In Afghanistan, U.S. Envoy Sits in Seat of Power

[cb88]

THE SATURDAY PROFILE In Afghanistan, U.S. Envoy Sits in Seat of Power

By AMY WALDMAN

Published: April 17, 2004


Excerpt:

ABUL, Afghanistan — "So what are we doing today?" Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, asked the United States ambassador, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, as they sat in Mr. Karzai's office.

Mr. Khalilzad patiently explained that they would attend a ceremony to kick off the "greening" of Kabul — the planting and seeding of 850,000 trees — in honor of the Afghan New Year.

Mr. Karzai said he would speak off-the-cuff. Mr. Khalilzad, sounding more mentor than diplomat, approved: "It's good you don't have a text," he told Mr. Karzai. "You tend to do better."

The genial Mr. Karzai may be Afghanistan's president, but the affable, ambitious Mr. Khalilzad often seems more like its chief executive. With his command of both details and American largesse, the Afghan-born envoy has created an alternate seat of power since his arrival on Thanksgiving.

As he shuttles between the American Embassy and the presidential palace, where Americans guard Mr. Karzai, one place seems an extension of the other.

Working closely with the Karzai government and the American military, Mr. Khalilzad ponders whether to push for the removal of uncooperative governors, where roads should be built to undercut insurgency, and how to ensure that the elements friendly to America gain ascendancy in a democratic Afghanistan. His overarching goal is to accelerate the country's rebuilding and securing, preferably on a timetable attuned to the American political cycle.

Rest of the story: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/17/in...17AFGH.html?th

[kruser79]

While it may seem that he looks to build an American ally, I read into it a bit different. If we are for building peace, and the last two deployments were for that reason, then it would stand to reason that we help those with unsteady footing. We just got rid of an oppressive, archaic leadership that was bent on keeping it's people under it's thumb while giving Al Qaida the space and privacy to wage it's war on "infidels." We are giving their country back to them better than it was. We are in the process of bringing them out of the dark ages and giving them some room on the world stage.
If we were to leave everything up to them, with no backing or guidance, where would they be next year? They'd be in some sort of civil war because of the few in some sort of power right now that seem bent on keeping their thumb on the people. If it's to be worth the price paid, it has to be done to completion.....

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by kruser79

While it may seem that he looks to build an American ally, I read into it a bit different. If we are for building peace, and the last two deployments were for that reason, then it would stand to reason that we help those with unsteady footing. We just got rid of an oppressive, archaic leadership that was bent on keeping it's people under it's thumb while giving Al Qaida the space and privacy to wage it's war on "infidels." We are giving their country back to them better than it was. We are in the process of bringing them out of the dark ages and giving them some room on the world stage.
If we were to leave everything up to them, with no backing or guidance, where would they be next year? They'd be in some sort of civil war because of the few in some sort of power right now that seem bent on keeping their thumb on the people. If it's to be worth the price paid, it has to be done to completion.....

I was reading that the same way, Kruser. These people just don't have the history, background or skills that are needed right now. It is up to us to help them get those needed skills and it sounds like that is what we are doing. Breaking the hold of tribalism (or whatever one would call it) is difficult. The tribal leaders have too much to lose under a more central government so they continue to resist, even though it's bad for the country.

[cb88]

Concur with both of you. And I think as the dust settles in Iraq (no pun intended) we'll see things shake out this way there as well. Nation building involves more than just putting up buildings and throwing people in office. It's really a "hand holding" assignment.

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by cb88

Concur with both of you. And I think as the dust settles in Iraq (no pun intended) we'll see things shake out this way there as well. Nation building involves more than just putting up buildings and throwing people in office. It's really a "hand holding" assignment.

We had to do that with Germany and Japan too. It took something like 8 to 10 years with Germany and there were former Nazis trying to sabotage our efforts there too. Look at the history of Germany prior to WW2...they had the Kaiser and then Hitler. They needed help establishing a democratic government too. West Germany was a success. As for East Germany, which went under still another totalitarian government, it is still a problem for the West Germans to this day. They are having to do the work now that should have been done just after WW2.

Japan is another example. They had an emperor who was a "god." I don't know how many years it took for them to get their own free government, but it was a long time. They're another success.

[cb88]

Originally Posted by Woodmonkey

We had to do that with Germany and Japan too. It took something like 8 to 10 years with Germany and there were former Nazis trying to sabotage our efforts there too. Look at the history of Germany prior to WW2...they had the Kaiser and then Hitler. They needed help establishing a democratic government too. West Germany was a success. As for East Germany, which went under still another totalitarian government, it is still a problem for the West Germans to this day. They are having to do the work now that should have been done just after WW2.

Japan is another example. They had an emperor who was a "god." I don't know how many years it took for them to get their own free government, but it was a long time. They're another success.

Very good points, Katie.

Yet our nation is impatient, they want it done "NOW" and that just isn't going to happen. I suppose that is partially the fault of our education system that has failed to stress the importance of history and learning from it.

My daughters spent fifth grade learning mesopatiam history rather than US History. While the former is important, it is not relevant in 5th grade. I believe US History should be taught and stressed until at least high school when they hopefully have a grasp on the nature of democracy and how our country came to be the great power it is today.