Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai’s visit to Washington, D.C., this week, and his meeting with President Obama showcased the administration’s new charm offensive aimed at keeping the Afghani leader as an ally. This about-face in diplomacy puts the spotlight on just how badly the administration stumbled with its negative Afghanistan rhetoric earlier this year.
Afghanistan may be the central fight and a valuable ally in the war on terrorism, but President Obama had been publicly sending conflicting signals that made the Afghan leader nervous enough to begin looking for support from the likes of Iran’s President Ahmadinajad.
During a visit to Afghanistan in late March, Obama conveyed his displeasure with Karzai, described as “a brief, unhappy encounter” in media reports. But during this week’s Washington visit, Obama could only heap effusive praise on Karzai. Why the two extremes? Perhaps the mixed messages circulating publicly through the Obama administration were contributing to Karzai’s worries about the U.S. commitment.
In his 2009 review of American presence in Afghanistan, U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a classified cable questioning plans to increase U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Eikenberry said “Karzai is not an adequate strategic partner” who “continues to shun responsibility for any sovereign burden, whether defense, governance or development.”
Yet, Obama later announced a troop surge in Afghanistan to bolster Gen. McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy and end Taliban influence. At the same time, he said American troops would depart Afghanistan in 2011.
Sometimes it is strategic to declare military plans to create fear or misdirection of the enemy, but specific dates for withdrawal of troops is akin to announcing how long the enemy can wait until reclaiming control.
The U.S. has no intention of a permanent military presence in Afghanistan, but the administration’s timetable for withdrawal and apparent unhappiness with President Karzai only strained relations and put the Afghan leader in a precarious position.
Several weeks ago, Ahmadinajad and Karzai met for the first time since they were both re-elected. Iran already has an active role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, becoming one of the largest contributors to reconstruction efforts by building roads and rail projects to connect the two countries and providing electricity to some locations in provinces that border Iran.
There’s another potential alliance developing as well – with China. Karzai and Chinese President Hu Jintao met in March to sign economic and partnership pacts.
So who does Karzai look to for support if he loses confidence in U.S. support? Given its history and geography, Afghanistan and its leader may find they can rely on Iran and China – nations with serious international ambitions, strong desires for easy access to natural resources, and dreams of usurping America’s unique place in the world.
The U.S. cannot abandon an ally in a war on terrorism that has cost so much for the American and Afghan people and their allies. It is in the best interest of our own national security for Karzai to look to the U.S. as a long-term ally, but the administration’s hot and cold treatment of Karzai threatens that relationship.
President Obama needs to be consistent in our relations and reassure President Karzai that the U.S. supports Afghanistan and its people, and that we are committed to keeping the Taliban and Al Qaeda from again taking over the country as a base for terrorizing its citizens and plotting against the West.
America went to Afghanistan nearly a decade ago to destroy a terrorist stronghold and protect our nation and the world from a repeat of 9/11. The administration’s mixed signals and Karzai’s flirtation with Iran and China are worrisome signs we could be losing sight of that mission.
U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan is the Ranking Member on the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Terrorism and a former FBI Special Agent.