By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: May 11, 2010
Everybody here lies.
But with the arrival of Hamid Karzai, the mendacity blossomed into absurdity.
The question for the Obama White House is not whether it can grow to appreciate the caped capo who runs Afghanistan. (President Obama can’t stand him.) The question is whether Karzai will fall for all the guff they’re throwing at him.
Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and Gen. Stanley McChrystal were paraded into the White House press room to pretend as though their dispute about the efficacy of the surge, given Karzai’s serious flaws as a partner, has been put to rest. (It hasn’t.)
The administration crooned a reassuring lullaby to the colicky Karzai: that it has a long-term commitment in Afghanistan (it doesn’t) and an endgame there (it doesn’t) and that it knows that the upcoming Kandahar offensive will work (it doesn’t).
Asked by a reporter about the change from sticks to carrots, Richard Holbrooke, the special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan who has had contentious sessions with Karzai, replied: “No, I certainly don’t think it’s changed.” (It has.)
For their part, the Afghans promise to work on stemming corruption and stopping the poppy trade. (They won’t.)...(Read More)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The FAP feels that the accusations that Karzai might intend to reconcile with the Taliban is a bad idea, and a stab in the back to all the countries who tried to help the Afghans form a stable government, void of Taliban control. The FAP believes working to reconcile with the terrorists is a very shaky proposition. The FAP believes the method the Obama administration is doing, having a "talk" with Karzai, may be helpful, but not effective. Karzai needs to know that affiliation with terrorists is a move against freedom, thus a move against the U.S. and the FSA. Karzai needs to put his efforts in stabilizing the government and ridding the country of the Taliban, because until they are not a threat, the country can never trust it's safe.
Post a Comment