Don’t Meddle in Afghanistan’s Election

A few days ago, Brookings’ Michael O’Hanlon took to the pages of The Washington Post to argue that the United States should actively interfere in the next Afghan election to pick a winner. O’Hanlon writes:

Some may wish to avoid interfering in the elections of a sovereign nation, but Afghan reformers are calling out for help. When I visited Afghanistan in May, several suggested to me that the United States pick a winner so they could rally around him. Also, the international presence in Afghanistan will have enormous influence whether we acknowledge it or not. Supporting the Karzai government is actually a form of political intervention, as it gives the incumbent great resources, such as control of state-run media, to try to choose his successor. Moreover, with U.S. officials making decisions about how much money and how many troops to devote to Afghanistan’s long-term assistance, we have a right to say that the level of our support will be strongly influenced by the choices Afghans make — even if we will not (and should not) try to pick a winner… U.S. diplomats, ideally backed by other foreign missions in Kabul, including such key Muslim states as Turkey, Indonesia and Tanzania (which have impressive track records in fighting corruption and improving governance in recent years), should also be willing to say, publicly if necessary, which candidates would be unacceptable as president.

0
Shares
Google+ Print

Don’t Meddle in Afghanistan’s Election

Must-Reads from Magazine

One States, Two States, Whatever

Commentary podcast: A new pathway to peace abroad and a new war at home.

On the second Commentary podcast of the week, we (Abe Greenwald, Noah Rothman, and I) dilate upon Donald Trump’s seeming revolution in the U.S. posture toward the Israelis and the Palestinians while asking this question: Does the president actually know what the “one-state” or “two-state” solution is? We also point out that just as paranoids have enemies, Trump has reason to believe he is under attack from inside his own executive branch—but that his response may hurt him and not help. Also, like Jack Benny and Fred Allen’s radio shows of old, we have a sponsor! Give a listen.

0
Shares
Google+ Print

An Unconventional Middle East Peace?

A Middle East peace that abandons the Peace Process.

It was a shock to the status quo on Tuesday when, standing beside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Donald Trump abandoned decades of U.S. policy by suggesting he would no longer insist on a two-state solution as a prerequisite for peace. Trump went on to demonstrate his contempt for precedent by noting that Palestinian school children are “taught hate from a very young age.” Trump’s disregard for diplomatic niceties may yet end up causing him headaches, but he could also find the restive Middle East more receptive to a breakthrough. Ironically, it was Barack Obama who made Trump’s job of pursuing an out-of-the-box solution to the region’s conflicts all the easier, albeit inadvertently.

1
Shares
Google+ Print

Is BDS a Bust?

BDS has failed to turn Israel into a pariah state.

In 2005, a coalition of organizations claiming to represent Palestinian civil society issued a call to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel. Since then, the BDS movement has acted, in church organizations, on college campuses, and elsewhere, to make Israel the equivalent of apartheid-era South Africa; a pariah state. BDS has been active in the U.S., and COMMENTARY has covered many of its individual wins and losses. But it is worth pausing every now and again to consider its overall effect on American public opinion.

4
Shares
Google+ Print

Beinart’s Complaint

Peter Beinart makes his critics' arguments for them.

Peter Beinart is part of a cast of liberals lamenting the fact that conservatives who were skeptical of Donald Trump during the campaign have inexplicably declined to join him in the Democratic party now that Trump is president. And he is now among a more select group on the left to name names in an effort to shame such people over their seeming hypocrisy. Except he doesn’t call it hypocrisy. Rather, Beinart’s argument is that these conservatives don’t share his prohibitive focus on Trump to the exclusion of virtually every other matter of public policy relevance or political salience. And so Beinart inadvertently validates the arguments of those he sought to condemn.

17
Shares
Google+ Print

Beware Triggering the Coup Theory

Time for a national deep breath

I can’t believe I’m writing this after the administration has been in office for 26 days, but here goes. The idea that Donald Trump is now inexorably on a path to impeachment has taken almost gleeful hold in the wake of the Michael Flynn resignation among liberal elites and anti-Trumpers generally—and everybody better stop and take a deep breath and consider what might arise from this. This isn’t fire we’re playing with, it’s a nuclear war.

155
Shares
Google+ Print