As the Obama administration continues to embark upon several reviews of U.S. policy in Afghanistan, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has stated that the original mission in Afghanistan was "too broad" and needs to be more "realistic and focused" for the United States to succeed. Even though President Obama has declared, pre- and post-election, that Afghanistan is one of his top priorities, four weeks in office, he had yet to personally meet with President Karzai. The latter's only 'high-level' US-Afghan meeting was an uneasy joint appearance with Special Envoy to Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke. The US attitude towards the Afghan leader's standing was thus promptly made clear and obvious.
Despite criticizing troop increments, Karzai has noted that US withdrawal is not the answer to a situation which went from bad to worse faster than many could imagine. Though it may be too early to say that Afghanistan has been a failure, it is not too late to state that it has not been a success. President Karzai has admitted that Afghanistan direly needs US presence, for the country to be able to defend itself and stand on its own feet. He has also explicitly stated that an increase in US troops should have a 'purposeful objective for the Afghan people.' In an effort to curb the situation, President Karzai has recommended that US troops re-focus their efforts towards the Pak-Afghan border, a far cry from the neutral Afghan villages and innocent civilians that have previously been caught in cross fire.
Desperate to show himself as a champion of civil rights, Mr. Karzai has treated growing civilian casualties as a high priority issue that must be halted immediately. Though many analysts may question his motives as an election publicity stunt, the fact remains that President Karzai has successfully raised an exceptionally legitimate concern. He has warned that public opinion in Afghanistan may waver strongly, based on loss of civilian life. All this comes at a time when US troops, functioning on flawed intelligence, are unable to distinguish between a militant gang organizing an attack or a group of civilians gathering for a wedding. President Karzai also bitterly observed that sunny statistics, offered by the US military stating that its troops killed 32 militants in the first two weeks of the year, failed to report that 17 of them were innocent civilians.
As a result, Karzai has demanded further cooperation between NATO forces and Afghan defense authorities. A frustrated Karzai addressed the Afghan parliament at its opening session on January 20, 2009, stating that the US had ignored his calls to stop air strikes into civilian areas. Adamant to gain a strong control over military operations within the country, Karzai's government sent a draft technical agreement to Washington and NATO headquarters detailing the future coordination required between Afghan and NATO defense forces and escalated involvement of Afghan authorities in essential areas of military operations.
All these mounting efforts come at a time when President Karzai's every move is being scrutinized and criticized. After being chosen as the country’s first-ever popularly elected president in 2004, he remains one of Afghanistan's most popular political figures. However, a recent move to pull back the election date from August 20 this year to early May may cost him dearly in terms of both domestic and international support. The initial date (August) set by the Independent Election Commission was generally well-received by both local Afghan parties and the international community at large. But President Karzai, who is running for office against a wide spectrum of political rivals who are eager for him to leave, may also have to deal with growing criticism from the US and the UN, if he escalates pressure on holding elections (which he is confident he will win) before he is scheduled to leave office in May. Even though rationally, bad weather and poor security would undermine the credibility of the polls if held earlier, critics argue that Mr. Karzai's main motive behind this 'snap election' is primarily to disadvantage his political rivals, if not to drive out competition completely.
President Karzai's waning popularity coincides with a vocally disgruntled administration of Barack Obama, which has been quick to point fingers at the Afghan government. Many liberal members of the Afghan parliament feel that even though early elections are not a viable option, a solution and compromise must be reached in order to legitimize and stabilize this young and fledgling democracy, even if it requires an early vote. Washington on the other hand maintains its tough stance and remains adamant in believing that August elections are the only way to ensure that every Afghan is given the opportunity to freely and democratically exercise the right to determine their future government.
In a country as sensitive and volatile as Afghanistan, much is at stake in a short span of time. Over the past eight years, Afghanistan has come full circle and is back to an economy that depends solely on drug trade and a country that faces a grave threat of a resurgent Taliban. Adding to this explosive situation is President Obama's team which is bent on proving a break from the overlooking strategies practiced by the Bush administration. Needless to say, the strategies and the stubbornness shown by both President Obama and President Karzai will prove to be very interesting as events in the near future unfold.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed