U.S. ENVOY COUNTERS KARZAI’S CRITICISM

[President Obama has pledged to bring the first of those surge troops home next month, and the White House is debating the pace of withdrawal. Although the Pentagon has argued for a slow drawdown, Obama is under increasing pressure — from the American public, Congress and even some inside the White House — to move more quickly. In addition to the expense of the war, lawmakers have cited the apparent ingratitude of the Afghan people, along with government corruption and incompetence.]

By Pamela Constable,

KABUL — The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, in unusually blunt and personal comments Sunday, responded sharply to President Hamid Karzai’s escalating denunciations of American and NATO forces and aid efforts in Afghanistan.

After an upbeat speech about Afghanistan’s future prospects to university students in the Western city of Herat, Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry added remarks that he said were “spoken from my heart.” He complained bitterly about American forces being “compared to occupiers” and being “told that they are only here to advance their own interests,” suggesting such comments could lead the United States to give up on Afghanistan.

Although he did not mention Karzai by name, Eikenberry was referring almost verbatim to harsh criticisms the Afghan president voiced Saturday and has expressed on previous occasions. “I must tell you that I find occasional comments from some of your leaders hurtful and inappropriate,” Eikenberry said.

The ambassador’s remarks came as he prepares to leave Afghanistan at the end of a grueling two-year posting. His tenure coincided with the arrival of an additional 30,000 American troops last year — bringing the total to 100,000, along with more than 40,000 from other countries — and a much more aggressive U.S. strategy that has exacted a price in increasingly brittle relations with the Karzai government.

President Obama has pledged to bring the first of those surge troops home next month, and the White House is debating the pace of withdrawal. Although the Pentagon has argued for a slow drawdown, Obama is under increasing pressure — from the American public, Congress and even some inside the White House — to move more quickly. In addition to the expense of the war, lawmakers have cited the apparent ingratitude of the Afghan people, along with government corruption and incompetence.

Afghan leaders appear torn between a fear of losing U.S. military and economic assistance and resenting their dependence on it, and Karzai has become increasingly outspoken in criticizing U.S. actions.

Karzai has repeatedly denounced civilian casualties and night raids by U.S. and NATO forces. He has come close to demanding that they leave the country and threatened to label them foreign occupiers. In contrast, he has rarely criticized the Taliban insurgents, despite their brutal campaign against his government and populace, instead inviting them to join the government as “sons of the soil.”

Last month, Karzai threatened to attack foreign troops if they did not stop airstrikes that kill civilians, saying that continued strikes would turn the forces from defenders to enemies of the Afghan people. “In that case,” he said, “history shows what Afghans do with trespassers and with occupiers.”

In cables to Washington that were subsequently leaked, Eikenberry has privately criticized Karzai as unreliable and erratic. Until now, however, he has publicly hewed to Washington’s policy of tolerating Karzai’s increasingly emotional and anti-Western rants, in part because he is the nation’s elected leader and in part because Afghanistan’s cooperation is crucial to U.S. efforts to build stable and friendly allies in the volatile, terrorism-plagued region.

On Saturday, however, Karzai appeared to have crossed an unspoken line when, in a rambling speech to a youth convention in Kabul, he accused the United States and other Western allies of using his country for their own purposes. He asserted that they take away more money than they give, pollute Afghanistan’s environment and “dishonor” the Afghan people.

In his response Sunday, Eikenberry said, “When Americans, who are serving in your country at great cost — in terms of lives and treasure — hear themselves compared with occupiers, told that they are only here to advance their own interest, and likened to the brutal enemies of the Afghan people they are filled with confusion and grow weary of our effort here.”

“We begin to lose our inspiration to carry on,” he added.

The outgoing envoy suggested that his impending departure made him feel such insults more deeply, but he also seemed to be calling Karzai’s bluff. His comments, quickly distributed to the news media by the U.S. Embassy, clearly reflected the deepening disillusionment about Karzai and his government that is shared by many in Washington as the Obama administration prepares to reduce the number of troops and begin a transition from Western to Afghan control of security and governance.

During a question-and-answer session after his speech, Eikenberry warned that “should we lose our mutual confidence in each other, should we lose our mutual respect, those goals of transition could be compromised.”

Eikenberry’s comments came as Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, speaking Sunday on a taped CNN program, said that only continued military pressure would bring Taliban insurgents to the negotiating table and that he did not expect negotiations to make serious headway until winter. Taliban leaders have said they will refuse to negotiate until all foreign troops leave Afghanistan.

Gates was responding to Karzai’s comments Saturday that the United States is involved in peace talks already. Gates said there had been “outreach” by the United States and others to the Taliban but that the contacts were “very preliminary at this point.”

Eikenberry, who served in Afghanistan a total of five years as a senior U.S. Army general and then as ambassador, seemed intent on setting the U.S. record here straight.

“America has never sought to occupy any nation in the world,” he said. “We are a good people.. . . We came here in 2001 to defeat international terrorism and help lift the dark veil of over 20 years of conflict.” He ticked off a long list of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan over the past decade: building schools and roads, training the national army and police, improving agriculture, and restoring historic sites.

But he warned that if Afghan leaders reach the point where they “believe that we are doing more harm than good,” then Americans may “reach a point that we feel our soldiers and civilians are being asked to sacrifice without a just cause,” and “the American people will ask for our forces to come home.” 

Staff writer Karen DeYoung in Washington contributed to this report.


@ The Washington Post

PRESIDENT OBAMA MUST TELL ASSAD TO GO

[However, the “devil we know” not only violates the universal rights of his citizens but also constrains crucial U.S. national interests. Under Assad, Iran has a stronger influence on regional events. Syria continues to compromise Lebanon’s sovereignty and long-term interests. And it has now threatened to destabilize its border with Israel, political blackmail that undermines the U.S. pursuit of comprehensive peace in the Middle East.]

By P.J. Crowley

Six months into the Arab Spring, the Obama administration is struggling to keep pace with events and communicate a revised regional policy. The administration has supported change broadly, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did in a prescient speech in Qatar in January. But it remains uncertain about what to do and say regarding specific countries.

One White House official described the current approach as “leading from behind,” a curious yet valid reflection that the United States cannot control events as they unfold. It might also be called leading from the shadows, doing many things in private and saying little in public.

But this traditional diplomatic approach ignores the networked nature of the Arab Spring. Events are playing out in real time and in the open. These are genuine revolutions, but social media have served as an accelerant, enabling protests to jump borders while compressing the time that governments, including the United States, have to respond. Regimes have turned off the Internet and new media (Egypt) or traditional media (Syria), attempting to shut down these rebellions, but they have survived.

Six months ago, almost no one, including American diplomats, knew these reform networks existed. Now they are new political interest groups that must be taken seriously and fully engaged. Given their increased connectivity and situational awareness, protesters have specific demands. They want other countries to choose sides. They want recognition and support — now.

Whatever happens in the months ahead, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and even Syria will not be the same. Neither will other countries that have been able to contain or co-opt protest movements.

And while the United States waits for the region to draw a new map, hesitation carries real costs.

Reduced credibility now could translate into reduced influence down the road if these transitions are successful. Polling since the Arab Spring shows little change in regional attitudes toward the United States. In Egypt, while the United States never publicly called on President Hosni Mubarak to step down, President Obama pushed hard behind the scenes. But public opinion there gives the United States little if any credit. Elsewhere, the administration is seen as doing not enough (Bahrain) or too much (Saudi Arabia). Some of this is inevitable and attitudes could change over time, but so far there is no “new beginning” as Obama sought in his Cairo speech two years ago.

At a truly historic moment, the United States is an uncertain player. This is most evident in Syria. Last month, despite weeks of violence, Obama still gave Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a choice: “He can lead [the] transition or get out of the way.”

There is no plausible expectation that Assad will lead a process of reform, one that inevitably forces him and his cronies out of business. This U.S. caution reflects fear of the unknown and what might come next.

However, the “devil we know” not only violates the universal rights of his citizens but also constrains crucial U.S. national interests. Under Assad, Iran has a stronger influence on regional events. Syria continues to compromise Lebanon’s sovereignty and long-term interests. And it has now threatened to destabilize its border with Israel, political blackmail that undermines the U.S. pursuit of comprehensive peace in the Middle East.

Our president, through various speeches, has outlined a bold yet simple approach to the Arab Spring rooted in our values and long-term interests. We need to apply it to Syria.

Having declared on March 3 that “Moammar Qaddafi has lost the legitimacy to lead,” it is time to say the same about Assad. With Libya, the president took the lead and the international community followed. The response to Syria will not be the same — there is no military option at this point — but such a statement, long overdue, will send a strong signal to Syrian elites who continue to support the Assad regime, further isolate the regime politically and create a catalyst for additional international sanctions.

More important, by again taking the lead, the president will restore faith with those who continue to stand up to repressive regimes, not only in Syria but across the region. As he said on March 28, “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities that occur in other countries. The United States of America is different.”

Two years ago, as post-election violence roiled Tehran, the administration said little and let events speak volumes about the nature of the Iranian regime. In my view, that was the right decision and has led to a steady delegitimization of Iran’s rulers. Now, with dramatic events unfolding across the region, most remarkably in Syria, at stake are the credibility of the United States and whether we will stand up for our interests and our values.

We cannot solve the Syrian challenge overnight, but it is time to get off the fence and on the right side of history.

The writer, a former assistant secretary and spokesman for the State Department in the Obama administration, is the Omar Bradley chair of strategic leadership at Dickinson College, the Penn State Dickinson School of Law and School of International Affairs, and the Army War College. He is on Twitter: @pjcrowley.

@ The Washington Post