Afghanistan Stuff

The Obama administration's relationship with the Karzai regime in Kabul continues to resemble Ike's and JFK's relationship with South Vietnam's Ngo Dhin Diem in the late 1950s and early 1960s, especially today. We know he's no good (corrupt, stubborn, impopular, generally ineffective), but don't see an alternative that's better in the circumstances. Having supported the man and said many nice things about him (primarily under Obama's predecessor, but still), it would damage our own credibility suddenly to declare our dependence on him a mistake. There is one difference, however: negotiations with the enemy, the subject of today's talks at the White House. In 1963, when there were signs that the Diem regime might be open to talks with the communist regime in Hanoi, it may have contributed to the Kennedy administration's willingness to have Diem replaced (what would become the November coup, in which Diem and his brother Nhu--the government's designated point person for contacts with the communists--were killed). Today, the discussion is not about whether talks should be conducted with certain Taliban, but how. They're different situations, but at least today we're recognizing that ultimately all the parties in Afghanistan are Afghans, and that they'll have to work things out together long after Western troops stop playing a major role in their country.
In the Netherlands there have been developments too, as explained last week by The Holland Bureau. The PvdA, the social democrats, now would be willing to support a new Dutch mission in Afghanistan, as long as the emphasis is on police (training) work. The social democrats, of course, were the ones who brought down the government earlier this year because, eh, well that depends on who you talk to. Over here, we've called it cynical, shortsighted, and selfish political opportunism, but more nuanced interpretations can be found also. In any case, only last month the party voted against a proposal by the Greens and the centrist D'66 to consider sending a police mission, on the grounds that so many military might be needed to protect these police people, that the end-result would be a military mission anyway. It was the party's foreign policy spokesman, Martijn van Dam (he of the "let's try unilateral nuclear disarmament again, just like in the 1980s!" idea) setting the tone here. But in response more serious people in the party have begun to weigh in. As Giles over at The Holland Bureau reported, new party leader Job Cohen has recently left the police mission option on the table. And yesterday in an interview in the Volkskrant (no link--only for subscribers) former party leader Ed van Thijn openly criticized the party's pulling the plug on the government last February over Afghanistan. Van Thijn does not, shall we say, find it credible to have been so rigid about the 2007 resolution to end the mission in 2010. There has come a new U.S. president, I'm paraphrasing his words, with a new strategy, and what is the meaning of all this professed support for Obama, what kind of ally this it make us, if you then just ignore all that and leave? Good question.