Karzai being Karzai

Karzai's character traits have long been evident. Nevertheless, following Karzai's latest comments (timed for the 12th anniversary of the US intervention that liberated his country), it's time to draw some defining conclusions on the nature of the man.

In that vein...

Things Karzai is- 

Corrupt, self-aggrandizing, emotionally unstable, illogical.

Things Karzai is not-

A reliable supporter of honest democracy.

As an interesting side note, my friend and Heritage fellow, Luke Coffey, forwarded me the quote underlined below. It offers John William Kaye's (a 19th century British historian) description of the mid-19th century Afghan leader, Shuja Shah Durrani.

Perhaps Karzai is Durrani's reincarnation?

If interested, some of my other thoughts on Afghanistan.

Obama on Afghanistan - re-election is the priority

I have written for the guardian a couple of times on Afghanistan (here and here) and on my blog more recently, so I don't want to repeat previous statements. However, I do want to point out this new article in the NYTimes. The article explains how, for President Obama, success in Afghanistan has always taken a distant second seat to the President's re-election considerations. It's a very sad state of affairs. The NATO summit in Chicago is going to be (like the G8) a big joke. Under Hollande (socialist concern for the oppressed being an obvious technicality), the French are abandoning Afghanistan. Under Obama, the US Military faces a timetable made up in Obama's campaign HQ, rather than one, as under GW Bush, developed the White House situation room.

In 2008, Obama stated that Afghanistan was the 'right war' that had to be won. In 2012, 'the right war' is now an obstruction in his electoral path. An abstraction to be rid of, whatever the cost.

'Change we can believe in'.

France Afghanistan Withdrawal

The French decision to accelerate the removal of troops from Afghanistan is a slap in the face of the US/Britain and NATO. Truly, this shows the arrogance of the EU in terms of its foreign security posture. While the Europeans ran to take credit in Libya, they lacked the basic foundations of military power. As Andrew Exum at CNAS notes,


 the nations of Europe, in the words of one defense intellectual, showed up to a gunfight in Libya with knives. The United States brought the guns. And the ammunition. And all the taregting. And all the in-flight refueling. And the ISR. 


The EU (sadly now including the UK) free rides off the back of US taxpayers when it comes to military spending and capability provision. It is decisions like France's that make me think the US should relocate bases out of Europe and gradually diminish the military organisation supporting NATO. NATO should still exist, but it should exist as a diplomatic organisation where allies meet to discuss threats etc. An absence of shared burdens is in effect an absence of a true alliance.