Why Did Karzai Fire Washington's Favorites?

[Mari333]

By forcing out two widely trusted officials, the Afghan president may be putting the US counterinsurgency strategy in jeopardy.


As the White House no doubt has learned in its recent dealings with Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president can be uncomfortably unpredictable. He sprang his latest surprise on Sunday, forcing out two top security officials and Washington favorites who are widely viewed as among the most competent in Karzai's troubled government. And seasoned Afghanistan watchers warn their ousters could spell trouble for the Obama administration's counterinsurgency strategy.

The departures came after an attack last week targeting Karzai's highly publicized "peace jirga"—a conference meant to pave the way toward political reconciliation with the Taliban. Militants were able to get close to the highly secure event, which was attended by more than a thousand delegates and international dignitaries, by posing as a couple with an infant (instead of a baby, the attackers had swaddled weapons). One of the male militants was dressed in a burka, a disguise that apparently allowed him to avoid being searched for weapons or explosives by security. The attack was unsuccessful. Still, the too-close-for-comfort incident proved an embarrassment to Karzai, who was later said to have lost confidence in his intelligence chief, Amrullah Saleh, and his Interior Minister, Hanif Atmar, whose ministry is responsible for Afghanistan's police and internal security forces.

In the end, Karzai may have dealt a self-inflicted blow to his high-stakes effort to forge a reliable central government whose influence extends beyond Kabul's city limits. And the leadership change may also set back the work of NATO forces that are trying to prevent Afghanistan from slipping into a violent tailspin.


















http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/06/why-did-karzai-fire-washingtons-favorites?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+motherjones%2Fmain+%28MotherJones.com+Main+Article+Feed%29&utm_content=Twitter

and the cluster*&^% continues....

[midnight]

1. Our best and brightest warned us about this before the surge. Bring them home.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. My guess it was a gesture of appeasement to the Taliban that has a bounty on Karzai's head.

[Mari333]

3. time to leave...8 yrs ago

[KharmaTrain]

4. A Warlord Covering His Ass...

I saw a very good report about the futile military actions in Helmand province that are draining military resources...and to little affect. The reporter interveiwed a local journalist who said "in the 30's they shot at the British, in the 80's they shot at the Russians, in the 90's they shot at the Taliban...any foreigner who enters those valleys become the target. While the Taliban are indigenous Pashtun, they aren't allied or related to the tribes in those mountains and that any Central authority becomes the enemy. The sooner we bail out of that area, then the shooting gets directed in a different direction.

There have been a stream of reports that the US has opened back channels to Taliban leadership about a face saving "truce" to allow the US to draw down and many of the "allies" to bug out altogether. Karzai is just shuffling his deck to get a place at the table when the real wheeling and dealing begins. His high stakes game is to force the US hand and sabotage any negotiations cause he knows when the deal is struck, he's the next Najibullah.

[unhappycamper]

5. Why does a dog lick its butt?

Because it can.

[Mari333]

7. well said

[zipplewrath]

6. Get..... Out.... Now....

I realize it would require some "drama". I realize it would be a major shift, not some incremental improvement in strategy. I realize it would be change in direction and not a result of a "persistent" policy of action. But you have no credible partners in Afghanistan. And OBL ain't there. Bring 'em home.