On Wednesday, The New York Times reported that Ahmed Wali Karzai, brother to Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai, is on the Central Intelligence Agency payroll. While the explanations are not expressly damning (C.I.A. and U.S. Special Operations forces rent a compound from him, and often use him as an intermediary to communicate with the Taliban), it's clear how the news will be received in the region. Theories that Afghanistan is a puppet state of the West are confirmed. Rumors that Hamid Karzai's interests rest with American hegemony are bolstered. And it exacerbates a "crisis of confidence" in the Afghanistan government, as experienced by the Afghan people and described by General Stanley McChrystal in his Commander's Initial Assessment. It is, by every measure, a catastrophe for the Karzai administration. And it comes a week before runoff elections strong-armed by the United States.
Ahmed Karzai isn't just a crony governor of a failing state in a spiraling war. He's the opium kingpin of Afghanistan, the Pablo Escobar of the Hindu Kush. According to General McChrystal, the war cannot be won so long as the illicit opium trade remains unfettered. ISAF has spent eight years torching everyone else's poppy fields, and yet, it seems, Ahmed Karzai has a C.I.A. paystub and a free pass. A U.S. official tells the New York Times, "There's no proof of Ahmed Wali Karzai's involvement in drug trafficking, certainly nothing that would stand up in court." The only thing missing is a wink and a knowing smile.
When Senator John Kerry announced an unexpected runoff between Hamid
Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah, it became very clear that Karzai was on
the chopping block. Yes, the August elections were rife with violence,
corruption and voting irregularities, but this was expected by anyone
who could locate Afghanistan on a map. Given the recent surge in
violence, increased U.S. troop casualties, and emboldened Taliban
forces, is there any reason to expect things will go better next month?
Before Ahmed Karzai's ties to the C.I.A. were revealed, the election
appeared to be a needless risk to U.S. troops tasked with providing
security and political cover for a vacillating president. Now it
appears to be a calculated method of executing a bloodless coup.
In 1963, Ngo Dinh Diem had been in power in South Vietnam for nine
years. The Kennedy administration inherited him from Eisenhower. Former
Secretary of State John Dulles called Diem "the best available man."
Diem's leadership was ever tenuous, his successes promoted beyond their
merits, his failures epic in scope. In the end, however, it was his
oppressive and corrupt brother that proved his undoing, and the Kennedy
administration sanctioned a C.I.A. coup that found Diem and his brother
in the back of an armored personnel carrier, and on the business end of
semi-automatic rifles.
How the Company has evolved. These days, they reveal allies carefully
cultivated, but no longer desirable, to be U.S. stooges, and engineer
elections.
By leaking a connection between the C.I.A. and the Karzai family, the
United States has given tacit approval for regime change in
Afghanistan. If Karzai is ousted by Abdullah Abdullah, the Obama
administration can claim a tabula rasa - a new general, a new plan, and
new diplomacy with a new government. It is, in a sense, good news for
supporters of McChrystal's plan. But if Karzai survives the runoff, he
would be well advised to move his desk away from any windows, and not
expect much latitude from the United States.
It is now very obvious that the Kerry negotiations were carried out in bad faith.
Hamid Karzai should act where Diem did not, by quickly distancing
himself from his brother - starting, at the very least, by removing him
from power. And the United States should explain to the world why
shamelessly exposing classified intelligence to manipulate a free
election is beneficial to a fledgling democracy, or to the war on
terror.
The C.I.A. missed the collapse of the Soviet Union, Saddam Hussein's
incursion into Kuwait, September 11th, and Iraq's dearth of weapons of
mass destruction, but they're back to doing what they do best: putting
a knife in an ally while patting itself on the back.
If he's reelected, Hamid Karzai might want to avoid armored personnel carriers.







Get out of Afghanistan, it will lead to nothing. Read Tom Friedman "he-who-plays-golf-with-Mr.Obama" latest article in the IHT and follow his advice.
Leaving Afghanistan and Pakistan in the grip of fundamentalists sounds dangerous but we are kidding ourselves that a working democracy can soon be achieved by current techniques, which mean a slow and expensive death for many. The war needs to be total or not at all. It's the same old crap. The enemy and the innocent look as indistinguishable as the Vietcong and anybody else in a funny hat on a bicycle. Until Islamic regimes and infuence peddlers abandon paranoid sloganizing and medieval rigidity, in favor of a modicum of accountable social science and egalitarianism, we are stuck in a quagmire with nobody to talk to. At least the Vietnamese had a tangible leadership which was finally available for negotation. Not so the twin heads of Islamic fundamentalism and tribalism. Going total means trodding on the toes of the "moderates", who secretly drink and smoke, sell narcotics and gasoline, thus risking another oil crisis and a pandemic of exploding viscera. The only viable outcome may be to ensure that the residents of this sorry heap of mountain remain mutually repellent and consume themselves in an undisturbed ritual of warlordism. They are not ready for parliamentary democracy. Has history not taught us anything? Sorry to sound so fatalistic but what a load of unbelievable rubbish has been served up in lieu of an honest effort at democracy. Hamid Karzai smirks on TV as he shoves his gigantic ballots into boxes, while his goons run around stuffing millions of duds into others. Suicide bombers and assorted weirdos dispatch Benazir Bhutto.