Despite the violence and uncertainty surrounding this Saturday's election for a new Afghan President, there's one positive Hamid Karzai, the sitting president and the architect of much of the country's unrest, is not on the ballot this time. But while Karzai must cede power under the rules of the Afghan constitution, the other leader whose mismanagement helped tank Afghanistan abandoned his influence in what he once called "the right war" a long time ago. That leader is President Barack Obama.
The best scenario is a May run-off between the two top candidates the opposite of the chaos of 2009 that left Karzai with a third term. Instead of a statesmanlike exit as father of a new democracy, Karzai's re-election imploded his already troubled legacy. On an election day the UN characterized as Afghanistan's worst episode of violence in fifteen years, Western diplomats accused Karzai and his cronies of at least 100,000 fictitious ballots and over 800 fake polling sites. Some level of corruption is to be expected in a post-conflict war zone, but the rancorous back and forth between Karzai and the Obama administration was a disastrous turning point. Dismissing voting irregularities as "totally fabricated," Karzai dedicated his next five years to severing his relationship with the United States. Always a pacifist a nuance neglected when drafting plans for a more aggressive war strategy Karzai went increasingly public with his anger over civilian casualties, night raids and what he saw as American rejection to take the fight to Pakistan.
Yet for all of Karzai's failings, the Obama administration's craven politics and unrealistic expectations hastened the decline. Immediately after Obama's election, administration officials stressed the need for a "credible partner" in Afghanistan, ignoring the reality that Karzai would likely win even without widespread cheating. To make good on his strong campaign condemnation of the Bush administration failures in Afghanistan, Obama ordered an additional 20,000 troops, then another 30,000, almost doubling the size of the American forces in Afghanistan to nearly 100,000. Obama actually didn't want to surge the troops he took over three months to make the decision to do so but feared political fallout for denying the request of the brass.The additional troops were supposed to "create the space for governance." The strategy depended on Karzai's potential as a leader, but Obama would not play the role of mentor and would not speak with Karzai directly. It didn't work. Already before the contested election, Obama outsourced 'the job against Al Qaida in Afghanistan' to deceased Special Envoy Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, Vice-President Joe Biden, and Ambassador Karl Eikenberry. Though the commander-in-chief should delegate as much as possible, wartime relationships matter. It was a slight from which Karzai would never recover.
Mood stabilizers were yanked for shock therapy. Instead of tolerating Karzai's bipolar mania for his occasional lucidity and cooperation, the Obama model of diplomacy became to antagonize its critical partner. Pander to the very worst of your own and Karzai's personality, to the detriment of the men and women you expect to fight a war you don't believe in (not to mention the men, women, and children who have to live in the world you've wrought in their backyards). If political elites with base similarities in wealth, power, and prestige can't find any common ground, counterinsurgency didn't have a prayer.
Obama made clear where he stood when he quickly undercut his $120 billion investment by announcing a drawdown. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates observed a preoccupation with exit over strategy. "The president doesn't trust his commander, can't stand Karzai, doesn't believe in his own strategy and doesn't consider the war to be his," wrote Gates in his memoir. "For him, it's all about getting out."
Afghanistan today is much more violent than when Obama came into office. Fewer Americans may be dying. But many more Afghan civilians are being killed, according to U.N. statistics. More guns, more warlords, more militias that's Obama's probable legacy. It's what happens when you can't deal with reality and commit one way or the other in wartime you lose.
#2
Everything the regime undertakes has a political component. Champ's goal was the neutralization of Bin Laden. Following the raid on Abbottabad, and the death of UBL, his interest in the failing JPEL effort and Afghanistan began to wane.
[NATION.PK] The religio-political party, Jamaat Ulema Islam -- Fazl-ur-Rehman (JUI-F), is well known for its tendency to join the ruling party of the day, and then quitting. Previously, the party left the PPP federal government over the Haj scam controversy, and now it has decided to part ways with the PML-N government over differences on "policy issues". Its two ministers, who were still without portfolios months after joining the government, have submitted resignations.
Considering the party's outrageous response following the release of the National Internal Security Policy (NISP) document which highlighted the link between terrorism and religious seminaries, its insistence on being accepted as the central player in talks with the TTP and Mr Fazl-ur-Rehman's unimpressive record suggest that perhaps, this isn't such a bad thing for the PML-N. The country is faced with an existential crisis, and tough decisions need to be made to rescue it from the jaws of complete disintegration. Mr Fazl-ur-Rehman aptly symbolises the resistance against those necessary decisions. His opposition against madrassa reforms, rights of women and modernity in general may serve his political interests due to the backwardness of his constituents, but it surely doesn't serve the country. To really understand the party's ideology, it is enough to know that Maulana Sherani -- the serving Chairman of Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) -- is a JUI-F member who took charge when the party joined the PPP's previous government. Furthermore, the fact that the JUI-F has remained completely detached from the 'peace talks' despite its long-standing position in support of negotiations, also reveals the selfish nature of its politics. Its attempts to secure PML-N's support to undermine PTI's mandate given by the voters of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa ... formerly NWFP, still Terrorism Central... again shows the dearth of democratic values within the party. No solution is acceptable to the party that doesn't come through it nor is it willing to let go of its self-centered agenda for the sake of the country. Why would anyone seek such a partner?
Posted by: Fred ||
04/14/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11123 views]
Top|| File under: Jamaat-e-Ulema Islami
[The Week] As American politics splits across demographic lines, South Africa provides a cautionary tale.
Whites are a steadily diminishing fraction of the population. In fact, the demographic trends show that they will no longer be the majority of the population, starting sometime about 2050. Jamelle Bouie has a fine essay exploring what this might mean for American politics: "Fine essay"....or blinding flash ?
Working at Northwestern University, psychologists Maureen Craig and Jennifer Richeson apply that question to demographic change, and, in particular, to white Americans vis-ŕ-vis the prospect of a United States where the majority of Americans are drawn from today's minorities. Does a threat to one's status as the demographic "in-group" increase political conservatism? The answer, in short, is yes... [Slate]
Most of the essay explores what happens to whites as they fear losing their demographic preeminence -- Bouie concludes it would look a lot like the "racial polarization of the 2012 election" -- but at the end he speculates what could happen if people just start voting their race: Been snoozing has he? Appears "just started" is well underway.
With extreme racial polarization -- and not the routine identity politics of the present -- this goes out the window. We would fracture like the Seven Kingdoms, with a politics governed by mutual suspicion. And you don't have to imagine this future. You can see it right now, in the Deep South, where our history weighs heaviest. In Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama, elections are polarized by race: Whites vote one way, blacks the other. The result is constant acrimony, huge disinvestment in public goods like education and health, and a political culture where the central question isn't "how can we help each other" but "how can I stop them from taking what I have."
It's destructive, dangerous, and -- as far as America's future goes -- more likely than you think. [Slate]
Though this is only tangential to Bouie's piece, the effects of full-blown racialized voting would probably be even worse than that. The biggest reaction, and possibly worst, would be galloping corruption.
Might I offer Detroit, Atlanta, and Chicago as examples ?
South Africa is a country where such a racialized situation exists. In every election since 1994, blacks have voted overwhelmingly for the African National Congress, while whites and Coloureds (the local, nonoffensive term for mixed-race folks) tend to vote for the Democratic Alliance. It's easy to understand why this is the case: the ANC is the party of Nelson Mandela and gets much of the credit for ending apartheid. "Credit" or blame, you decide.
But because blacks are about 80 percent of the population, the ANC has won every election since 1994 with over 60 percent of the vote. A lack of a credible opposition party is the single greatest problem with modern South Africa; the absence of discipline created by close elections has led directly to massive corruption and poor governance. Many public schools, especially in the former Bantustan "homelands," are basically worthless. Obviously they've failed to implement Common Core.
The lack of competition has poisoned the ANC itself worst of all, which went from an organization of national liberation to "just another grubby political party on the make," largely captured by the wealthy business establishment and increasingly resorting to cheap race-baiting to win votes.
These problems can be stacked right on apartheid's doorstep; the long-term political side effects are one of the most insidious legacies of colonial-style governance. But that doesn't change the fact that ultimately, a society that votes along demographic lines -- which chooses a new government by effectively just totting up the populations of the various ethnic groups -- is one which has forfeited much of its democratic character.
There are some positive signs for South Africa, at least: Elections are to be held next month, and the ANC will probably have its worst showing since 1994. Nelson Mandela is gone and the a new generation with no memory of apartheid can vote for the first time. Blacks are increasingly disillusioned with the ANC's poor performance, and the DA's vote share has been increasing sharply. Fok'n mompies [retards], u cooked dit, u eet dit!
But it would be bad news indeed if the U.S. had to go through such a process to figure out how bad would be. White folks: Don't panic. America ain't going anywhere. I unconvinced, and shall remain so.
The Democrat may no longer believe in God, the Constitution or even motherhood and apple pie, but he devoutly believes with all the faith of a 9/11 Truther in the impermeability of steel and of a Neo-Nazi in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion that somewhere out there Republicans are sitting in a sealed room and plotting to bring back the 50s.
And if not the 50s, then at least the early 60s.
The left accuses the right of being deeply paranoid. Meanwhile the left is convinced that every Republican sneeze is a racial putdown of America's first black president since Bill Clinton.
Ive got to hand it to Democrat state senator, Leland Yee. Most political scandals are the typical drug use, hookers, or bribery stuff. This guy reaches for the stars. He isnt messing around. There is no half assed corruption here. If Yee had a machine that could control the weather hed be a Batman villain.
#2
"Where posted" indeed. Oh, it's become a tribal, totalitarian police state has it? Perhaps the readership of this rag should take a long, hard look at who they vote for and their leftist, core beliefs. They might begin with an examination national sovereignty and what they call in this article the "Criminalization of Immigration."
Chickens home to roost. Please enjoy your parents basement and eating from a can.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
