Obama ’s Afghan visit: laying down the l aw to a US puppet

[Antid Oto]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

Obama’s Afghan visit: laying down the law to a US puppet
By David Walsh
1 April 2010

The recent visit by President Barack Obama to Afghanistan, and its
subsequent coverage in the American media, have helped clarify the
nature of Washington’s relationship to the Kabul regime.

As the Washington Post noted, Obama’s first trip to Afghanistan as
president “was brief and in darkness,” for security reasons. He
arrived at Bagram air base, notorious as a scene of US military abuse
and murder of detainees, met with Afghan and American officials at the
presidential palace (the former were only alerted to the US
president’s visit a few hours ahead of time), made a demagogic speech
before American troops at Bagram prior to “flying out of the country
before dawn.”

One of the principal aims of Obama’s trip was to lay down the law,
gangster-style, to Afghan President Hamid Karzai over the latter’s
recent flirtations with China and Iran. Karzai traveled to Beijing and
Tehran in the last few weeks, and he also received a visit from
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Washington Post politely
referred to Obama’s surprise Afghan stopover as “a chance to remind
Karzai of the need to work closely with the United States.”

What did the US president tell Karzai during their discussions Sunday
night? Did he remind the Afghan leader that the American government
and military had installed him in power in December 2001? Did he point
to the billions of dollars in US aid that had flown into Kabul since
that time, much of it ending up in the pockets of Karzai’s relatives
and cronies? Did he threaten the Afghan president, or even hint that
he might end up like Ngo Dinh Diem, the Vietnamese president of South
Vietnam, and long-time US asset, assassinated in a CIA-organized coup
in 1963?

The American media coverage of the event pointed to the acrimony of
the conversation. The Washington Post described it as “a brief,
unhappy encounter.” A good deal of ink was spilled in the media over
supposed Obama administration concerns about pervasive corruption in
the Afghan regime, one of the most graft-ridden on earth. This,
however, is purely for public consumption. After all, the US put
Karzai in the presidential palace, and has kept his hated regime in
place for more than eight years.

To put things in perspective: Hamid Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Wali
Karzai, “the most powerful man in southern Afghanistan,” is a CIA
asset, paid regularly “for many years for performing a variety of
services” (including operating anti-Taliban death squads)—and will be
kept in power by the US military for that reason, despite his
well-known, lucrative links to the drug trade (New York Times, March
30, 2010).

Washington and the American media know perfectly well what they have
in the Afghan president—a venal, wealthy, ruthless politician; the
current difficulties result from the US puppet attempting to establish
a certain independence from his American overlords.

A news article in the New York Times (“Afghan Leader Is Seen to Flout
Influence of U.S.,” March 29, 2010) and an op-ed piece by Times
columnist Thomas Friedman (“This Time We Really Mean It,” March 31,
2010) shed some light on the complexities of the present situation.

The first article complains about the “red carpet treatment” received
by Iran’s Ahmadinejad in Kabul and points to it as “just one example
of how Mr. Karzai is putting distance between himself and his American
sponsors.… Mr. Karzai now often voices the view that his interests and
the United States’ no longer coincide.” It later observes that during
the Iranian leader’s visit, “With Mr. Karzai standing at his side in
Kabul, Mr. Ahmadinejad accused the United States of promoting terrorism.”

Furthermore, according to the Times, Karzai hosted a lunch for
prominent Afghan media and business figures in January at which “he
expressed a deep cynicism about America’s motives, and of the burden
he bears in trying to keep the United States at bay. ‘He has developed
a complete theory of American power,’ said an Afghan who attended the
lunch and who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of
retribution. ‘He believes that America is trying to dominate the
region, and that he is the only one who can stand up to them.’ ”

One would assume it was the Times reporters who chose to dub Karzai’s
view of “America’s motives” as “deep cynicism.” This rather clear-eyed
notion of US geopolitical ambition, in fact, is shared by a healthy
portion of the world’s population.

The newspaper’s account of the January meeting continued: “Mr. Karzai
said that, left alone, he could strike a deal with the Taliban, but
that the United States refuses to allow him. The American goal, he
said, was to keep the Afghan conflict going, and thereby allow
American troops to stay in the country.

“Mr. Karzai’s ultimate motives are not always clear. It may be that
while Mr. Karzai supports the Americans’ presence here, he believes
that distancing himself from the United States plays well among
average Afghans.”

The last comment, made in passing, is worth noting. It acknowledges
what every objective observer understands, that masses of the Afghan
population despise the American and allied forces as foreign
occupiers. A recent piece from the Global Post news service,
commenting on a US outpost in Kandahar province, noted: “Rejection
rates of the American presence run high, with locals maintaining a
standoffish attitude toward patrolling troops and their Afghan
National Army counterparts. ‘They hate us,’ said one soldier who
requested that his name not be printed.”

And why shouldn’t they? The US encounter with Afghanistan over the
past three decades has been catastrophic for the Afghan people. Tens
of thousands of American troops are currently terrorizing the civilian
population on the ground and through the air. The Karzai regime
defended by US military force presides over unspeakable conditions for
the masses of people.

A UN report released Tuesday explained that over a third of Afghans
live in “absolute poverty” and approximately the same number are only
slightly above the poverty line. “Only 23 percent of the population
have access to safe drinking water, and only 24 percent of the
population above the age of 15 can read and write, with much lower
literacy rates among women and nomadic populations,” the report alleged.

Also on Tuesday, the Inter Press Service noted the findings of the
international children’s rights organization Terre des Hommes, which
concluded that nearly two out of three male juveniles arrested in
Afghanistan were abused. The report, according to IPS, “reveals a
justice system that subjects juveniles, many of whom are already
innocent victims, to torture, forced confessions and blatant violation
of their rights in court.”

None of this misery and violence disturbs the sleep of Obama
administration officials or New York Times staff members.

On the other hand, Times columnist Thomas Friedman found his
newspaper’s article on Karzai’s flouting his US paymasters “very
troubling.” The piece, he explained, “detailed how President Hamid
Karzai of Afghanistan had invited Iran’s president, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, to Kabul—in order to stick a thumb in the eye of the
Obama administration.”

Friedman then cites the account of the January lunch at which Karzai
criticized US motives in Afghanistan. He goes on: “That is what we’re
getting for risking thousands of U.S. soldiers and having spent $200
billion already.” The bitterness, which reminds one of an employer who
feels he’s been cheated by a veteran retainer’s “disloyalty,” is
palpable. All that cash paid out, and what have we got to show for it!

(In a recent issue, the New Republic magazine summed up the
master-servant character of US-Afghan relations, as well as the nature
of Afghanistan’s “democratic” elections, rather succinctly. It noted
that Obama officials “made no secret of the fact that the United
States was looking for alternatives [to Karzai]. No suitable
replacement could be found, however, and Karzai’s re-election in
August 2009 was never much in doubt.” Did US officials place a want ad?)

In the course of his op-ed, Friedman is also obliged to take note of
the reality referred to above: the hostility of the Afghan people
toward the US occupation: “When Karzai believes that the way to punish
America…is by inviting Iran’s president to Kabul—who delivered a
virulently anti-U.S. speech from inside the presidential palace—you
have to pay close attention to that. It means Karzai must think that
anti-Americanism plays well on the streets of Afghanistan and that by
dabbling in it himself…he will strengthen himself politically. That is
not a good sign.”

Again, the admission and the unstated assumptions are revealing.
Friedman could not care less what the Afghan people think. All his
chatter about “good governance” and building “something that is both
decent and self-sustaining” in Afghanistan is just that.

A considerable nervousness pervades the Times pieces. The respective
authors obviously recognize that despite the billions spent on troops
and weaponry, despite past and upcoming murderous offensives, despite
all the efforts made to cultivate (bribe, bully, etc.) a fully
compliant regime in Kabul, the entire neo-colonial intervention in
Afghanistan could still go disastrously to pieces.

http://wsws.org/articles/2010/apr2010/karz-a01.shtml

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********