. The rules of engagement in this war is not going to be based upon the political clout of the leadership, it is strictly religious and tribal. The more you wriggle, the deeper you sink.

[Perry]

We should apologize to the Russians and invite them back to pacify the country. If they, idiotically, take us up on it, that should keep them occupied for the next century or so while the USA bumbles and fumbles around in Iraq

[Vic]

All hail the new Dictator of Opiumistan!

The WHO, CDC & Interpol all say Afganistan is the source of 94% of the entire world supply of Opium/Heroin but the Bush administration claims they can't find it even though the fields are visible on Google Earth.

[seaweb]

No surprise, really. This was the plan. Ask Dick Cheney.

[A. Khan]

Americans learn lessons after many years. Issues in Afghanistan cannot be resolved in the way currently being tried. Its a tribal society and do not accept anyones writ over them, including central government, let alone a puppet one set up by the US and headed by their stooge, Karzai. Sending in Zalmay will not solve the problem. Pulling out AND encouraging neighbouring countries to keep Afghanistan in check might. However, US cannot pull out without losing face in the world and are stuck in the quagmire. It can only get worse from here.

[Haralambos Petrokolos]

would you buy a second hand car from this guy?

[Haralambos Petrokolos]

In his foreign policy thinking what Bush forgot is that money corrupts - bullets embolden - if he wanted to destroy the Islamist he should have bombed Afganistan with dollars not with cluster bombs. Imagine if the trillions spent in Iraq producing enemies had been spent in Afganistan making friends.

[Haralambos Petrokolos]

Well Vic the only conlussion we can draw then is - the White House hasn't got Google Earth. And if that's the case what a great election promise for Obama and Mc Cain.

[Julia Iskandar]

Yeah, right. So the US controls the natural-gas pipelines and the poppy fields directly, and with Khalilzad a Pashtun, the other ethnic minorities are stuffed, and there's direct US-Pashtu control over the mountain passes to and from Pakistan and China at the eastern end of the country, and Iran at the western end...In your dreams! I'm not making fun of you, Mr Finkelstein, but of the current US administration's tendency to confuse its fantasies, both noble and ignoble, with reality.
Alexander the Great married his Afghan princess from Balkh and took her and their little son to Babylon, where he died from drunken debauchery - not unlike what some of the German police-training units were up to (and a little light torture of their mates, from sheer boredom), as reported in DER SPIEGEL. Alexander's Macedonian mother had both his widow, Rukhsana, and his little son murdered: Conquering the huge Persian Empire had been "for the birds". And "we" will sort Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iran/Iraq out good and proper? Tell that to the proverbial Marines.

[Frank Upton]

Don't you journos love your 'tipping points'?

[Richard L.A. Schaefer]

NATO is fighting in Afghanistan because bin Ladin slaughtered almost 3000 Americans. Then the Taliban wouldn't turn him over. (Sudan offered to turn him over, but Reno used the inappropriate legal approach to reject the offer.) Keeping the Taliban from power is a noble task. Unfortunately, Europe (from Venus) has a drastically deteriorated military and can't do its share; and in some cases won't even fight with the troops it has there. Scaredy cats.

[OneSadOne]

We will never leave all those Poppy crops. NEVER! So they had better get used to our presence!

[Kara Swart]

Should be correctly called 'Governor' of Afghanistan or Iraq for that matter. I don't know why these countries are not absorbed within the United States. The people will be happy (like Puerto Ricans) and will have American Passports. Politicians will be happy as they then will not have to give false withdrawal dates for troops. Win-win I say.

[Doc]

As someone who has lived and worked with the Pashtun people and those of other tribes, I believe that if we can provide some basic means to the average Afghan of earning a living, a degree of security against the Talib, and education for the children, we can help stablize Afghanistan in two to three generations. Until then, with the illiteracy problem, the addition problem and the security risk, we can't even stabilize Kabul, let alone the Country.

[Kory]

The British Public reached the tipping point a long time ago.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!! The British tired of "conquering"??? We're stuck cleaning up the huge mess called the Middle East and Western Asia that was created by the British. The Brits need to grow a pair and maybe help out...especially financially.

[fedup]

Looks like Bush's plan is working ! Here in the U.S., we cant wait for our idiot in chief to leave !

[Stan G]

No American president can leave Afghanistan until, at the very least, Bin Laden is captured or dead.
"Civilized" soldiers (assuming that's not an oxymoron) cannot beat religious fanatics. We should use a brutal mercenary force. Hire a few battalions of North Koreans and give them full rein. Afghanistan and Iraq WILL be pacified.

[StatusQuo]

Looks like PNAC is still hard at work!

[Jan T. Kim]

"When someone died in Iraq it was thought to prove someone right and someone else wrong". I noticed this idea implied in several instances, but so far I've not seen it articulated this explicitly.

Let's face it: War never proves anyone or anything to be right, it only ever determines (randomly) who's left. It's the idea that "winning" a war proves anything which is, in itself, utterly and fundamentally wrong.

And while some calls for things to change in Afghanistan have been "right" (i.e. reasonable to varying extents), sending in the military to bring about these changes has certainly been wrong.

[Andrew Cheetham]

I am sure he would be the perfect choice for any US government.

1. In 1984 Khalilzad accepted a one-year Council on Foreign Relations fellowship to join the State Department, where he worked for Paul Wolfowitz, then the Director of Policy Planning.

2. An original member of The project For a New American century (PNAC).

3. In 1998 he was one of the original signatories to what ended up as being the Iraq war.

4. Councilor to Rumsfeld, Condi Rice and overseer of the Bush/Cheney transition at the Dept of Defence

5. 2001 appointed Special Assistant to President Bush

6. December 2002 the President appointed Khalilzad to the position of Ambassador at Large for Free Iraqis with the task of coordinating "preparations for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.

7. Khalilzad was involved in the early stages of planning to overthrow the Taliban Government

8. In November 2007, Khalilzad charged that Iran is helping the insurgent groups in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also told the media, soon after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released its report on Iran, that the Iranian government is clearly going ahead with its nuclear program. Khalilzad explained that the United States will try to pass another resolution in the U.N. Security Council under Chapter 7, to impose additional sanctions on Iran

The perfect choice for a puppet head of state for the US neocon agenda.

[Adil Abbas]

Well, now ive heard it all. Can you imagine if a afgan ran for us president, i have never heard of anything more ridiculous, when will we realise that our western systems and institutions are not liked abroad, they are not superior, how are they measured gdp? i give up

[clara]

When I first looked at the pic, I swore it was Jon Stewart. And it made sense.

[Jeremiah]

Find an alternative to oil, and you might find an alternative to war.

[Mike Booth]

Sure, why not?

Shouldn't all countries have an American president?

Then we could all be Gringos!

[Sean]

"Let's face it: War never proves anyone or anything to be right, it only ever determines (randomly) who's left. It's the idea that "winning" a war proves anything which is, in itself, utterly and fundamentally wrong."

But that completely misses the point of why the US went into Afghanistan in the first place. It also misses the point of what NATO, ISAF, and the US has been trying to do in Afghanistan for the last 9 years. The US secures Afghanistan, transforms it into a workable state with a functional government that could theoretically deny terrorists (IE, Al Qaida and bin Ladin) a safe haven; it's a very logical step in the alleged "war on terror". Of course, Iraq killed any legitimacy Pres Bush may have had afterwards.

No, simply saying "war doesn't prove anything" is naive. All wars between nation-state works well into your theory, because those are mostly strong-man contests between two children (think World War 1-2). Al Qaeda needed a boot in its ass for what it did, as well as the Taliban for hosting them. It's one of the best examples of how the US military was actually used for the betterment of its people rather than that of crusty crones in Washington.

"And while some calls for things to change in Afghanistan have been "right" (i.e. reasonable to varying extents), sending in the military to bring about these changes has certainly been wrong."

How or why was it wrong? You fail to say how. What liberals don't understand is that you can put as many flowers on a tank and change its color all you want, it's still a bloody tank. What was the US and the rest of the world supposed to do? Stand by and ask the Taliban to hand over Osama, ask them nicely to not host terrorist organizations? They were asked and they wouldn't do either of those things. Like I said, using the military to route out that enemy was probably the best use of a military for a people ever.

[Alex]

Modern day... US Imperialism?

Does he get a crown?

No? ohhhh... ripped off

[Jimmy Allen]

"What liberals don't understand" - well if that discounts you, then you best leave the safe shores of your US of A because last time I looked America was supposed to be a "Liberal democracy" - though I use the words tentatively.

[Sam Sears]

You nailed it statusquo. Who knew the neocons would have their own state to puppet govern in such a short while. The poppy crop should finance the next Republican resurgence. Can't leave the U.S. government in control of the Democrats too long....fairness to the less fortunate smacks of socialism. Horrors! Did I say "smack". Oh well, mixed metaphors will get smoke in your eyes.
Capt. Red