... The coalition is pursuing a political-military strategy based on three tasks. First, "clear" the guerrillas from populated areas. Second, "hold" the areas with Afghan forces. Third, "build" responsible governance and development to gain the loyalty of the population for the government in Kabul. To accomplish this, the coalition military has deployed reconstruction teams to 25 provinces. We may call this a counterinsurgency program, but it's really nation-building.
The problem with building a new and better Afghanistan is that, above the local level, President Karzai has long held the levers of political power by controlling provincial finances and leadership appointments, including those of police chiefs. Regardless of the coalition's success at the district level, an obdurate and erratic Mr. Karzai is an obstacle to progress...
More at The New York Times.
Comments
I find it interesting to note that Karzai-bashing seems to be the latest fad in leftist journalism. The most interesting part is that it comes shortly after our moronic POTUS clearly bungled a face-to-face with Karzai.
I guess soon I should be expect to read articles about how Netanyahu is the wrong guy for Israel... because the Obama administration has managed to botch that recently-strong relationship too.
In all simplicity, I would just like to reiterate the truism that it is tremendously important to have a very nuanced understanding, particularly in conter-insurgency.
I can't help but recall Petraeus'/Crockers Senate Armed Services testimony in April 2008, when the senators were absolutely upset about the fact that the Iraqi PM had ordered his forces to clear out JAM from Basra.
It is a paradox - we ask partners to step up and lead, and at the same time we moan about not being in control.
Let "The Arabs" do it their way, as Lawrence said. Some degree of control must be let up, how uncomfortable it may be.