Submit your comments on this article |
Afghanistan |
As Karzai Loses His Grip, A Familiar Face Looms |
2008-01-29 |
![]() Last Friday, Karzai blocked the appointment of British politician Paddy Ashdown, the former U.N. High Representative for Bosnia, as envoy to Afghanistan. During a meeting with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Karzai said that he and many Afghan parliamentarians did not want Ashdown in the post, according to a Western official briefed on the discussions who would only speak about them anonymously. Ashdown's formal role would have been to coordinate international relief programs. But American and British officials were hoping that Ashdown might also act as a kind of viceroy, bringing order to an Afghan government that finds itself besieged by a resurgent Taliban. Karzai's opposition grew as Ashdown sought to establish what his powers as "superenvoy" might be, one official said. "Karzai has been under a lot of pressure and criticism, and he might feel that he was being marginalized," says Jim Dobbins, the former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. U.S. and British officials have grown increasingly disenchanted with Karzai, who is now viewed as isolated in Kabul and surrounded by corrupt or incompetent ministers. Things are not much better next door in Pakistan, where militant Islamist groups have grown bolder and the embattled Musharraf is under pressure to step down. Like Karzai, Musharraf has begun lashing out publicly against what he sees as Western interference. Khalilzad had a successful stint as U.S. ambassador to Kabul after the Taliban fell, helping to form the Karzai government and working with then Maj. Gen. David Barno, commander of U.S. forces, to pacify the country. He also served as U.S. ambassador to Iraq and was one of the principal drafters of a 1992 "grand strategy" for U.S. global dominance that became known as the "Pentagon paper." Even so, in a 2005 interview with NEWSWEEK, Khalilzad said that one thing he had learned during his term in Afghanistan was that its people "don't want to be ruled by a foreigner." Khalilzad has not directly denied that he is considering a run. His spokeswoman, Carolyn Vadino, told NEWSWEEK that "he intends to serve out his post as long as [President Bush] wants him in office. And then after that, he hopes to find a job here in the private sector in the U.S." But a senior Bush administration official who knows Khalilzad (and who asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss Khalilzad's plans) said the U.N. ambassador was actively exploring a run. Kenneth Katzman, Afghanistan expert at Washington's Congressional Research Service, said that "most observers think he would stand only if Karzai decides not to run." During an interview this week with NEWSWEEK's Lally Weymouth (page 47), though, Karzai seemed to leave the door open for a re-election bid. |
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
#8 Last Friday, Karzai blocked the appointment of British politician Paddy Ashdown, the former U.N. High Representative for Bosnia Maybe Karzai has better judgement than he's given credit for. I'm not sure I'd trust a former UN official to Bosnia when a lot of the problems with white AQ seems to have started there! |
Posted by: Danielle 2008-01-29 22:55 |
#7 Thank you, GolfBravoUSMC. I remember the story now -- 'twas you that told us way back when. I've had occasion to mention it in conversation, over the years, and very useful it's proved, too. :-) |
Posted by: trailing wife 2008-01-29 21:17 |
#6 Trailing Karzai lived in Fremont CA about 15 miles from my house. He still has relatives there. I've been to his cousin's restuarant. Very authentic, including dirty windows and floors. He, and I believe his brother, infiltrated back into Afghanistan during the runup to the overthrow of the Talibunnies. His brother was caught and killed and Karzai replaced him. At least that is how I remember the events. |
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2008-01-29 18:02 |
#5 Hadn't Hamid Karzai been living in California until just before he ran for election of Afghanistan? |
Posted by: trailing wife 2008-01-29 17:29 |
#4 this strikes me as total BS. No way the Afghans will take a former US official as President. |
Posted by: Dopey Flotle8127 2008-01-29 16:09 |
#3 "But as Afghanistan has fallen into violent chaos" See the thing is, I see no evidence that it has fallen into violent chaos. Last I heard the Taliban were basically silent in Afghanistan right now because they are A: busy fighting in Pakistan and B: losing the support of the Afghan people. The only place they seem to have "fallen into violent chaos" is in the Western liberal medai. |
Posted by: crosspatch 2008-01-29 14:29 |
#2 We're going to have to use Iraq, Israel, India, and to the limited extent possible, Turkey, to fashion a vise to squeeze AfghaniPakiStan in. |
Posted by: M. Murcek 2008-01-29 14:27 |
#1 Afghanistan is slipping backward. Almost impossible that it would not happen given the weak effort on the part of most Euro nations combined with the weak effort on the part of the Paki government to deal with Talibs in the provinces. This is the nexus of operational terror (they aren't just talking about it like some in Saudi do). This is where the foot soldiers will come from. I am not hopeful this morning. |
Posted by: remoteman 2008-01-29 13:45 |