Just as important as the battle against Taliban militants is the struggle against corrupt officials in the Afghan government, who undermine public confidence and drive Afghans into the arms of the Taliban. U.S. forces know how to carry out security operations. Cleaning up corruption is much harder. How is that struggle going?
The short answer is that it’s too early to tell. There are some positive signs, to be sure, including the fact that General Petraeus has appointed H.R. McMaster — one of the brightest general officers in the entire Army — to run an anti-corruption task force. And today comes word, as noted in this Wall Street Journal article, that “Afghan prosecutors are planning to indict nearly two dozen current and former senior officials — the current mining minister among them — on allegations of taking bribes and stealing government funds.” Those prosecutions are certainly welcome, although it is unclear what impact they will have, since most of the targets are former, not current, officials, and thus by definition hardly members of President Karzai’s inner circle.
It is a small step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done. For an indication of what’s needed, think back to 2004, when Karzai, with the strong aid and encouragement of U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, succeeded in forcing warlord Ismail Khan out of his fiefdom in Herat. This was one of the bravest and most impressive challenges that Karzai has ever mounted against the power brokers and warlords who exercise such a baleful influence on events in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, in recent years Karzai has been more focused on making common cause with abusive politicians than confronting them. This is due in part to his own weakness, and in part to the lack of support from the United States. Khalilzad was a friend of Karzai’s — someone Karzai felt he could count on. Karzai hasn’t had a similar relationship with any ambassador since; his relationship with Karl Eikenberry, the current ambassador, is said to be particularly tense. Karzai has faced public sniping from the Obama administration, which (however justified) has led to a loss of confidence on his part and a tendency to reach accommodation with some of the most corrupt characters in Afghanistan.
To deal corruption a real blow, Karzai will need to remove a major power broker, such as his own brother Ahmed Wali Karzai. That doesn’t necessarily mean criminal prosecution; Ahmed Wali could simply be sent as ambassador to the Seychelles.
But for something dramatic like that to happen, Karzai will need to have more support from, and more confidence in, the U.S. government than he currently does. And the U.S. government, in turn, will have to make a common determination that fighting corruption is actually a real priority. At the moment, too many officials regard it as more important to reach a modus vivendi with the powers that be. There are always practical, short-term arguments for such dealmaking, but the long-run consequence is to squander the trust of the Afghan people, which is our most important asset in the war against the Taliban.
Peter Wehner says,
“I concur. And while the economic situation is certainly difficult right now, I think when the history of this crisis is written, people will recognize that the Bush Administration, Congress, and nations of the industrialized world acted quickly and for the most part wisely, in a manner that averted a much worse situation. That’s difficult for most people to see right now, as the stock market gyrates wildly and a tough recession takes hold. But we were edging toward an economic catastrophe, and it now appears as if we have avoided it.”
Peter, please stick to political/social commentary. You’re making a fool of youself,and a laughingstock of Commentary/Contentions. Just a hint:the books have to balance before this crisis is over. Please tell me how to balance ledgers based on 30/1 leverage.
While RCAR and I had a disagreement about the causes several days ago, I have to agree that the federal government is more inclined to muck this up than actually solve the problem. I have a different take on Bush’s legacy, as judged by historians. They will judge him as sound on his Iraq policy, though flawed, but will judge him to be the one who truly took us down the path of socializing America.
Chris, Here are the causes,you don’t get to edit the list:
“The current situation was created by a perfect storm of mutually reinforcing trends and policy mistakes: loose monetary policy (years of negative real interest rates in a growing economy); socially engineered housing policy (the Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, HUD’s no-money-down mortgages); the rapid growth of leverage, opaque and technically deficient derivatives, and the shadow banking system; fragmented regulation, lax diligence, poor governance, fraud; and an oil price shock. The result: a housing bubble bursting into recession”
I sincerely hope your right, but Arthur Laffer has a different perspective in the WSJ (referenced by Jen R., bellow).
In any case with an Obama presidency looming, it is pure fantasy to assume that we are not heading for much, much, much toughter times and that these times will last for a decade and possibly many.
Now, it is the case that Barack Obama is FAR FAR to the left of meaningful majority of Americans. Threre is perhaps some hope that once the mania that is leading to what appears to be an appaling result next Tuesday recedes, most Americans will realize that and return Republican’s to power in 2010 and 2012 with sufficient majorities to try to contain and hopefully reverse some of the damage. This will depend, of course on the Republicans coming up with a coherent argument and effectively presenting that argument ot the electorate.
I
Bolten says: “And we are likely in a situation where a systemic meltdown has been prevented.” The only proof of that is that a systemic meltdown has not occurred (yet). Other possibilities Bolten does not and cannot exclude: a systemic meltdown, whatever that means, was not going to occur, bailouts or no; or, a systemic meltdown will yet occur, despite the bailouts.
This is a panic, and official Washington have been among the worst of the panic stricken. Less clear now is what beneficial effect if any the bailouts will have. For the longer term, paying for the bailouts will burden this economy terribly.
RCAR, we are now in agreement.
josh Bolton has a handle on this financial meltdown? Please ask him to give Pres. Bush and King Henry a clue, they have mucked up the current situation and likely assisted the election of a 2-bit fool that will destroy us economically. Reminds me of the Russian Sub commander that managed to get killed by his own torpoedo!
In addition to Art Laffer’s pounding of the panic-driven bailout mentality that has taken over the White House and Congress, Larry Kudlow over at NRO reports: “Meanwhile, a new paper from the Minneapolis Fed takes issue with the credit-crunch hypothesis. Looking at Federal Reserve Board data, they note that various forms of bank loans are actually rising, not falling. Putting a pencil to their analysis, I can report this: Total loans and leases from U.S. banks are growing at a 19 percent annual rate over the last three months. Business loans are up 19 percent. Consumer loans are up 13 percent. Real estate loans, which include home-equity and commercial real estate loans, are up 15 percent at an annual rate.
The worst story is inter-bank loans. They are flat. That’s the LIBOR story, which is healing after the FDIC guaranteed bank-to-bank loans. The LIBOR rate has come way down. I think the FDIC move was the single-most important contributor to credit stability.
But when you look at all the other loan categories that are rising, and then the 20 percent growth of the basic money supply, and the tax-cut effect of plummeting energy costs, you have to wonder: Just how bad is our economic story?
Maybe Washington oughta slow down and stop panicking.” Can I get an Amen?