There is nothing new about the Obama/Karzai relationship.

[Robb]

Despite some nonsense being posted here, Karzai has been on his way out since Obama took office. Obama has been increasingly working around Karzai, and it turns out it has been with three very specific ministers: Omar Zakhilwal, Mohammad Hanif Atmar and General Abdul Raheem Wardak, the ministers of finance, interior and defense. Obama finally tipped his hand by demanding those three participate in the whirlwind meeting in Kabul recently -- he's been working to empower them http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100328/ap_on_re_as/as_obama_afghanistan">"as a way of reducing the influence of presidential cronies."

Imagine my surprise at being right for a change. But if you'd been watching carefully, you'd have come to the same conclusion.

Unlike his predecessor, who backed Karzai unconditionally and enjoyed weekly teleconferences with him, Obama out of the gate made it clear he'd accept nothing less than complete legitimacy; when Karzai balked at the UN tossing out hundreds of thousands of fraudulent ballots cast for him in the August election, the Obama administration told him they wouldn't send troops unless he accepted the UN's finding -- and until there was a legitimate president in power.

The move was meant to force a run-off election between Karzai and his closest challenger, Abdullah Abdullah. Didn't happen, Abdullah dropped out of the race, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-11-01-abdullah-afghan-election_N.htm">saying even the runoff would be rigged. Truth be told he was probably right.

Obama's answer was to skip Karzai's swearing-in ceremony, and send Secretary of State Clinton there instead -- to deliver a message. http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/11/19/91756.html">"Build an accountable, transparent government, or else."

Karzai found ways to fire back; once a staunch ally of all things USA, he seized upon every opportunity to highlight civilian casualties in US air raids -- appointing Assadullah Wafa to head investigations into them, investigations that produced much press but zero results. I've gone into http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7384258">great detail here about why choosing Wafa was significant in Afghanistan, where he is pretty much the face the citizens associate with being angry with the West for their indiscriminate killing -- sheer comedy given his own history, but there it is.

Notably, despite greater numbers of civilian casualties before Obama took office, Karzai was utterly absent from any discussion of the matter until Clinton told him off.

Even Obama's decision to put off a visit to Kabul until recently was part of a diplomatic message sent to Karzai -- and when he showed up, he spent much his time talking to the three ministers, notably a lengthy discussion with finance minister Zakhilwal about the need to build the capacity of Afghan institutions.

I said this in January:

Karzai increases his relevancy with the Afghan people every time he wags his finger at Americans. Nothing over there happens in a vacuum. He has been ratcheting up his anti-U.S. rhetoric ever since Obama's election. This is not an accident, and it won't be the last time.

...but I'll admit I hadn't exactly figured out why at the time. The new boss, especially from Karzai's perspective, is not the same as the old boss, and to suggest as much ignores events we've seen. Bush and Cheney were accidental or deliberate idiots in handling Afghanistan politics; Obama's team is acting like they grew up wearing pawkul hats.

I'm still taking bets for anyone who thinks Karzai will still be President by the time I'm out of summer strawberries.

[Cha]

1. Thanks for the research, Robb..

I appreciate being able to read this all in one OP like this.

[Diamonique]

3. Me too. Great post, Robb!

[NJmaverick]

2. Thanks, this was a very informative post

[Ohio Joe]

4. I think you are correct

Good research!

[4lbs]

5. Noriega, supported by Reagan for almost a decade, pissed in the face of Bush Sr, and look what

happened to him.

Karzai needs to mind that, since the U.S. already has tens of thousands of combat troops in his country.

[Ghost Dog]

6. "he seized upon every opportunity to highlight civilian casualties in US air raids "

Such opportunities are not scarce, Wafa or no Wafa.

[Robb]

7. That they are increasingly scarce, yet elicit more noise from Karzai, is the point.

[ShortnFiery]

8. Yes, plus they have one thing in common:

The people in Afghanistan HATE them both with the intensity of a thousand white hot suns. :shrug:

[Robb]

9. Self-delete

[ProSense]

10. "The people in Afghanistan HATE them both with the intensity of a thousand white hot suns." Really?

Afghans more optimistic for future, survey shows

So many baseless statements.

[ShortnFiery]

11. You're providing me cooked surveys? As a grad student I was hired ...

by the Navy to conduct survey research. Our research group did our utmost to ensure compliance of methodological constraints. However, I ALSO KNOW how to MANUFACTURE CONSENT by skewing the data.

Think about this: Everyone in Afghanistan knows at least one family member and/or friend who has been blown to kibbles and bits by one of our smart bombs. We occupy their sovereign country. What makes you think in your WILDEST IMAGINATION that the people of Afghanistan want their country to be occupied by foreign invaders?

It makes NO sense on it's very surface.

LIES. DAMN LIES. STATISTICS.

Bottom Line: No, I don't trust this survey.

[ProSense]

12. Oh, I forgot: If you say it's so, facts be damned. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

13. No, look at the specific survey questions: Many of them are so vague that you can't

tease out EXACTLY what the people believed.

So what if the people feel "hopeful for the future of Afghanistan" - could easily mean that as soon as the INVADERS leave, they'll be able to get back to what they consider "normal life?"

The questions were so general that it didn't get to the specifics of "the occupation." Even if those questions were asked, do you HONESTLY believe that any Afghan person would DARE say anything negative about the invading power who's occupying their nation? Hell, I'd be doing a jig and singing "I'm so hopeful!" if one of the ruling military members came to ask me questions. Doing surveys in "occupied Nations" on it's surface is not going to SCORE you accurate data.

Hint: What do you think of Chinese or Russian soldiers occupying your community? OK, then translate the forgoing to the Afghan people.

See, that's LOGIC.

Depending on people who are PAID to have certain results be spun positive, is not logical.

But of course, our government has NEVER lied to us in the past. :sarcasm:

[ProSense]

14. No, let's review:

You: "The people in Afghanistan HATE them both with the intensity of a thousand white hot suns."

Baseless!

[ShortnFiery]

15. No, according to Peter Galbraith, the former deputy UN special envoy ...

responsible for electoral matters, Karzai's THUGS stuffed over a MILLION ballots in his favor. According to Galbraith, our PUPPET did not even score 50%. Therefore, the election is illegitimate and so is Karzai's rule.
Galbraith made the lucid argument: When your partner is corrupt, I can't see continuing the escalation of combat troops because the MISSION CAN NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED.

Sending troops in to KILL and DIE for a "profoundly corrupt" and "illegitimate" leader would logically foment the intense resentment of the populace for "the puppet" that the USA has installed, i.e., Hamid Karzai. Therefore, my supposition that these resentments would also extend to the leader (President Obama) whose military occupies your native land, is IMO, quite LOGICAL. :shrug:

But no, we must have our Ruling Thug, so we had this honorable man FIRED and supported this DESPISED THUG whose brother is the biggest taliban NARCOTICS trafficer in Afghanistan.

I'm seeing stark parallels to our earlier meddling in the leadership of South Vietnam and the signs do not bode positive.
-----------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/30/afghanistan-diplomat-galbraith-forced-out

The recall of Galbraith would have required the agreement of the Obama administration and has come as a surprise following the earlier demand by Obama's own envoy to Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, that Karzai respect the proper election process.

Further damning US criticism of the Karzai administration emerged in the leaked confidential report prepared by the US commander in the country, General Stanley McChrystal, which warned that corruption within the Karzai government was as big a threat as the Taliban.

The exit of Galbraith would appear to further reduce Obama's scope for manoeuvre in Afghanistan at a time when he is facing calls from his military commander, General Stanley McChrystal, for up to 40,000 more soldiers.

[ProSense]

16. What the hell does that have to do with the BBC poll? n/t

[ShortnFiery]

17. I'm responding to your attack ... answering YOUR question. eom

[ProSense]

18. Another baseless comment . n/t

[ShortnFiery]

19. Wow!

[asphalt.jungle]

20. "Despite some nonsense being posted here"

and the sad part about it is that their source is Rupert Murdoch's London Times. it's like bizzaro world. why don't they tell us what faux news thinks while they are at it.