2024

No, it’s not the sequel! I am stunned that the news media aren’t all over a statement by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, blurted out during a palace press conference inconveniently timed just as Defense Secretary Robert Gates was visiting the region on a surprise visit. Mr. Corruption – my little name for Karzai who stole his second term as president in an election where UN observers believe that about 1/3 of the ballots were suspect – let it be known that he did not expect Afghanistan to be able to pay for its own security forces until 2024!

President Obama is asking Congress for 30,000 additional troops for a surge in Afghanistan, an expensive ask in trouble financial times, telling the Afghans that there are no more “blank checks” to be expected from American taxpayers. With anti-corruption and anti-Taliban/al Qaeda benchmarks in the air, and even a tentative beginning to our “withdrawal” set for mid-2011, Karzai’s statement should be more than enough to send our Congress into spasms. The December 12^th New York Times understated the conundrum this way: “The timing of Mr. Karzai’s pronouncement was not ideal: … Mr. Gates has been summoned to explain to Congress the expected $30 billion a year it will cost for the escalation of the Afghan war.”

It’s bad enough that Karzai – reeking of the stench of corruption – is the anchor of our anti-corruption policy. Is challenging enough to mount an anti-insurgency campaign with hundreds of thousands of soldiers shy of a necessary force to do an effective job (over half a million troops is the number military strategists say is real, a number we could never afford). That offending Taliban and al Qaeda operatives have safe haven in Pakistan just about any time the heat in Afghanistan from American assaults is too much – they can wait until the US forces are deployed elsewhere and simply return – is just plain untenable. That the US and Afghan governments’ efforts to arm locals against Taliban and al Qaeda marauders have resulted in creating a rising new force of local warlords with little benefit either to the Afghan nation or the local villages they were supposed to protect is bad news.

It’s nasty enough that Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, a fairly lone voice is supporting American efforts against the Taliban, is slowly losing power as both his constituency – the local Pakistani voters – and his military, have made it increasingly clear that his support of U.S. policies is a fairly short road to political self-destruction. “Zardari has proved a reliable U.S. partner, even on actions that are unpopular with the Pakistani public, such as the CIA's campaign of airstrikes targeting Al Qaeda leaders and the Taliban in the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan... Analysts say that if Zardari loses a measure of control over foreign and defense issues, the winner is likely to be the Pakistani military, which has a long history of tense relations with Washington… The 54-year-old president already has ceded several of his most important powers, including the chairmanship of the agency that oversees Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, to Prime Minister Yusaf Raza Gillani. He plans this month to give up authority to dissolve parliament, dismiss the prime minister and appoint military chiefs, leaving him little more than a figurehead.” The December 12^th Los Angeles Times

What’re we gonna do? Capture and hold Pakistan, safe haven to our sweltering enemies? That’s a grand idea! If we want to push the nukes of that “more-than-terrifying-nation” into the hands of America’s opponents in Pakistan, we are doing one hell of a good job. Well, as the litany of horribles regarding our Afghan mission increasingly calls into question why we are expanding a war we clearly cannot win… Karzai reminds us of the obvious: his government is not only morally bankrupt, having to defend his little fiefdom is financially impossible unless the US picks up the tab for keeping him and his failed government in power for the next… er…. decade and a half! Is anybody looking at the obvious anymore?

Some folks are listening: “‘Obama is going to have to do a real sales job [to get Congress to authorize and pay for the troop surge],’ said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist who spent years as a senior aide on Capitol Hill. ‘You have people who are uncomfortable with the policy, and people who are uncomfortable with how to pay for it. And [Wisconsin Democrat, David] Obey, as chairman of the [House Appropriations C]ommittee that holds the purse strings, is uncomfortable with both.’” The NY Times.

Pay for extra troops? Why are we staying in light of all of the above? We’re Americans; we hate losing, American soldiers are dying for a lost cause (plus lots of civilian casualties), the folks in a corrupt government there are totally unprepared to fight on their own any time soon, the regional neighbors don’t want us there, and we have vastly better places to spend our money. We may even provoke another terrorist attack on our shores, and if we leave and they still launch an attack on us from Afghanistan, we do have ways to retaliate! Got milk? We know we got deficit!

I’m Peter Dekom, and I approve this message.