2014, When the US Deals with Karzai

Published in View China
(China) on 6 January 2014
by Wang Jin (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Renee Loeffler. Edited by Jane Lee.
With the coming of 2014, the U.S. pulling out of Afghanistan is becoming the focus of attention. The U.S. is concerned about its own agenda and the complicated relationship with the current Afghan government, creating great suspense as to what “post-U.S.” Afghanistan will be. It's difficult for the U.S. to find a strategy that satisfies both governments, and Afghanistan faces a severe challenge with postwar security.

Hamid Karzai Is Caught Between a Rock and a Hard Place

For Afghanistan, 2014 not only means Americans are about to “depart” — it also means Hamid Karzai leaving presidential office and Afghanistan's political situation entering a new era. There has been much speculation about whether Karzai will covertly enter the 2014 presidential election, but since he's an “old hand” in the presidential office having already served two terms, he has already publicly expressed that he will not continue on in the elections.

Karzai's position in the presidency was quite awkward, stuck between the anti-American attitude of the Afghan people and U.S. military aid and supplies. It is hard to come up with genuine words to appease both sides. Having served two full terms in office, he cannot participate in the 2014 election, but Karzai clearly does not want to leave office with the impression of being a “traitor.” He has to have a balance between the U.S., the Taliban and the Afghan public. When going over the “security treaty” proposed by the U.S., Karzai nitpicked on a fair number of details, even stating: “To be on a level to ensure public security, NATO troops are a deep source of suffering for Afghanistan, the cause of many casualties,” to the discontentment of the U.S.

Karzai's “subtle movements” are not made independently. Although the U.S. has always pledged to be “Afghanistan's savior,” many members of the Afghan public have lost confidence in U.S. military occupation, because even after all this time, U.S. military action has only brought misery. Although the U.S. military possesses “precision attack” advanced weaponry, consequences for civilians while they carry out attacks against the Taliban isn't news. In these 12 years, the U.S. has always been about anti-terror, but what Afghan citizens really don't understand is that America has always been about anti-terror and attacking the Taliban. However, the public security situation obviously has not improved, with roadside explosions and suicide bombers threatening the security of Afghan civilians anytime, anywhere.

Actually from a battlefield perspective, U.S. actions in Afghanistan appear quite weak. Although after 9/11 the U.S. came together after a great loss, even at that time financial aid to northern Afghanistan was already “a baseless foundation of an anti-Taliban alliance.” They successfully defeated the Taliban, but this victory was more due to the Taliban's hasty retreat into the mountains. After this, the U.S. military did not deploy enough forces to the region to deal with Taliban militants. Even though there was no shortage of soldiers sent to Afghanistan until 2009, they still were unable to effectively deal with threats from the “constantly moving” Taliban.

Karzai cannot avoid a certain fact: In its current state, Afghanistan cannot continue without U.S. economic aid and security assistance. Currently, NATO has about 84,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan, including 60,000 U.S. troops. If an agreement cannot be reached, the U.S. will be forced to withdraw all stationed troops. When that time comes, the Afghan government will have to rely on its own security forces to deal with the Taliban. The Afghan government is hard pressed for funds, the majority of payouts needing international funding aid. There is no way to tell whether or not the Afghan government will be able to “keep up with a desperate crisis” when foreign military forces pull out.

War-Hating Americans

Actually Karzai is not the only one in a difficult position; the U.S. government and military in Afghanistan also have a “mountain” of pressure. On the one hand, it is clear domestically that after withdrawing from Afghanistan, there is a strong possibility that all the reconstruction since 2002 will be undone; but on the other hand, the U.S., with current domestic economic issues and the public anti-war attitude, must choose to reluctantly “withdraw” troops.

In a recent opinion poll, the number of Americans against the war in Afghanistan reached even higher than during the Vietnam War 40 years ago. The poll showed that only 17 percent of Americans support the war in Afghanistan, those against it reaching 82 percent. This is a substantial drop compared to the 52 percent of supporters in the last survey four years ago. The poll also showed that only about 30 percent of Americans think the U.S. is winning the war in Afghanistan. In addition, an overwhelming majority hope the U.S. military can pull out of Afghanistan before the end of Obama's term in office.

Actually, Americans’ loss of confidence in the war in Afghanistan is not unusual; Afghanistan is like a bottomless pit, sucking in a huge part of U.S. resources and manpower over many years. From 2002 to today, the U.S. has already spent $100 billion in financial aid. This, of course, is only “on the surface” — many “secret” funds have been sent. For example, money to entice different Afghan political parties, “bribes” for military factions, construction and supplies used by the U.S. Army stationed in Afghanistan, etc. — these are not calculated.

For so much investment, Afghanistan does not live up to the ideal political and military structure imagined by the U.S. In 2009 during the first Afghan presidential election, U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi publicly criticized Karzai for fraud in the election, calling Karzai unworthy of U.S. support. Previously, on a sudden visit to Afghanistan, Obama criticized Karzai of corruption. In April of last year, The New York Times published an article about the CIA giving Karzai money, which really shocked the American public. The report gave a detailed description of tens of millions of dollars given by the CIA, which was “packed into suitcases, backpacks and, on occasion, plastic shopping bags,” sent to the Afghan presidential office “about once a month.”

Spending so much money and sacrificing that many lives, the Afghan government and military still seem insufferably weak, which doesn't satisfy the American public. Americans are weary of the war in Afghanistan. This failure is, as predicted, on the head of Americans. In the end, all those who have invaded Afghanistan seeking change are drained of all strength.

The U.S. has not decided to completely withdraw. It is preparing to retreat with dignity and to be able to maintain the use of military bases in Afghanistan. The U.S. still hopes for a “security agreement” with the Afghan government in which after the withdrawal of U.S. troops, the situation in Afghanistan will be able to maintain stability. However, with Karzai balancing between politics, conflicts in domestic public opinion, security issues and the anti-war attitude in the U.S. political world, the two countries must give serious consideration and gamble, their decisions playing a big part in the future path of the political world in Afghanistan.


2014年,当美国人遇上卡尔扎伊

来源:中国网 2014-01-06

花了大价钱、而且还付出了重大的人员牺牲,阿富汗政府和军事部门却像“扶不起的阿斗”一样,不能让美国人满意。所以美国人对于阿富汗战场的厌倦,也就油然而生。

作者:王晋



随着2014年的到来,美国在阿富汗的去留问题成了多方关注的焦点,而对于美国来说,同阿富汗现政府的复杂关系,更让阿富汗的“后美国时代”充满了悬念。美国难以找到两全之策,阿富汗战后安全局势面临严峻挑战。

夹缝中的卡尔扎伊

当下对于阿富汗政府来说,2014年不仅仅意味着美国人即将“离去”,更意味着卡尔扎伊将卸任阿富汗总统,阿富汗政局也将进入新的进程之中。此前曾有不少猜测认为卡尔扎伊会“变相”参加2014年的阿富汗总统大选,但是这位已经担任了两任总统的阿富汗“老政客”已经公开的表示将不会再继续参加总统大选。

卡尔扎伊的总统职位做的是十分尴尬的,夹在阿富汗民众的反美风暴与美国的军事物资援助之间的卡尔扎伊,两处安抚,真正有苦说不出。虽然任期将满且不能参加2014年大选,但卡尔扎伊显然不想戴着“卖国”的帽子卸任。他需要走过的是一条牵在美国、塔利班和阿富汗民众之间的钢丝。所以,卡尔扎伊才在美国人提出的“安全条约”中不少细小地方“吹毛求疵”,卡尔扎伊甚至表示,“在保安层面,北约驻军恰恰是阿富汗深陷苦难、大量伤亡的原因”,这让美国人十分不满。

卡尔扎伊的“小动作”,并非是自作主张。很多阿富汗人对以美国为首的外国驻军失去信心,尽管美军一直以“阿富汗的救世主”自居,但长期以来,美军的行动给阿富汗人民带来了巨大的灾难。虽然拥有号称能进行“精确打击”的先进武器,但美军打击塔利班势力时屡次波及平民早已不是新闻。更令阿富汗人不能理解的是,12年来美军一直在反恐、打击塔利班势力,但阿富汗的治安状况却没有得到明显改善,路边炸弹、自杀式袭击无时无刻不在威胁着阿富汗平民的安全。

其实从战场角度上来看,美国在阿富汗的行动还是显得太过孱弱。虽然美国在“9·11事件”之后大病云集,并资助阿富汗北方当时已经“命悬一线”的“反塔利班联盟”成功击败塔利班,但是这种胜利只是将塔利班由大城市赶到了山区里。随后美国人在塔利班的兵力部署严重不足,虽然在2009年之前不断增兵,但是仍旧无法妥善应对各处塔利班“东躲西藏”的威胁。

尽管如此,卡尔扎伊无法回避的一个现实是:阿富汗现阶段依然离不开美国的经济援助和安全保障。目前,北约在阿富汗驻军约8.4万人,其中美军6万人,如果协议不能达成,美国将被迫撤走所有驻扎军队。届时阿富汗政府只能依靠自己的安全部队应付塔利班的袭击。阿富汗政府财政拮据,大部分支出还需要国际社会援助,一旦外国军队撤出,阿富汗政府是否能够“力挽狂澜”,实在是不可知晓。

厌战的美国人

其实日子难熬的不仅仅是卡尔扎伊,美国政府和军界在阿富汗也是压力“山大”。一方面,美国国内很清楚,撤离阿富汗,很可能将2002年之后的重建成果拱手相让;但是另一方面,美国国内的经济实力和民众的反战情绪,也让美国人不得不做出“撤兵”的选择。

一项最新民调显示,美国人对阿富汗战争的反感甚至超过40多年前的越战。民调显示只有17%的美国民众支持阿富汗战争,而反对者高达82%。这与四年前52%的受访者支持阿富汗战争相比,比例出现了大幅下降。民调还显示,只有大约30%的美国人认为,美国正在赢得阿富汗战争。除此之外,绝大多数美国人希望美国军队在奥巴马设定的最后期限之前撤出阿富汗。

其实美国人对阿富汗战场的信心丧失并不奇怪,阿富汗就像个无底洞,这么多年来一直吸走了美国巨大的人力和物力资源。从2002年至今,美国已经向阿富汗投入了约1000亿美元的援助,当然,这些资金只是“明面”上的钱,许多“暗地”的自助,如拉拢阿富汗国内不同政治和军事派别的“行贿”、美国驻阿富汗部队的建设和物资消耗等等都没有被算入其中。

巨大的财政投入,并没有换来美国人理想的政治和军事格局。2009年阿富汗首次进行总统大选时,美国时任众议院议长佩洛西就公开批评卡尔扎伊在选举中舞弊,并称卡尔扎伊不值得美国支持。奥巴马此前曾突访阿富汗,批评卡尔扎伊政府腐败。去年4月,美国《纽约时报》的一条报道关于美国中央情报局(CIA)定期给阿富汗总统府“塞钱”的报道,更是让美国人十分震惊。该报道详细形容了美国中情局是如何将总额达到几千万美元的现金“放在行李箱、背包,甚至有时候放到购物塑料袋中”,“大约每月一次”被送到阿富汗总统办公室的。

花了大价钱、而且还付出了重大的人员牺牲,阿富汗政府和军事部门却像“扶不起的阿斗”一样,不能让美国人满意。所以美国人对于阿富汗战场的厌倦,也就油然而生。“帝国的坟墓”果然也在美国人头上应验。阿富汗所有的侵入者,最终都在旷日持久的消耗中筋疲力尽。

美国没有选择全面撤出,而是准备体面撤退,并保持使用阿富汗军事基地。美国依旧希望通过与阿富汗现政府达成“安全协议”来保证阿富汗局势在美国撤军之后继续保持一定时期的稳定。不过一方面是处在政治现实与国内舆论矛盾下的卡尔扎伊,另一方面是处在安全考虑与反战情绪矛盾下的美国政界,两者的博弈与考量,将很大程度上决定阿富汗未来的政治走向。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Australia: Donald Trump Is So Convinced of His Mandate that He Is Battling the Courts

Austria: Whether or Not the Tariffs Are Here to Stay, the Damage Has Already Been Done*

Cuba: The First Casualty

Mexico: US Pushes for Submission

Germany: Trump’s Tariff Policy: ‘Dealmaker’ under Pressure

Topics

Spain: Trump to Students — ‘Don’t Come’

Japan: Will the Pressure on Harvard University Affect Overseas Students?

Mexico: From Star Wars to Golden Domes

Germany: US Sanctions against the EU

Austria: Whether or Not the Tariffs Are Here to Stay, the Damage Has Already Been Done*

Germany: Trump’s Tariff Policy: ‘Dealmaker’ under Pressure

Austria: Trump’s Peace Is Far Away

Austria: Trump’s Solo Dream Is Over

Related Articles

Hong Kong: The Lessons of World War II: The Real World Importance of Resisting Hegemony

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary