what you ask for.  In Vietnam early on there was much annoyance with the Diem regime, and two evaluation teams were sent by the then Kennedy Administration to see what was happening on the ground.  One team headed by I believe General Cushner( SP?).   I think an former Commandant of the Marine Corps.  Then another group composed of State Department types and academics.  When the two groups returned from Vietnam with their respective reports Kennedy was reported to have asked if the two groups had gone to the same country.  While the Cushner report was positive with respect to the Diem regime and in particular with the efforts Diem was taking in pushing the fight down to the Hamlets and limiting the ability of the Viet Cong to control them the State Department report was exceedingly negative with particular attention payed to the corruption around Diem (but not Diem personally) which in the end analysis is a tangential concern with respect to a society that is very different from our own.  In the end the State Department and Academics group won out with its view of things primarily because of their better contacts in the beltway and a Nelsonian eye was turned to the assassination of Diem.  Unfortunately it latter turned out that one of the major Vietnamese benefactors and facilitators for the State Department group (and latter many high profile journalists to boot) was a Colonel in the North Vietnamese Intelligence service.   This probably cost us about 7 years in Vietnam before we got back to a proper Counter-Insurgency doctrine. 

 

 Reportedly there is evidence that Karzai's brother is simultaneously on the CIA payroll and a major force in the Afghanistan drug trade (which I guess this means hes unbelievably wealthy because that would mean that he controls (OR HAS A MAJOR SAY IN)  something like 80% to 90%  of the world opium trade).  Buy the way who benefits from the drug trade; isn't that the Taliban, corrupt Pakistani drug barons/ politicians/ officers/ ISI agents?  Some Afghans I would guess but they mainly do the farming.  I have no idea if Karzai's brother is involved with the drug trade but I don't believe he is a major force in it and maybe just a fall guy.   If for some reason we do decide to try and remove Karzai for the sake of his brother lets make sure we replace him with a fellow Pathan and try not to upset the internal Afghan ethnic apple cart.  Also let us not do the bidding of some rouge ISI/ drug king pin and simultaneously destabilize Afghanistan,  knock off a Pathan friend of India in the Afghan capitol, create a strategic space for the Taliban/ Al Qaeda to operate in and forever let the opium flowers bloom.

I would rather be careful to compare Afghanistan with Vietnam, and renew my call for a strategy to replace Karzai (admittedly long term) and to lower corruption or in other words badly hidden cooperation with Druglords / Taliban among the official Afghan leadership. 

2 Questions

1. How do think Karzai is going to behave while we're implimenting this "admittedly long term strategy"?  Is he going to be helpful to us working out this long term problem or is he going to screw us anyway he can?

 

2.  What is it they say about those who refuse to learn anyhting from History?

2 Questions

1. How do think Karzai is going to behave while we're implimenting this "admittedly long term strategy"?  Is he going to be helpful to us working out this long term problem or is he going to screw us anyway he can?

 

2.  What is it they say about those who refuse to learn anyhting from History?

Your first post with the "regional" strategy seems to be worth thinking about, however I fear that said President will be as opposed to strenghening the regional "Provincial Govenours" as to his own removal. 

Agreed, but you have to realize that for the last forty years Vietnam has been the historical benchmark when it comes to analyzing US foreign military operations.  I remember a political cartoon from the late 80s or early 90s in which in the first few panels politicians were proclaiming places like El Salvador or the Middle East to be "another Vietnam."  It then moves on to Americans comparing everyday problems to Vietnam.  One panel shows two guys looking into the open hood of a car, and one says to the other, "Looks like you got a Vietnam on your hands."  In another panel two guys are talking, and one says, "My wife has been a real Vietnam lately."  In the last panel two Vietnamese farmers are walking and one is checking the bottom of his sandal, presumably because he has stepped in something unpleasant.  The other farmer says, "It looks like you've stepped in some United States." 

 

I haven't seen that cartoon in probably twenty years, but it has always stuck with me because it so accurately reflected how a lot of people (especially on the Left) have viewed American foreign policy.  Unfortunately their is hardly a consensus on what the lessons of Vietnam should be.  Many in the military make the argument that Mike is making that we should have stuck to small unit insurgency tactics thoughout the conflict and simply fought the North and Viet Cong to a stalemate until the war could be won politically.  Others argue that we should have taken the gloves off completely and went for a total military victory over North Vietnam.  For the folks on the Left and the isolationist crowd, the lesson from Vietnam is that we shouldn't get involved militarily in foreign entanglements, especially in the Third World.  Another lesson that they seem to have drawn is that wars against insurgents are unwinnable, so they shouldn't even be tried.  Of course this is nonsense, but this principle has permeated much of Liberal thougth regarding military policy, and any perceived successful military action on the part of the enemy will only reinforce this hard held belief. 

 

As far as Karzai goes, the only question I would have is whether or not there is anyone out there any better?  If so, then we wold have to be careful how we put him in power.  If we go the Diem route it will seriously undermine what we are trying to do in Afghanistan, which is trying to nurture a Western style democracy.  The only other options are to either put into motion a process in which Karzai voluntarily steps down (also a move that would damage our credibility since we put him there in the first place), or just back another candidate in the next Presidential election.  Personally I think we're stuck with the latter. 

that links Karzai and Diem is that both the set of charges that are/ were against them are against their relatives and not them directly.  This might be to cute by half.  It doesn't matter if the charges are shaky against the relative the inference will be made that "what do you expect! He's / she's being protected by Karzai / Diem". 

 

This doesn't mean either are innocent but it may mean that the charges are being exagerated in the service of some political agenda.  Maybe somebody doesn't want to admit that they screwed up setting up the form of government.  These cultural examples are both very different from western societies. Some times it will take a little adaptation for an older civilization with different customs and norms to resolve the form of democracy that best serves them.