U.S. Envoy’s Cables Show Concerns on Afghan War Plans

Source: NYT

January 26, 2010
U.S. Envoy’s Cables Show Concerns on Afghan War Plans
By ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON — The United States ambassador in Kabul warned his superiors here in November that President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan “is not an adequate strategic partner” and “continues to shun responsibility for any sovereign burden,” according to a classified cable that offers a much bleaker accounting of the risks of sending additional American troops to Afghanistan than was previously known.

The broad outlines of two cables from the ambassador, Karl W. Eikenberry, became public within days after he sent them, and they were portrayed as having been the source of significant discussion in the White House, heightening tensions between diplomats and senior military officers, who supported an increase of 30,000 American troops.

But the full cables, obtained by The New York Times, show for the first time just how strongly the current ambassador felt about the leadership of the Afghan government, the state of its military and the chances that a troop buildup would actually hurt the war effort by making the Karzai government too dependent on the United States.

The cables — one four pages, the other three — also represent a detailed rebuttal to the counterinsurgency strategy offered by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top American and NATO commander in Afghanistan, who had argued that a rapid infusion of fresh troops was essential to avoid failure in the country.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/world/asia/26strategy.html?th&emc=th

Hamid Karzai a dud, says US envoy Karl Eikenberry

WASHINGTON: The US ambassador to Afghanistan warned that Afghan President Hamid Karzai was "not an adequate strategic partner" and the surge in US forces would only deepen Kabul's dependence on Washington.

Ambassador Karl Eikenberry's reservations were first leaked at the height of an internal debate late last year over whether to increase US forces. But the diplomatic cables in which he made his case were published for the first time yesterday in The New York Times, which obtained them from an official who said it was important for the historical record that the assessments be made public.

In them, Mr Eikenberry, a former US commander in Afghanistan, offered a rebuttal of a strategy proposed by the current US commander, General Stanley McChrystal, who had warned of a failure without more troops.

more:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/hamid-karzai-a-dud-says-us-envoy-karl-eikenberry/story-e6frg6so-1225823740422

There are way too many of them, leading to debates that go nowhere. Give me a tinfoil hat, but there are more politics at play here (leaks and media) than military information. I smell cheney and it stinks. This is the kind of crap that undermines the president and I think that's exactly why it's leaked.

Obama's administration has made it a policy to go around Karzai instead of through him at every opportunity. His response has been to ratchet up anti-U.S. rhetoric, appoint the Afghanistan version of Sally Struthers to investigate civilian deaths by U.S. troops, and try to horn into the "Taliban peace talks" by putting "his" Taliban at the top of the list.

Cheney brought him into the political arena. We're taking him out of it.

As are most of the leaks we're seeing. They are out and out knives in the back.

Re-read my post. I'm suggesting this is the latest message to Karzai from the Obama administration.

Well, I suppose you might have a reason, but it seems odd in this case.

Witness the other Karzai story of the day.

Karzai's U.S. gravy train ground to a halt thanks to the Obama administration. He's on the outs, and is making the only plays he can.