Posts Tagged ‘U.S.’
Sunday, October 28th, 2012
(Developing story)
Israel has bombed a munitions factory in Sudan, in flagrant violation of international law, and the United States is silent. Article 2 paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter sets forth the most important rule of international law, as follows,
(insert text)
Article 51 of the U.N. Charter establishes,
(insert text)
The International Court of Justice has confirmed, in the case of Nicaragua v. the United States (1986), that the supply of weapons, absent direction and control, does not constitute an “armed attack” justifying the use of of force in exercise of the right of self defense.
The attack follows Mitt Romney’s assertion that America will always have Israel’s back, and won’t allow daylight to pass between Israel and the U.S. and their positions.
There is no need to be cute regarding the fact that Israel was the author of the attack. Among the countries that had a possiblle motive for the attack, only Israel (or the U.S.) has the ability to block out communications an hour before the attack and then to hit a target with pinpoint accuracy. The visit of the emir of Qatar to Hamas-controlled Gaza days before the attack suggests a possible motive. In any event, Israeli officials speaking on background were pretty clear in intimating that Israel was responsible for the bombing, which the Israeli government has not denied.
The failure of the international community to respond to this “stealth attack” will encourage Israel and other counties to feel as if they can use force against other countries with impunity.
The attack fits within a pattern by which the U.S. has used force against “the territorial intefrity and political independence” of other states through its drone attacks in countries far-removed from the Afghanistan war theater, under secret conditions and a vague claim that the attacks are justified as self-defense. This claim is based on an international law argument that would never withstand scrutiny by independent international lawyers or tribunals outside the United States.
The attack on Sudan must be viewed as a case of testing the waters to gage potential reactions to a future attack on Iran, which both Israel and the United States are threatening to carry out if Iran does not abandon or limit by agreement its uranium recycling progam.
If the world does not react to the Sudan attack, the road will be open for an attack on Iran.
The Trenchant Observer
Tags: Article 2(4), Article 51, Dry run for bombing iran, International Court of Justice, International Law, Israel, Israel attacks sudan, israel bombs sudan, Mitt Romney, munitions factory, Netanyahu, Nicaragua v. U.s., response, Sudan, threat of force, U.N. Security Council, U.S., u.s. does nothing, use of force, World Court, World court Nicaragua case, Yarmouk munitions factory
Posted in Iran, Israel, Mossad, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Military, United States, use of force | No Comments »
Wednesday, July 11th, 2012
For a long-time student of diplomatic history and international politics, it is painful to watch the amateurism of Barack Obama’s foreign policy and foreign policy team.
In the case of Syria, where the interests of Russia, China, Iran, and the al-Bashar regime stand in sharp opposition to the interests of the United States, Europe, NATO, and members of the Arab League, who oppose repression through the use of terror including war crimes and crimes against humanity, following Obama’s foreign policy actions over the last year has been painful indeed.
Russia and China have stood, together with Iran, in stalwart support of the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad, vetoing Security Council resolutions in October 2011 and on February 4, 2012.
Russia, with a very experienced foreign policy team lead by Sergei Lavrov, a veteran diplomat, has acted with great clarity of vision in pursuit of its goal of maintaining Bashar al-Assad in power and deflecting or neutralizing all efforts to bring force to bear in order to halt al-Assad’s terror. Under President Medvedev (with Putin as Prime Minister, but hardly in the background), and now under Putin as president again, Russia has been unwavering in seeking and achieving its objectives.
On the first level, Russia has simply blocked any Security Council resolution that might work to the disadvantage of al-Assad and his regime of war criminals. It has watered down the two resolutions (2042 and 2043) adopted by the Security Council on April 14, and 21, ensuring that the illusory peace plan and cease-fire that they promised were embodied in resolutions with no teeth–with no consequences for al-Assad for violating them. Similarly, it has blocked adoption of any resolution by the Security Council conferring jurisdiction on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria.
On the second level, Russia has brilliantly played the weakly-led states of the West and the Arab League for fools–knowing fools, perhaps, but fools nonetheless.
The Russians’ willing tool and instrument has been Kofi Annan, with his 6-point peace plan and mediation mission. Annan’s mediation effort, interestingly, was already well underway before it was informally endorsed by the Security Council in a Presidential Statement on March 21 (which itself had no legal force).
Resolution 2042 formally endorsed the plan on April 14, and authorized Kofi Annan and his mission to “mediate” resolution of the Syrian crisis with al-Assad, who continued to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity even as Annan sought to mediate their cessation.
Resolution 2043 was adopted by the Security Council on April 21, expanding an observer mission authorized on April 14 to a 300-member mission known as UNSMIS to observe the cease-fire called for in the 6-point plan and Resolution 2042.
Al-Assad never complied with any of the peace plan’s provisions, and following numerous incidents where its observers were fired upon and threatened by crowds, UNSMIS was forced to stand down, confining its observers basically to their hotels in Damascus.
At various key decision points throughout this saga, Russia has raised the possibility of military engagement with them if the U.S., NATO, and the Arab states intervened in Syria.
One such threat was extraordinary: President Medvedev explicitly raised the possibility of a nuclear war in the region if there were military intervention against a state in the region (definitely Syria, possibly Iran).
At each decision point, the United States–without acknowledging the threat–went along with what the Russians wanted.
Now we are approaching another important decision point, to decide whether the UNSMIS mission should be extended when its initial 90-day authorization expires on or about July 20, and whether Kofi Annan should be authorized to continue his mediation effort. And, at precisely this moment, Russia has sent a group of warships including Russian soldiers to the Syrian port of Tartus, just in case anyone had forgotten the threat.
The UNSMIS mission and Kofi Annan’s mediation efforts clearly provide cover for al-Assad and his continuing efforts to exterminate his armed and unarmed opposition through the use of terror.
Russia and Iran, which Annan has tried to bring into the diplomatic muddle, and presumably China, strongly support both of these proposed actions.
Will the U.S., NATO, Europe and the Arab League blink again, and in effect accede to the Russian demand that al-Assad be given as much time as he needs to annihilate his opponents–without military opposition from those who would use military force, if necessary, to halt the commission of crimes against humanity and war crimes?
Will the countries which support a transition toward democracy in Syria, and an immediate halt to al-Assad’s crimes have the clarity of vision and the guts to oppose the Russians, the Chinese, Iran, and the Syrian regime? Stay tuned.
In the meantime, see the following article which offers a profound analysis of how Syria has divided the world, into what we have dubbed “The League of Authoritarian States,” on the one hand, and those supporting democratic transitions in Syria and elsewhere, on the other.
Michael Ignatieff, “How Syria Divided the World,” NYRblog (New York Review of Books), July 11, 2012.
Russia, China, Iran, and Syria share one bedrock principle: they will use “all necessary measures” in order to repress domestic opposition in their own countries, and will support others who do so abroad. These measures include terror, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other grave violations of fundamental human rights. Importantly, this support now includes the veto by Russia or China of any Security Council resolution that would confer on the International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction and a mandate to prosecute those responsible for such crimes.
The battle lines are clearly set. Whether Obama will wake up from his illusion of a “reset” of U.S.-Soviet relations with Medvedev, and now with Putin, is an open question.
Obama is also reported to have a dream of concluding, in his second term, a significant new START treaty with Russia that would dramatically reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world. Given his fecklessness on Syria, and the consequences that are likely to flow from the policies and actions he has adopted, it may be doubtful that he could ever secure the two-thirds vote in the Senate needed for ratification of such a treaty. Having watched Obama being outmaneuvered by Putin in Syria, Republicans would likely be skeptical if not outright hostile to any arms control agreement concluded between the two.
Democrats in the United States have for decades had the reputation of being unwilling to use the military when necessary to protect national interests. Obama clearly seeks to overcome the image of Democrats as being weak on defense through his hard-line policies on civil liberties in the war on terror, and his use of targeted executions by drones and other covert means against those perceived as posing a threat to the United States.
Whether these policies will in fact overcome longstanding doubts about the Democrats being weak on defense, in the heat of an election campaign, is an open question.
Certainly, allowing the Russians to roll over the West and the Arab countries in defending Syria and al-Assad’s crimes, will not strengthen the Democrats’ reputation of being unwilling to use military force to stand up to the military challenges of our opponents in the world.
Obama risks being seen, once the voters focus on the issues and hear the Republicans’ arguments, as being all talk, and no action–no guts, no intestinal fortitude, no resolve to act to defend the nation’s vital interests.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
For links to other articles by The Trenchant Observer, click on the title at the top of this page to go to the home page, and then use the “Search” Box or consult the information in the bottom right hand corner of the home page. The Articles on Syria page can also be found here. The Articles on Targeted Killings page can also be found here.
Tags: 2012, 6-point plan, and instrument, arab states, Barack Obama, Bashar al-Assad, China, Crimes Against Humanity, dimitri medvedev, Europe, extension, fundamental human rights, ignatieff, Iran, kofi annan, medvedev, michael ignatieff, military shielf for syria, NATO, New York Review of Books, no guts, no intestinal fortitude, no resolve to act, NYRblog, Obama's foreign policy, Obama's foreign policy team, played for fools, presidential statement of March 21, Putin, reset of U.S.-Russian relations, Resolution 2042, resolution 2043, Russia, Russians'willing tool, security council, Sergei Lavrov, struggle for democracy, Sydney Morning Herald, the League of Authoritarian States, U.S., UNSMIS, vladimir putin, war crimes, weakly-led states of the West, willing tool
Posted in Barack Obama, China, Crimes Against Humanity, Egypt, human rights, International Law, Iran, Israel, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Torture, Tunisia, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, united arab emirates, United Kingdom, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Tuesday, June 19th, 2012
Updated September 9, 2012
Presidents Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin held a meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Los Cabos, Baja California, Mexico. A video of the joint press conference (with consecutive interpretation) which they held afterwards is found on YouTube here. The White House video is found here. A transcript of the joint press conference is found here.
The transcript of a separate news conference in which Ben Rhodes (Deputy National Security Advisor to the President for Strategic Communications), Lael Brainard (Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs), and Mike McFaul (U.S. Ambassador to Russia) participated is found here. The latter makes for interesting reading.
There wasn’t much evidence of substantive agreement on Syria at the meeting, but it sounds like the two leaders had a chance to have a full discussion of how each of them sees the Syria question, within the framework of what Rhodes and McFaul see as a broad U.S.-Russian relationship that is moving in a positive direction.
A number of questions from journalists focused on the body language between the two presidents during their joint news conference, including the fact that they were not looking at each other that much.
The Observer would make two observations. First, after what was undoubtedly a very intense conversation of two hours’s duration, both leaders appeared a bit tense and somewhat tired.
Second, the fact they weren’t in eye contact that much may be partly the result of the fact that they were speaking to each other through interpreters, using consecutive interpretation. In these situations, there is a natural tendency to look at the interpreter as if one were speaking to him, which in a sense is true. (Obama did this, Putin did not.) Only the most skilled of diplomats and others accustomed to using interpreters have mastered the skill of looking at their interlocutor while speaking, and while listening as the other person or his interpreter speaks.
Obama doesn’t seem to have mastered this skill. He could work on it, and probably improve his communication with foreign leaders if he makes significant progress.
Putin looked at Obama when he spoke, but without staring. Putin knows English. Obama was fixing his gaze quite intently on Putin as the latter spoke. When Obama spoke, he spoke to the interpreter or looked in front of himself, not at Putin. This produced something of a disconnect with Putin. There may have been some important cultural differences in the nature of eye contact at play.
Also, Obama gave Putin a friendly little pat on the back as they said goodbye. This is the president’s style. How Putin reacted, if at all, is unknown.
It’s difficult to read, but it is also possible that Obama was a bit angry during the course of the press conference.
Still, their body language did not appear to be overtly hostile. At the end of the meeting, you can see a flash of a genuine smile from Putin as they shake hands and discuss future bilateral summits.
UPDATE (September 9, 2012)
For a more expert opinion on Obama’s and Putin’s body language in the press conference, see Dr. G. Jack Brown, “Body Language Success– Nonverbal Communication Analysis # 1889: Vladimir Putin & Barack Obama at the G-20,” June 18, 2012.
Dr. Brown misses the point about the use of interpreters affecting the eye contact of Obama with Putin, presumably due to less experience, but he accurately analyzes the meaning and impact of Obama’s characteristic pat on the arm or back.
See also Jeff Tompson, “Beyond Words–The science and fun of nonverbal communication: Presidents Obama & Putin: Body Language Recap; Lots of nonverbal communication provided by each to decode,” Psychology Today, June 18, 2012.
With repect to progress on the substance of the Syria question, not much was to be seen at their joint press conference or to be read in the transcript of the press conference Rhodes and McFaul led afterwards.
But at least they talked, and listened to each other, and agreed to keep talking. Given Obama’s prior decisions not to consider military intervention in Syria, this was perhaps all that could be reasonably expected at this meeting. In this sense, a non-confrontational meeting may be counted as a success, and may have helped to lay the basis for more constructive meetings in the future. We won’t know until reliable accounts appear of what actually happened in their private meeting.
Obama is obviously trying to frame Syria within the broader context of U.S.-Russian relations in general. That is an intelligent approach.
Whether it is sufficient to halt the civil war in Syria is a separate question.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
For links to other articles by The Trenchant Observer, click on the title at the top of this page to go to the home page, and then use the “Search” Box or consult the information in the bottom right hand corner of the home page. The Articles on Syria page can also be found here. The Articles on Targeted Killings page can also be found here.
Tags: Baja California, Ben Rhodes, body language, civil war in syria, consecutive interpretation, eye contact, G-20 summit, g20 summit, interpreter, Los Cabos, Mexico, Michael McFaul, Mike McFaul, non-verbal communication, Obama, obama non-verbal communication, Obama's body language, pat on the back, Putin's body language, Russia, siria syrien, summit, suria, syria, Syrie, Syrien, U.S., Vladirmir Putin
Posted in Barack Obama, China, Crimes Against Humanity, human rights, International Law, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, State Department, syria, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012
G-8 Camp David Final Communique: Statement on Syria
1. We, the Leaders of the Group of Eight, met at Camp David on May 18 and 19, 2012 to address major global economic and political challenges.
…
31. We remain appalled by the loss of life, humanitarian crisis, and serious and widespread human rights abuses in Syria. The Syrian government and all parties must immediately and fully adhere to commitments to implement the six-point plan of UN and Arab League Joint Special Envoy (JSE) Kofi Annan, including immediately ceasing all violence so as to enable a Syrian-led, inclusive political transition leading to a democratic, plural political system. We support the efforts of JSE Annan and look forward to seeing his evaluation, during his forthcoming report to the UN Security Council, of the prospects for beginning this political transition process in the near-term. Use of force endangering the lives of civilians must cease. We call on the Syrian government to grant safe and unhindered access of humanitarian personnel to populations in need of assistance in accordance with international law. We welcome the deployment of the UN Supervision Mission in Syria, and urge all parties, in particular the Syrian government, to fully cooperate with the mission. We strongly condemn recent terrorist attacks in Syria. We remain deeply concerned about the threat to regional peace and security and humanitarian despair caused by the crisis and remain resolved to consider further UN measures as appropriate.
–Camp David Declaration, The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, May 19, 2012.
For quotes from President Obama at the G-8 summit relating to Syria, Russian statements affirming their position had been adopted, and commentary, see
The Trenchant Observer, “Obama clueless on Syria? G-8 endorses UN 6-point peace plan—Obama’s Debacle in Syria—Update #39 (May 21),” May 21, 2012.
Latest New Reports and Opinion
Syrian forces have resumed their attack on Rastan. AFP reports,
Soldiers were trying to overrun Rastan for the second time in 10 days, with shells crashing into the town at the rate of “one a minute” at one stage, according to the Britain-based watchdog.
An activist told AFP that Free Syrian Army fighters were defending Rastan’s entrances but that “regime forces are being strengthened with new deployments,” including from the elite Republican Guard.
“Electricity has been cut off in Rastan, and water tanks have been shelled,” said activist Abu Rawan. “There is also a severe lack of food because the market is closed and we can’t bring food in from nearby villages.”
Hours later, the activist said the army assault eased when a team of UN observers entered Rastan.
“The situation is calm now because the UN monitors have arrived” having heard the shelling, Abu Rawan told AFP, adding, however, “God protect us when they leave.”
On May 14, 23 soldiers were killed in a failed assault on the town, which straddles the main highway linking the capital to the north and where rebels regrouped from the battered city of Homs.
…
More than 12,600 people have been killed in the bloodshed, nearly 1,500 of them since a UN-backed truce took effect April 12, according to Observatory figures.
–AFP, “Syria assails rebel town, admits sanctions hurting,” The Daily Star, May 23, 2012 (09:52 PM).
On Tuesday, May 22, in al-Busaira, Syrian police forces fired into a crowd of several hundred people who had gathered to meet with the U.N. monitors, as the latter looked on. According to opposition reports, at least two people were killed.
Unter den Augen von UNO-Beobachtern sollen syrische Polizisten in eine Menschenmenge geschossen und zwei Personen getötet haben. Ein Vertreter der Opposition berichtete am Dienstag, in al-Busaira in der ost-syrischen Provinz Deir al-Zor seien Hunderte begeisterte Menschen aus ihren Häusern gestürmt, um die UNO-Beobachter zu begrüßen. “Binnen Minutenfrist gerieten sie ins Feuer”, sagte der Sprecher der überwiegend aus Deserteuren gebildeten Freien Syrischen Armee (FSA). Andere Informanten aus der Opposition sagten, die Regierungstruppen hätten mit Flugabwehrraketen in die Stadt geschossen.
–”Syrien: Bürger vor Augen von UN-Beobachtern getötet?; Syrische Sicherheitskräfte sollen in eine Menschenmenge geschossen haben, die die UNO-Beobachter begrüßen wollte,” Die Presse (Die Presse.com / Wien), 22 Mai 2012.
On Monday, May 21, some 38 people were killed in the fighting in Syria, according to opposition sources. These included 22 soldiers, 11 rebels, and 5 civilians.
“Fast 40 Menschen sterben bei Gefechten; Seit Mitte April herrscht in Syrien Waffenstillstand, doch die Gewalt bricht immer wieder aus: Am Montag wurden erneut viele Menschen getötet, Kriegsgerät soll zerstört worden sein. Uno-Generalsekretär Ban sieht die internationalen Friedensbemühungen an einem “kritischen Punkt”, Der Spiegel, 21 Mai 2012.
For an incisive overview of the current situation, stressing the need for urgent action including potentially military action, see Itamar Rabinovich, “The Anarchy Factor in Syria,” ISN Blog (ETH, Zurich), 23 May 2012.
Analysis
The theoretical U.N. ceasefire “agreed to” as part of the Security Council’s 6-point peace plan was never observed by al-Assad. It seems now that the rebels have resumed their attacks in earnest. Meanwhile, a third element–linked to al-Qaeda–appears to have entered the fray.
The situation is no longer “spinning out of control”. It is out of control. Whether the U.S., Europe and the Arab countries can act quickly enough to stem the tide is an open question.
Judging from the statements at the G-8 summit at Camp David, these key countries are still asleep. Whether there is more than meets the eye, beneath the surface, remains to be seen.
Publicly, the G-8 and NATO are obviously not paying attention and working hard to come up with new solutions. Such solutions would probably involve the credible threat or actual use of military force.
The Trenchant Observer
observer@trenchantobserver.com
www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
For links to other articles by The Trenchant Observer, click on the title at the top of this page to go to the home page, and then consult the information in the bottom right hand corner of the home page. The Articles on Syria page can also be found here.
Tags: 2012, AFP, al-Busaira, Arab countries, Ban Ki-Moon, Camp David Declaration, Crimes Against Humanity, der spiegel, die Presse, DiePresse.com, Eth, eth Zaurich, fundamental human rights, g-8 "agreement" on syria, g-8 final communique, g-8 final statement, G-8 summit, grave violations, intervention militarie, Itamar Rabinovich, itn blog, May 19, May 22, Militärische Intervention, military intervention, monitors looked on, NATO, obama's debacle in syria, Office of the Presss Secretary, Rastan, Siria, suria, suriah, syria, Syrian police, Syrie, Syrien, the anarchy factor, the anarchy factor in syria, The Daily Star, The White House, threat of force, Torture, u.n. monitors, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, U.S., update #41, use of force, Vienna, war crimes, Wien, Zurich
Posted in Barack Obama, China, CIA, Crimes Against Humanity, extrajudicial execution, human rights, Intelligence, International Law, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, NATO, Qatar, Russia, sanctions, Saudi Arabia, State Department, State Department Human Rights Country Reports, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Torture, Turkey, U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, united arab emirates, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »
Tuesday, March 15th, 2011
President Obama will travel to Brazil, Chile and El Salvador in the next week.
Hopeully his trip to Brazil will be better prepared than his trip to China last fall, which produced few tangible results and may have ended up exarcerbating relationships between the two countries.
Assuming he and his delegation are seriously prepared, Obama should seek to achieve the following objectives:
1. First, he should engage in hard-nosed discussions with Brazil in order to achieve a commitment from Brazil that it will not repeat its free-lancing on the issue of nuclear-proliferation in Iran. Last year Brazil negotiated a three-way deal with Turkey and Iran for the reprocessing of nuclear fuel from Iran, at a precise moment in which their negotiations undercut the negotiations then underway with the Group of 5 + 1.
2. Second, Obama should secure a commitment that any nuclear cooperation agreement betwen Brazil and Iran must be public, transparent, and safeguard the non-proliferation concerns and interests of the IAEA and the international community.
3. Third, Obama should secure a public reaffirmation that Brazil will comply with its 1988 Constitution and the principal international non-proliferation treaties, to which it is a party, and never seek a nuclear weapons capability. Such a reassurance is particularly iimportant in view of some of the statements made by high officials of the previous Lula government, and the fact that Brazil is moving quickly to implement and expand an autonomous nuclear enrichment capability.
4. Obama should seek a commitment from Brazil that it will not seek an expanded Securty Council seat which carries with it the power of the veto, which the current Permanent Members of the Security Council now have.
5. Finally, if and only if Brazil agrees not to seek a Secuirty Council seat which has the power of the veto, Obama should express U.S. support for Brazil to have a permanent seat on an expanded Security Council.
Actually, offering support for Security Council permanent seats on presidential trips abroad is a very poor way to approach the issue of Security Council reform, which if ever achieved will require the approval of its current peranent members: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Nonetheless, having made the mistake of offfering India support for a permanent seat on the Security Council during his trip to that country, Obama can at least correct part of his error by specifying that his support is for a Secuirty Council seat without a veto.
Given Brazil’s importance in Latin America, the countries of the developing world, and the world as a whole, offering such qualified support would definitely be appropriate.
Brazil is also a fascinating country and democracy, in which signficant reduction in poverty was achieved during Lula’s time in office. Obama’s visit offers an extraordinary opportunity for him to expand his consciousness of the world, and the importance of countries that are significant not because they are failing, but precisely because they are succeeding in the new economy of the 21st century.
The Trenchant Observer
www.trenchantobserver.com
Twitter: www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
E-mail: observer@trenchantobserver.com
Comments are invited
Tags: Brasil, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Enrichment, Iran, lula, nucelar weapons, Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, nuclear enrichment, nuclear weapons capability, Obama, Obama should secure, permanent member, Security Coouncil, Turkey, U.S., United Nations, UNSC, uranium enrichment, veto
Posted in U.S Foreign Relations | No Comments »
Wednesday, October 13th, 2010
Once again, on the eve of a major meeting of U.S. and NATO foreign and defense ministers on October 14, the “Magician” in his green cape with a wide-sweeping gesture says, “Look over there!” And everyone takes their eyes off the ball, to be entralled once again by the Magician’s magic.
This magic causes them to forget nine years of dealing with the Magician, the rational and analytical factors that are relevant to the situation on the ground, and strategic thinking on how to manage and overcome the obstacles those realities pose, including the goals to be pursued.
The latest gesture is really a series of actions, including the recent formation of a peace negotiation council and culminating in the well-timed news report, based on an interview with a NATO official, on background, announcing that ISAF is facilitating preliminary discussions–not negotiations–aimed at reconciliation of the Taliban and reintegration of their members into Afghan society.
The NATO official confirmed that “there has been outreach by very senior members of the Taliban to the highest levels of the Afghan government.” But the official cautioned that these have been only preliminary discussions about reintegrating insurgent fighters and reconciling with the militant movement’s leadership.
Even so, the official said, prospect of a cease-fire and peace pact as a path to ending the war, now nine years old, is deemed sufficiently tantalizing that personnel from NATO nations in Afghanistan “have indeed facilitated to various degrees the contacts (emphasis added).
…
The NATO official…spoke in advance of a NATO meeting in Brussels on Thursday that will include alliance ministers of foreign affairs and of defense. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates are scheduled to attend.
Thursday’s meeting of NATO foreign and defense ministers comes a month before an alliance summit in Lisbon to discuss strategy in Afghanistan.
–Thom Shanker, “NATO Helping Afghan-Taliban Talks, Official Says,” New York Times, Oct. 13, 2010
In January, at the London Afghanistan International Donors Conference, Hamid Karzai used a similar ploy with great success. There, he moved attention to excitement about reconciliation with the Taliban, away from the massive electoral fraud in the August 2009 presidential elections which he had just overseen (the climactic moments of which came in early November, 2010), and away from the continuing and massive corruption in Afghanistan, from the top down.
The Allies fell for it, and ignored the electoral fraud for all intents and purposes. Now, as another massive electoral fraud is underway, the allies talk of the “magic” solution of negotiating a deal with the Taliban and exiting the country, which is, in the words of the NATO official quoted above, “sufficiently tantalizing” to lead NATO to facilitate safe passage of Taliban members to Kabul.
But there are hard fracts on the ground. The Taliban has the momentum, and according to most reprts is gaining ground. Good governance, according to U.S. counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine is the sine qua non , i.e., absolute prerequisite, for any success against the Taliban.
So, here is the agenda which should form a central focus of discussions among leaders of the NATO countries and also among the more broadly-based donors conferences to be held in the future:
1. What is Hamid Karzai doing to build good governance–i.e., constitutional government and the rule of law–in Afghanistan?
2. Will he reverse the blocking of the two anti-corruption bodies that had been established, and allow prosecution of high-ranking officials in his government for graft or other corrupt activities?
3. What is he doing to ensure that the counting of votes in the September 18 national assembly elections is conducted fairly, and that all complaints of electoral fraud be fully investigated with their results being reflected in the vote totals?
4. What is he doing to establish good governmence and the provision of government services in the Kandahar region, as the U.S. moves to clear the Taliban from the area?
These are not, of course, the only questions that need to be taken up in allied discussions. However, they require a central, serious and sustained focus, both at meetings and in ongoing discussions between coalition officials.
If a central requirement for Taliban reconciliation and reintegration is that they accept the Afghan constitution, the allies should also insist that Hamid Karzai accept the Afghan constitution and the rule of law, even when it comes to the prosecution of his cronies.
Will it hapen? I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Karzai has “rolled” President Obama on the corruption issue, and there now appears to be little inclination to hold him to account. In fact, with the dismissal of the deputy attorney general in charge of the anti-corrupion efforts, the whole allied anti-corruption policy is in a shambles.
Let the leaders of the allies and the donors group focus on that, not the Magician’s latest ploy. Without good governance, which by definition appears to be impossible in a lawless state, the U.S. and its allies are not likely to prevail in Afghanistan.
General David Petraeus is quoted by Bob Woodward in his new book, Obama’s Wars, as saying, “I understand the government is a criminal syndicate.” (p. 220).
American, ISAF and other coalition soldiers should not be asked to risk their lives to maintain in power “a criminal syndicate” headed by Hamid Karzai. The central task for decisionmakers, in the U.S. as in allied countries, is to move the government of Afghanistan toward observing the rule of law. That appears to be the only path to establishing good governance.
The alternative, in theory but not really on the ground, is to fall for the Magician’s ploys about reconciliation and reintegration of the Taliban, and just hope the whole problem of Afghanistan and Pakistan will simply go away.
We should bear in mind that even the negotiated withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam took five years of negotiations in Paris (1968-1973). In that case, the consequences for the U.S. of withdrawing from Vietnam and the ensuing defeat of the South Vietnamese government in 1975 were very minor, when compared to what would happen in South Asia if a negotiated peace with the Taliban led subsequently to the fall of the Afghan governmet to the Taliban.
The Magician’s ploy is “tantalizing”, particularly to those with no memory or who see no way out of the morass in Afghanistan. But all concerned should keep their eyes on the ball, the realities on the ground, and discuss in earnest a strategy that can overcome them.
Since the U.S. strategy appears to be in disarray, perhaps NATO foreign and defense ministers can come up with some useful ideas, particularly with respect to the establishment of “good governance” and the rule of law, including effective prosecution of individiuals at the top of the power structure in Afghanistan.
The Trenchant Observer
www.trenchantobserver.com
Twitter: www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
E-mail: observer@trenchantobserver.com
Comments are invited.
Tags: Afghan elections, Afghanistan, Afghanistan donors conference, Afghanistan elections, Afghanistan policy, Ahmad Wali Karzai, Ahmed Karzai, ahmed wali karzai, army, ball game, Barack Obama, Battle of the Bulge, Bob Woodward, Brussels, CIA, coin manual, COIN strategy, counterinsurgency manual, D-Day, David Petraeus, Defense Ministers, departure, departure of karzai, direct military action in Pakistan, drone attacks, early departure, early departure of Karzai, electoral fraud, eye on the ball, eyes on the ball, fine intellectual distinctions, floods, Foreign Ministers, Greg Miller, Hamid Karzai, Hilary Clinton, Hilary Rodam Clinton, international donors conference, joint chiefs, Karl Eikenberry, Lisbon summit, London Donors Conference, Meeting, Meeting of Foreign and defense Ministers, NATO, New York Times, NSC, Obsama's Wars, October 14, Pakistan military, Pakistan people, Pakistan politics, Peace Council. Carlotta Gall, policymaking, Richard Holbrooke, Robert Gates, Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, sovereignty, special operations, special ops, spin out of control, spinning out of contro, Stanley McChrystal, State Department, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, the magician, the nuclear ball, Thom Shanker, U.S., U.S. army, United States, Washington Post, World War II
Posted in Afghanistan, Canada, elections, France, Germany, Hamid Karzai, International Law, Quetta Shura, Taliban, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United Kingdom, United States | No Comments »
Sunday, October 3rd, 2010
“The current near-term strategy appears to be to try to kill enough of the Taliban’s leaders to force them to negotiate a settlement on terms acceptable to Hamid Karzai.”
“This war will not be won, or defeat avoided, by fine intellectual distinctions.”
“What Obama needs to do is to take the bull by the horns, and start exploring options for the early departure of Hamid Karzai. This will be a monumentally challenging task. So was D-Day in World War II.”
Current U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan
The bad news from Afghanistan, and about U.S. policy making in Washington, is coming in at a dizzying pace.
Hardly had we recovered from the Wikileaks disclosures, when Bob Woodward’s Obama’s Wars threw a sharp spotlight on the nature and quality of deicision making in the White House.
At such a juncture, it is useful to reflect for a moment on our strategy in Afghanistan.
The United States developed during the course of the war in Iraq the ability to combine real-time intelligence with targeted killings and special operations. Some military and civilian leaders appear to have concluded that this capability turned the war in Iraq around. They underestimate or forget the significance of other factors such as genuine elections and a real government partner in achieving the turnaround there.
In Afghanistan, U.S. military and civilian policymakers have bought into the seductive allure of this extraordinary targeted killing capability, falling into the trap of rejecting the Army’s counterinsurgency doctrine (embodied in David Petraeus’ COIN army manual).
The leitmotif of the Army’s COIN doctrine is that such conflicts are won by protecting the people and gaining their support as a result of providing them with security. This takes a long time.
As now revealed in Bob Woodward’s description of Obama’s drawn-out policy review of last summer and fall, the president has wanted desperately to get out of Afghanistan.
However, he has not come up with a strategy to do so. Somewhat disastrously, he has partially rejected the military’s advice, giving them a deadline of July, 2011 to start handing control over to he Afghans and withdrawing troops. This sent the wrong signal to everyone in the region.
It was, and is, an impossible assignment. The deadline does not allow for even a limited COIN strategy that could show results by the announced December policy review deadline.
Whether because of the strategy review and deadline, or because McChrystal with his background in special operations was a firm believer in that form of counterinsurgency warfare, U.S. strategy in Aghanistan shifted radically away from trying to secure and hold territory and population centers, particularly after the failure of the Marja campaign earlier this year.
The current near-term strategy appears to be to try to kill enough of the Taliban’s leaders to force them to negotiate a settlement on terms acceptable to Hamid Karzai.
What happens in the long-delayed Kandahar campaign, and whether it is possible to hold the region while leaving Ahmed Karzai in place, will reveal whether there may still be a COIN component of an evolving strategy now that David Petraeus is in command.
The War-Fighting Role of the CIA
Now we learn that the military is providing drones and other equipment to the CIA, which has assumed a war-fighting role, presumably because of their ability to locate human targets for drone and special operations attacks.
It should not come as a surprise that with the CIA and special ops forces directing the assault on the Taliban in their Pakistani sanctuaries, considerations of international law have been jettisoned almost entirely.
The Washington Post reports that the CIA (through employees and contractors, we know from other sources), has taken a lead role in the drone attacks. As non-military personnel, these individuals do not appear to be protected by the provisions of the law of war or humanitarian law that might otherwise apply, even under the Bush and Obama Administrations’ extraordinarily broad interpretations of those provisions.
Karzai’s Peace Council
Earlier this week Carlotta Gall of the New York Times reported that President Hamid Karzai had created (out of thin air) a large body to negotiate peace and reconciliation with the Taliban, in total diregard of the Afghan Constitution. She communicated this plan to her readers without so much as mentioning the September 18 elections and the massive fraud that is currently underway.
Keeping our Eyes on the Ball
So, we are trying to kill and intimidate the Taliban to the conference table, at a time when many if not most reports indicate they are gaining momentum against the fatally corrupt government of Hamid Karzai. We are ignoring the impact on the population of Pakistan, and even its military, of repeatedly taking direct military action within the territory of that sovereign state–regardless of whatever “consent” may have been given by the military or even the civilian government.
With a short-sighted focus on exiting Afghanistan as soon as possible, we seem oblivious to the very great risks that our drone attacks may have an impact in Pakistan which, together with the impact of the recent floods, could cause politics in that country to spin out of control.
The president appears to have his eyes on the wrong ball, which is Afghanistan. It is simply not realistic to assume that we can withdraw from that country in the short term, without producing disastrous consequences.
We need to keep our eyes on the nuclear ball, which is in Pakistan. Aghanistan will not achieve stability if efforts to achieve it destablize Pakistan, which is the real ball game in this part of the world.
It is also time to take the war-fighting role away from the CIA, and to leave conduct of this war to the military, under the direction of the commander-in-chief.
On questions of stategy, Obama quite properly will and should have the final word. He would be well-advised, however, to listen most carefully to the civilian and military experts with direct responsibilities and/or experience on the ground, and to ignore the fine intellectual distinctions others around him throw out–such as finding a “more spphisticated” way of fighting corruption in the country.
This war will not be won, or defeat avoided, by fine intellectual distinctions.
What Obama needs to do is to take the bull by the horns, and start exploring options for the early departure of Hamid Karzai. This will be a monumentally challenging task. So was D-Day in World War II.
The Trenchant Observer
www.trenchantobserver.com
Twitter: www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
E-mail: observer@trenchantobserver.com
Comments are invited.
Tags: Afghan elections, Afghanistan, Afghanistan elections, Afghanistan policy, Ahmad Wali Karzai, Ahmed Karzai, ahmed wali karzai, army, Barack Obama, Battle of the Bulge, Bob Woodward, CIA, COIN manua, COIN strategy, counterinsurgency manual, D-Day, David Petraeus, departure, departure of karzai, direct military action in Pakistan, drone attacks, early departure, early departure of Karzai, electoral fraud, eye on the ball, eyes on the ball, fine intellectual distinctions, Greg Miller, Hamid Karzai, joint chiefs, Karl Eikenberry, New York Tiimes, NSC, Obsama's Wars, Pakistan military, Pakistan people, Pakistan politics, Peace Council. Carlotta Gall, policymaking, Richard Holbrooke, sovereignty, special operations, special ops, spining out of control, Stanley McChrystal, State Department, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, the nuclear ball, the worng ball the ballgame, U.S., U.S. army, United States, Washington Post, World War II
Posted in Afghanistan, Barack Obama, CIA, elections, Intelligence, International Law, Pakistan, Pakistan military, Taliban, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, U.S. Military, use of force | 1 Comment »
Friday, September 17th, 2010
Iranian Help on Afghanistan?
In an interesting column in the Washington Post, David Ignatius reports on the possibilities for engaging with Iran to gain its assistance in dealing with Afghanistan, and the arguments for and against such an approach within the Obama administration.
Ignatius quotes President Obama’s statement, in an August 4 meeting with journalists, that he was in favor of establishing a “second track” (in addition to that on nuclear issues) for talking about Iran’s potential role in helping to stabilize Afghanistan, where the U.S. and Iran have a “mutual interest” in battling both the drug trade and the Taliban.
…
The question for the Obama administration is whether to take up these feelers (from Iran). Advocates argue that stabilizing Afghanistan is a strategic priority and that the United States should seek help wherever it can. They also argue that rather than undermining talks on the nuclear issue, contacts on Afghanistan could be an important confidence-building measure.
Skeptics contend the Afghan gambit would dilute the main focus of Iran policy, which is stopping Tehran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. That same logic led the Bush administration to pull back in March 2006 from its proposal for talks in Baghdad with Iran, after Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had appointed a key adviser, Ali Larijani, as his representative.
–David Ignatius, “The U.S. should test Iran’s resolve to stabilize Afghanistan,” Washington Post, September 17, 2010.
Attacks on Home of Karroubi and Offices of Moussavi
Meanwhile, in Iran paramilitary militia and/or government security officials on September 2 reportedly attacked the home of opposition leader and 2009 presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi.
Pro-government crowds swarmed outside the battered home of a key Iranian opposition leader Friday after militiamen attacked with firebombs and beat a bodyguard unconscious in a brazen message of intimidation and pinpoint pressure on dissent.
…
Mobs of hard-line militiamen — known as Basij — began breaking down the front door of Karroubi’s residence before being driven back by warning shots from guards, according to the Sahamnews website, which supports Iran’s pro-reform movement.
Karroubi was at home at the time, but was not injured, his son Hossein told The Associated Press.
Media restrictions imposed by Iranian authorities blocked journalists from reaching the site and independently verifying the accounts. A video posted on the Internet by a group backing the opposition showed smashed windows and graffiti on the walls and door panel of the house, located on a tree-lined street in north Tehran.
Hossein Karroubi said dozens of hard-liners — some on motorbikes — continued to damage the opposition leader’s home on Friday and that police were not responding to the scene. Some security cameras outside the building were torn down, he said.
–Brian Murphy and Nasser Karimi, “Mobs attack home of Iranian opposition leader,” AP, published on Iran on MSNBC, September 3, 2010.
On Wednesday night, September 15, Iranian government security forces and/or paramilitary militia reportedly attacked the offices of Mir Hossein Moussavi, the leading opposition candidate in the June, 2009 presidential elections.
–Associated Press, “Forces raid office of Iran’s opposition leader,” September 17, 2010.
–See also Ramin Mostaghim and Meris Lutz, “Iran opposition leader’s offices raided,” Los Angleles Times, September 17, 2010.
AP also reported that
Adding to the pressure on the opposition, Tehran chief prosecutor Abbas Jafari Dowlatabadi issued a new warning that the movement’s leaders could be brought to trial, Iranian newspapers reported Thursday.
See also
Ladane Nasseri, “Iran Pledges to Bring to Trial Opposition Leaders Who Challenged President,” Bloomberg, September 16, 2010
These attacks follow the surfacing of an alleged official letter to Iranian newspapers and media outlets banning any reporting on the activities of Karroubi, Moussavi, or former president Mohammad Khatami.
–See William Yong and Robert F. Worth, “Iran Clamps Down on Reporting on Protest Leaders,” New York Times, August 25, 2010.
Khamenei’s January call for opposition members to be dealt with strictly in accordance with the law
In January, two days after groups believed to be linked to the Revolutionary Guards allegedly open fire on the car of opposition figure Mehdi Karroubi, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called for such groups to abide by the law, stating
“Relevant bodies should fully respect the law in dealing with the riots and the ongoing events,” he told clerics and seminary students bused to Tehran from the shrine city of Qom for an annual political commemoration.
“Those without any legal duty and obligations should not meddle with these affairs,” he said. “Everyone should hold back from arbitrary acts and everything should go within the framework of the law.”
Borzou Daragahi, “Iran’s Supreme Leader Tells Militias not to Meddle,” Los Angeles Times, January 10, 2010
See The Trenchant Observer, “NEWS TO NOTE: In Iran, Khamenei calls for non-interference by militias and for officials “to fully respect the law,” January 14, 2010
The contradiction between Khamenei’s call for the authorities and paramilitary groups to act within the law and these recent attacks raises basic questions as to whether Kamenei has lost or is losing influence over the Revolutionary Guards and paramilitary groups such as the Basiji.
The Trenchant Observer
www.trenchantobserver.com
Twitter: www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
E-mail: observer@trenchantobserver.com
Comments are invited.
Tags: Afghanistan, Ali Khamenei, Basiji, Bloomberg, Borzou daragahi, Brian Murphy, David Ignatius, Hilary Clinton, Hossein Karroubi, Irã, Iran, Iran and afghanistan, Iran nuclear issue, irão, Karroubi, Karrubi, Ladane Nasseri, Los Angeles Times, Mahde, Mehdi, Meir Hossein Moussavi, Meris Lutz, Moussavi, Nasser Karimi, New York Times, paramilitary, Ramin Mostaghim, Robert F. Worth, Sahamnews, second track, security forces, Supreme Leader, Taliban, Trenchant Observer, U.S., United States, Washington Post, Willian Yong
Posted in Afghanistan, Barack Obama, human rights, internal supporters of human rights, Iran, Taliban, United States | No Comments »
Wednesday, March 31st, 2010
Heartening News, if Not an April Fool’s Joke
Jonathan Partow of the Washington Post reports from Kabul that the lower house of Aghanistan’s National Assembly has rejected Hamid Karzai’s attempt to seize control of the Electoral Complaints Commission. Partow reports:
“This is a very important day for Afghanistan’s democratic institutions,” said Peter D. Lepsch, a senior legal adviser for Democracy International in Kabul. “The legislative branch has used its constitutional authority to stem presidential power. That’s a big deal.”
…
The most contentious proposed change in the elections law would allow Karzai to appoint three of five members of the Electoral Complaints Commission…
…
This appointment proposal was a driving force for many lawmakers to vote against it by waving red cards in the air, according to Mirwais Yasini, the deputy speaker of the lower house.
“We had a very bad experience in the presidential election; it cannot be considered legal. The credibility of the current president is under question. Looking ahead, we have to have good transparency. We had to reject this law,” he said.
The members present in the lower house — about half the total — overwhelmingly voted against the proposal.
–Jonathan Partow, “Afghan parliament’s lower house rejects Karzai election proposals,” The Washington Post, April 1, 2010.
The Trenchant Observer
www.trenchantobserver.com
E-mail: observer@trenchantobserver.com
Twitter: www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
Comments are invited, in any language. If in a language other than English, please provide an English translation. A Google translation will be sufficient.
Tags: Afghanistan, ahmed wali karzai, CIA, Democracy International, Dexter Filkins, Eikenberry cables, elections, Electoral Complaints Commission, electoral coup, electoral fraud, Intelligence, Jonathan Partow, Karl Eikenberry, Karzai, Mark Landler, NATO in Afghanistan, New York Times, Obama, Peter D. Lepsch, relations with Karzai, U.S., U.S. military in Afghanistan, Washington Post, Wolesi Jirga
Posted in Afghanistan, Dictatorship, elections, Hamid Karzai, History, human rights | Comments Off
Wednesday, March 31st, 2010
Thomas L. Friedman, in an op-ed article published on the New York Times website on March 30 and in the print edition on March 31, 2010, has provided an important analysis which complements our article, “Afghanistan: Obama Begins to Grasp the Reality of Karzai,” also published on March 30. The Observer had not seen Friedman’s piece before writing his own.
Friedman argues that the U.S. has violated three cardinal principles of conducting foreign policy in the Middle East:
Rule No. 1: When you don’t call things by their real name, you always get in trouble. Karzai brazenly stole last year’s presidential election. But the Obama foreign policy team turned a blind eye, basically saying, he’s the best we could get, so just let it go. See dictionary for Vietnam: Air Marshal Nguyen Cao Ky.
When you can steal an election, you can steal anything. How will we get this guy to curb corruption when his whole election, and previous tour in office, were built on corruption? How can we be operating a clear, build-and-hold strategy that depends on us bringing good governance to Afghans when the head of the government is so duplicitous?
…
One reason you violate Rule No. 1 is because you’ve already violated Rule No. 2: “Never want it more than they do.”
…
Which leads to Rule No. 3: In the Middle East, what leaders tell you in private in English is irrelevant. All that matters is what they will defend in public in their own language.
…
Zeroing in on the central dilemma facing the U.S. and its allies in Afghanistan, Friedman concludes:
As Filkins and Landler noted, “During the recent American-dominated military offensive in the town of Marja — the largest of the war — Mr. Karzai stood mostly in the shadows.” And if Karzai behaves like this when he needs us, when we’re there fighting for him, how is he going to treat our interests when we’re gone?
We have thousands of U.S. troops on the ground in Afghanistan and more heading there. Love it or hate it, we’re now deep in it, so you have to want our engagement there to build something that is both decent and self-sustaining — so we can get out. But I still fear that Karzai is ready to fight to the last U.S. soldier. And once we clear, hold and build Afghanistan for him, he is going to break our hearts.
–Thomas L. Friedman, “This Time We Really Mean It,” New York Times, March 30, 2010.
Hard Options
It is time to consider hard options.
One option would be to block the funding by the United Nations of any electoral support for the National Assembly elections to be held on September 18, 2010. Such funding should be restored only if and when Karzai withdraws his decree seizing control of the Electoral Complaints Commission, restores the language of the electoral law to its text before his decree, and takes other measures to guarantee free and fair elections in September.
No U.N. funding should occur until these actions have actually been taken, not just promised. Any restoration of funding should contain clear conditions safeguarding the freedom of the elections which, if violated, would result in an immediate cessation of funding and U.N. support operations.
Other “tough” options should also be explored. These include resolving the contradictions inherent in the alleged ties of Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, to the CIA and U.S. dependence on him for intelligence and other matters in Kandahar and the South.
An even harder question lurks just behind the question of what to do about Wali Karzai, and that is the question of what Hamid Karzai’s involvement with the CIA may have been in the past.
These issues, and what to do about Wali Karzai as the U.S. prepares to launch an intensive compaign to secure Kandahar, require concentrated attention and decisive action at the highest levels of the U.S. government.
For, as we wrote on October 6, 2009,
The failure in Afghanistan has been a diplomatic and political failure, not just a military failure. Military strategy will falter if diplomatic and political strategy does not keep pace. We cannot succeed in Afghanistan by proceeding on the naive belief that we can “stand up” a legitimate government born of fraud, or that we can “stand up” an Afghan army both capable of defeating the Taliban and loyal to a government lacking in legitimacy and losing public support. Legitimacy is the key to developing both a more effective government and a more capable army and police. Without legitimacy, both possibilities appear to be but chimeras in the desert sand.
The Trenchant Observer
www.trenchantobserver.com
E-mail: observer@trenchantobserver.com
Twitter: www.twitter.com/trenchantobserv
Comments are invited, in any language. If in a language other than English, please provide an English translation. A Google translation will be sufficient.
Tags: Afghanistan, ahmed wali karzai, CIA, Dexter Filkins, Eikenberry cables, elections, Electoral Complaints Commission, electoral coup, electoral fraud, Intelligence, Karl Eikenberry, Karzai, Mark Landler, NATO in Afghanistan, New York Times, Obama, relations with Karzai, U.S., U.S. military in Afghanistan
Posted in Afghanistan, Barack Obama, CIA, Dictatorship, elections, Hamid Karzai, History, Iran, NATO, Taliban, U.S. Military | 1 Comment »