Karzai, Holbrooke, Regional Approaches and Cold War Anxieties

Just read a BBC story, titled, "Nosedive in US-Afghan Relations"

The article is a bit heavy on the Cold War undertones, but was still an incredibly smart, interesting detail of US-Afghan relations. In short, the US government (Obama administration specifically) is growing increasingly upset with Karzai's leadership. His government has been unabashedly corrupt, and recent actions have been seen as uncooperative. He's pushed for rules of engagement for NATO troops, and he's "publicly warned America that unless it supplied the military hardware he wanted, he would look to other countries for support." If he's trying to look out for his citizens, then that's perfectly fine. However, Karzai has becomes increasingly unpopular, and so the prospect of continuing support for an weak, corruption-riddled leader that strains on US / European goals seems difficult and unattractive.

The Cold War spin on the article was particularly interesting. Kyrgyzstan recently announced its decision to close an American air base that is crucial for transferring soldiers / supplies to Afghanistan. Coincidentally, in recent days, Russia pledged to give two billion dollars in loan-relief / aid to Kyrgyzstan. While this is probably just an overdue move on Russia's part to get the US out of what Russia deems as its sphere of influence, it couldn't come at a worse time.

Also, with Karzai reportedly trying to align Afghanistan more with Russia, US goals in the region seem increasingly tenuous and unpredictable.

That said, the BBC concluded it's article:

"It seems inconceivable that there could be a real and lasting schism between Kabul and Washington. It will be the job of Richard Holbrooke, the US Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, to ensure that does not happen."

...And with that said, I read a Foreign Affairs article written by Holbrooke in September.

Here are some Holbrooke Highlights:

some immediate concerns
- Identifies (1) the weak US economy and (2) even weaker US reputation as the "two areas of weakness must be repaired"

- Spends a fair amount of time talking about the importance of energy dependency and the need for clean energy...also did you know that "One of Ronald Reagan's first acts as president was to remove from the White House roof the solar panels Carter had had installed"? I didn't.

- Sees energy concerns and climate change as a point of potential unity for the US and China. "An opportunity for a breakthrough between the two most important nations in the world today, which also happen to be the world's top two polluters."

the candidates:
- Rips on McCain (it was written in September), specifically his reactionary approach to foreign policy, uncompromising, militarized view of the world, and his desire to create a League of Democracies.

- Applauds Obama for forward looking approach and his emphasis on diplomacy and soft power.

Central Asia and the Middle East
- Takes a regional approach to the Mid East and Central Asia. Specifically he calls Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan the "arc of crisis" since the region directly threatens US national security.

A good quote:
Any serious policy will require dealing with all the countries in this region, as well as Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. This unfortunately includes the very unpleasant reality at the center of this region, Iran.

- Believes that "incoherence has marked U.S. policy [in the region] since 2003."

- Stresses diplomacy (for instance, serious talks with Iran), but infuses this with pragmatism. In writing about Iran, and the prospect of talks with Ayatollah Khameni, he emphasizes that a back-up strategy is essential if this plan doesn't work. This seems like an incredibly smart approach.

A good quote that gives emphasis to this:
Diplomacy is like jazz -- an improvisation on a theme. Let it begin next year, as part of a new foreign policy in which diplomacy, conducted with firmness and enhanced by U.S. power, and consistent with American values, returns to its traditional place in the United States' national security policy.


Afghanistan Specific
"The right course [in Afghanistan] now does not lie in a huge increase in NATO forces, although additional forces will be required for the southern and eastern parts of the country. The Taliban cannot win in Afghanistan; their terror tactics and memories of the "black years" repel most Afghans. But by not losing, by staying alive and causing continual trouble, the Taliban are achieving a major objective -- preventing success by the central government, tying down large numbers of NATO troops, rallying "jihadists" from around the world to a remote but oddly romantic front."

- Looks like the US will be in Afghanistan for a long time:

The situation in Afghanistan is far from hopeless. But as the war enters its eighth year, Americans should be told the truth: it will last a long time -- longer than the United States' longest war to date, the 14-year conflict (1961-75) in Vietnam. Success will require new policies with regard to four major problem areas: the tribal areas in Pakistan, the drug lords who dominate the Afghan system, the national police, and the incompetence and corruption of the Afghan government.

- It'll be a transnational, regional, cooperative effort:

Afghanistan's future cannot be secured by a counterinsurgency effort alone; it will also require regional agreements that give Afghanistan's neighbors a stake in the settlement. That includes Iran -- as well as China, India, and Russia. But the most important neighbor is, of course, Pakistan, which can destabilize Afghanistan at will -- and has.

- Thinks Bush's greatest foreign policy failure was Afghanistan, not Iraq:

Nothing -- not even Iraq -- represents a greater policy failure for the outgoing administration.

- There's still a lasting influence of Neoconservatism. I think Professor Katzenstein (whose American Foreign Policy course I took) was absolutely right. Neoconservatism is not an anomalous flash-in-the-pan. It's a tradition rooted in American political thought that has gained a strength and will be in American foreign policy for some time (who knows). Anyway, I think Holbrooke articulates his stance on Neoconservatism pretty damn well:


Then there is the odd problem posed by the "democracy agenda" of the last six years. The Bush administration's inept advocacy of a fundamental human right has contaminated one of the nation's most sacred concepts. Bush did the dream of democracy a huge disservice by linking it to the assertion of U.S. military power…Yet the goal is correct and should not be abandoned -- only presented in a style and a tone far more sensitive to how it is perceived in other lands. The next administration should focus more on human rights (a phrase curiously absent from the Bush lexicon) and basic human needs while still encouraging the development of democratic forms of government, accompanied by the evolution of a pluralist political culture, the rule of law, and improvements in material conditions, especially through job creation.

- Sees a liberal internationalist US for the future, working with other poles of power to stabilize and improve the world (this is particularly clear in his critique of Bush, citing his failure "to deploy the instruments of statecraft in addressing Africa's debilitating cycle of violence":

[The US] can still take the helm in addressing the world's most pressing problems