The Petraeus Fiasco

Hey! Remember when MoveOn.org drew so much flak for calling General Petreaus "General Betray-us?"  Well, guess what?  They got that one right.

I rapidly departed MoveOn when they moved from Kucinich (our favorite) to Obama without even consulting the  so-called membership.  I was of the opinion that either Edwards or Clinton would have been a better choice, and I still think I was right.  Nevertheless, MoveOn was dead right about Petraeus.

Personally, I don't care who he was screwing, then or now — albeit, I understand that Obama felt obliged to offer his tender virgin hole to the Great General by approving the"surge" because he thought that he had to; and Obama gave Petraeus the CIA post last year because it was the only way to get him out of the Army, where he worked against the president (approximately) 96.7% of the time, and kept us in Afghanistan years longer than made any sense.

I'm very glad the scrawny but "fit" little shit is getting what he deserves, and I hope his chubby wife, despite her lack of "toned" arms and fetching(?) armpits, gets his entire military pension when she divorces him.  Also, I hope that the multinational that hires him goes broke.  (Yes, I'm a little vindictive, but we're talking about thousands of dead American soldiers here.)

Anyway, Maureen Dowd got it totally right today in her Times column, the first analysis of the "scandal" that makes any sense at all.  Read it.

Ahmed Wali Karzai

Ahmed Wali Karzai, Hamid Karzai's kid brother, is the foremost Afghan capitalist. Yes, his reputation for corruption, dishonesty, graft, and outright thievery is the stuff of legend, but none of that disqualifies a man from the ranks of the world's great capitalists. A guy's gotta do what a guy's gotta do.

According to yesterday's Times, U.S. officials have decided to leave him in place in Kandahar, his seat of power (and also a center of Taliban activity), when we invade it sometime in the near future — all the moralistic talk about fighting corruption notwithstanding. It seems State has decided that we've pissed off Hamid Karzai enough lately, and that the military (and probably the C.I.A. as well) think Ahmed Wali might be useful.

Well, of course he'll be useful, and of course he'll be happy to work with us. Greedy, self-interested bastards always are happy to "work with" anybody tossing billions of dollars around. Needless to say, he can't be trusted — a history of vote rigging, dope smuggling, money laundering, seizure of other people's property, and an host of other traditional capitalist modi operandi does not inspire great trust. The trick will be to use him to best advantage.

Since he's been paying off the Taliban for years — to lay off his properties, opium shipments, etc. — it's been suggested that he'd be good person to help "turn" some of the "less radical" Taliban, and bring them into the government's camp, but I have a better idea.

A much more effective way to use him would be as a go-between to help the United States buy all the local opium production, at premium prices. What better way to win the hearts and minds of the locals than to become the best customer for their most important crop?

I know. I've said it before, but I think it bears repeating. The best way to curry favor in Afghanistan while cutting off the flow of heroine to the United States and the rest of the world is to buy the raw material — the raw opium — before it is processed. Ahmed Wali's influence extends throughout Kandahar province, and well into Helmand. That's a majority of the opium production in the country.

You may recall that a decision was made not to destroy the opium crop when we took Marja. What's happening to that opium? Nobody seems to be asking that question — at least nobody being quoted in the Times. Could it be that the Obama administration already is following my suggestion? It would be nice.

In the meanwhile, though, the Russians are royally pissed by all the Afghan heroin currently making its way onto the streets of Moscow. Was a commitment to help reduce the heroin flow part of the agreement to reduce our nuclear arsenals? We'll never know.

So let's use Ahmed Wali Karzai to best advantage — to stop the opium before it leaves Afghanistan. We will not be able to persuade the Afghans to replace their most important cash crop with, say, potatoes or winter wheat. Buying all their opium not only will keep it off world markets, but will make us their most important trading partner. It's a lot cheaper than fighting a never-ending war.

The Plan for Afghanistan

Well, I suppose it's nice that there's some kind of plan for the continuing US involvement in Afghanistan, even though I'm afraid it was shaped at least as much by domestic politics as by any sort of strategic considerations or overriding international objectives. As usual, the President weaseled down the middle: he offered up three-quarters of the troops the military (and the Republicans) wanted, plus a probably futile attempt to get the other 10 thousand from NATO; a promise to start drawing down troops in 18 months; and an unenforceable threat against Hamid Karzai that is very unlikely to persuade someone quite so corrupt to crack down on corruption.

Here's my prediction: eighteen months from now, the usual warlords will continue to be the real rulers of the Afghan countryside, although, if we're lucky, some will be nominally on our side rather than nominally supporting the Taliban. If we're really lucky, the major population centers the administration plan seeks to protect will be a little safer, although protecting a city like Kabul against suicide bombers requires a degree of authoritarian rigor likely to be beyond the powers of Karzai and McChrystal.

The generals, as usual, will be whining for more troops. Generals don't understand "relatively positive outcomes" — they're taught to believe in an obscure 19th century concept called "victory." Of course, even in the 19th century, nobody achieved that in Afghanistan.

Most important, though, the 2010 elections will be over, and the 2012 elections still will be roughly half a year away. There will be time to maneuver around both contests. What else matters? Both parties are committed to enhancing the prospects for their major contributors, so, of course, the rest of us are left eating their shit.

As for how to go about financing the new Afghan "surge," Obama was totally vague. Here's a suggestion: how about a tax surcharge on war profiteers? Some have done extraordinarily well, especially with their connections to both government and military decision makers. To me, it makes sense to spread some of the pain to those who raked in the profits from Bush's wars.

Want to end all the current bullshit? Easy. Bring back the draft.