Argument: More troops in Afghanistan perpetuates corrupt Afghan government
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Thomas Friedman. "From baby-sitting to adoption". New York Times. September 5, 2009: "On Aug. 29, this newspaper carried a front-page headline that should make your blood boil: 'Karzai Using Rift With U.S. to Gain Favor.' The article said that Obama officials were growing disenchanted with the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, whose supporters allegedly stuffed ballot boxes in the recent elections, while Mr. Karzai struck deals with accused drug dealers and warlords, one of whom is his brother, for political gain. The article added, though, that in a feat of political shrewdness, Mr. Karzai 'has surprised some in the Obama administration' by turning their anger with him 'to an advantage, portraying himself at home as the only political candidate willing to stand up to the dictates of the United States.'[...] It would be one thing if the people we were fighting with and for represented everything the Taliban did not: decency, respect for women’s rights and education, respect for the rule of law and democratic values and rejection of drug-dealing. But they do not. Too many in this Kabul government are just a different kind of bad. This has become a war between light black — Karzai & Co. — and dark black — Taliban Inc. And light black is simply not good enough to ask Americans to pay for with blood or treasure."
Malou Innocent. "No More Troops for Afghanistan". Huffington Post. September 16, 2009: "But while military leaders like Gen. Stanley McChrystal say a new strategy must be forged to "earn the support of the [Afghan] people," Washington does not even have the support of the American people. The U.S. does not have the patience, cultural knowledge or legitimacy to transform what is a deeply divided, poverty-stricken, tribal-based society into a self-sufficient, non-corrupt, and stable electoral democracy."