Losing Faith in Karzai

Two classified cables authored by U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl W. Eikenberry and leaked to the New York Times provide startling details of just how little faith America’s top diplomatic official in Afghanistan (Eikenberry is a retired Army lieutenant general who once served as America’s top military official in Afghanistan) has in the Karzai government.

His words speak for themselves.

November 6^th: “President Karzai is not an adequate strategic partner. The proposed counterinsurgency strategy assumes an Afghan political leadership that is both able to take responsibility and to exert sovereignty in the furtherance of our goal — a secure, peaceful, minimally self-sufficient Afghanistan hardened against transnational terrorist groups. … Yet Karzai continues to shun responsibility for any sovereign burden, whether defense, governance or development. He and much of his circle do not want the U.S. to leave and are only too happy to see us invest further. They assume we covet their territory for a never-ending ‘war on terror’ and for military bases to use against surrounding powers. … Beyond Karzai himself, there is no political ruling class that provides an overarching national identity that transcends local affiliations and provides reliable partnership.”

November 9^th: “In a PBS interview on November 7, Karzai sounded bizarrely cautionary notes about his willingness to address governance and corruption. This tracks with his record of inaction or grudging compliance in this area.”

Instead, Eikenberry argued that new emphasis should be placed on Pakistan: “Pakistan will remain the single greatest source of Afghan instability so long as the border sanctuaries remain,” he wrote. “Until this sanctuary problem is fully addressed, the gains from sending additional forces may be fleeting… As we contemplate greatly expanding our presence in Afghanistan, the better answer to our difficulties could well be to further ratchet up our engagement in Pakistan.”

While Eikenberry has since claimed to be fully supportive of the president’s new strategy, his words provide a startling contrast to the recommendations provided by General Stanley McChrystal. One line, in particular, is particularly chilling. Eikenberry argued that the risk is “that we will become more deeply engaged here with no way to extricate ourselves, short of allowing the country to descend again into lawlessness and chaos.”

Whether you wanted the president to double down in Afghanistan (I wanted to focus on Pakistan) or not, there is no denying this: these cables could be straight out of the Pentagon Papers. Yikes.