Should the U.S. realistically expect the Afghan government to do what we say?

[bigtree]

The administration has made the argument that the Karzai government will be required to live up to certain standards of conduct and has said they intend to place monitors within the Afghan central government to oversee decisions made by the dubiously-elected regime.


Karzai bristles back on this point on CNN's "Amanpour" Sunday: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/06/us.afghanistan.karzai/

__To prepare his country, Karzai said, he would do all he can to root out corruption and improve governance. He has fired corrupt officials already, he said, adding he is prepared to act against anyone proven to be breaking the law.

However, he warned against other nations using the corruption as a political tool in making decisions about Afghanistan. And he said the United States and its allies also must halt practices that contribute to corruption from outside the country or create what he called "parallel" governance issues.

"I have fired people and I will be firing people," Karzai said. He seemed to laugh when he was played a video clip of White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs saying the United States would bypass corrupt government officials if necessary.

"Afghanistan is a sovereign country, it has a sovereign government, it's not an occupied country," Karzai said, adding that a foreign power can't undermine or go around the government to deal with whomever it chooses . . .


read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/06/us.afghanistan.karzai/

[KG]

1. as if any entity could totally control that country, even the 'taliban'

[alfredo]

2. Karzai's government would fall quickly if it wasn't backed

by our military might. Karzai has little influence outside Kabul. He's been called The Mayor of Kabul.

Maybe if he wasn't such a corrupt greedy capitalist and paid his soldiers well, they wouldn't jump to the Taliban where they can get better pay. Maybe he should leave Afghanistan and get a job with Goldman Sachs. I think he'd fit right in.

[kenny blankenship]

3. The puppet can pull back on the same strings he dangles on

As long as the puppet master is fully invested in the success of his theater, his puppet can surprise him by pulling on the strings equally hard. If puppet master is offended by the actions of his dummy he is faced with two courses of action, 1) grin and bear it, after all he can't withdraw support without withdrawing/disinvesting from the whole project, or 2) the Diem option. I don't think the Diem option is open to us in the same way as it used to be.

[bigtree]

5. right, the money

Sec. Clinton: US Won't Tolerate Corrupt Afghan Govt'

(CBS) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on "Face The Nation" Saturday that U.S. money in Afghanistan will not go to supporting corrupt agencies in the Afghan government, and that distribution of funds will be based on a "certification of accountability and transparency," leaving some questionable ministries without funding from the U.S.

"We’ve looked at every civilian assistance program and contract and we’ve said, 'Look, we're not going to just aid and abet bad behavior," Clinton told CBS News senior Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer. "Part of the challenge here is to begin to make the more difficult, complicated assessments that were not made before."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/06/ftn/main5913351.shtml

[kenny blankenship]

9. Those other entities that do get US funding

may find mercenary backed representatives of the Karzai govt. making them an offer they can't refuse. It's all fungible, if you phrase the question the right way: would you please to kick that money back now to the Karzais, or we'll kill you?

[Ozymanithrax]

4. The Karzai government exists because we are there...

Were the U.S. to leave, the Karzai government would not likely last half a year before it was torn down and Karzai either assassinated or forced to flee.

His entire government exists because the U.S. and NATO guarantee its survival. Primarily, they are still the Northern Alliance who lost to the Taliban.

If we say shit, Karzai and his corrupt brethren should sit and squat.

Of course, that kind of naked dominance will not exercised, but we should expect the Afghan government to be a strong partner in getting us the hell out of there.

[jpak]

6. Karzai can bristle all he wants at the US, but the Taliban would not be "nice" to him

if they returned to power.

So Karzai has an real dilemma here...

:evilgrin:

[kenny blankenship]

7. Not really

He has lived a long time outside Afghanistan and has doubtlessly embezzled a great sum while in charge. Then on top of that he has the heroin money he's squirreled away (the old family biz). Soon as business conditions change, he's on his chartered jet out of there to Jordan or Dubai or France. Don't cry for Hamid.

[jpak]

8. What's stopping him now?

:shrug:

[kenny blankenship]

10. He's still making money and having a good time.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. He has a choice. The next Ngo Dinh Diem or the nest Shah Reza Pahlavi.

My bet is on the latter.

[FarCenter]

12. No -- it would be an unrealistic expectation

[BeFree]

13. Deals off, then

Obama promised that we wouldn't spend money without it being accounted for.

Since the head of the government there says no way can the US can pick and choose, the whole deal is down the shitter.

Get our money out of there, now. Obama, you promised.

[gratuitous]

14. Would we follow the dictates of a brutal foreign occupier?

There would no doubt be people who would realize a personal profit from their neighbors' misery, so they'd cooperate. There would be others who felt they had no choice. They value their lives over their ideals, and I hope I never face that situation. Others would be cooperative when the occupiers were watching, but monkey wrench things when they felt they safely could, or non-violently refuse to cooperate. And still others would go underground and violently resist the occupiers.

Now, if I can figure this out for my own countrymen, how tough is it to extrapolate that citizens of other countries?

[stray cat]

15. Only if they want anything at all from us

[kenny blankenship]

17. It's a classic mistake to think the power relationship can work in only one direction

As long as the US is invested in its project in Afghanistan - as long as it insists on putting in tens of thousands of troops and sinking billions of dollars in there to fund their operations, it cannot afford for its puppet to fail, or to de-legitimize its supposedly sovereign puppet by crass hamfisted interventions like assassination of the puppet leader, or to expose him as an election stealing heroin trafficking gangster. Young American lives are being sacrificed for the success of this theater! Thus puppets often have their masters wrapped around their fingers-as often as the other way 'round.
The more troops Obama puts in and the longer he goes without reversing Bush policy, the deeper his political investment in Afghanistan becomes and the harder it becomes to reverse himself, declare failure, and get out. Consequently, with the deepening commitment to the success of the puppet theater, the more leverage the puppet gains over the supposed master.

[Life Long Dem]

16. Why would it be a political tool?

If Kazai has nothing to hide then what's the big deal about some transparency?

[madrchsod]

18. no