Very informative report in today's WaPo. Karzai's concern (which is shared, by the way, by the European Union's special rep in Afghanistan) is that these "local defense forces" will become warlord or tribal militias that will undercut Karzai's ability to form a more centralized state in Afghanistan.
Karzai's concerns are anything but groundless, especially given the facts that (1) Afghanistan has never really had a strongly centralized state, and (2) most Afghans view his government as corrupt and illegitimate. The US's chief concern, meanwhile, is to smash the "Taliban" with whatever means it can devise and then get the US military out before the US Treasury, public support for the war, Obama's re-election chances, and perhaps Petraeus' reputation as a military genius, are all bled dry.
But the US seems to want to have it both ways: sustain Karzai's government, but also crush the Taliban by creating local military forces that will likely be beyond his control as head of state.
Does this make sense to anyone else?
Karzai's concerns are anything but groundless, especially given the facts that (1) Afghanistan has never really had a strongly centralized state, and (2) most Afghans view his government as corrupt and illegitimate. The US's chief concern, meanwhile, is to smash the "Taliban" with whatever means it can devise and then get the US military out before the US Treasury, public support for the war, Obama's re-election chances, and perhaps Petraeus' reputation as a military genius, are all bled dry.
But the US seems to want to have it both ways: sustain Karzai's government, but also crush the Taliban by creating local military forces that will likely be beyond his control as head of state.
Does this make sense to anyone else?
No comments:
Post a Comment