Is Hamid Karzai more corrupt than Rod Blagojevich?

The President's new-found concern with corruption in the Karzai government is passing strange. The President, after all, is the product of Illinois and Cook County political machines, neither of which is celebrated for its moral rectitude. Those political organizations also produced Rod "pay to play" Blagojevich, who would be serving his second term as Illinois Governor, were it not for certain federal wiretaps. Given his own background, methinks the president doth protest too much.

Moreover, Hamid Karzai was the President of Afghanistan back in March 2009, when president Obama formulated his "comprehensive" strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, after extensive consultations with President Karzai's government, among others. Now he decides that the Karzai government may not be worthy of our support? Who did the president think he was partnering with back in March?

The president needs to wake up and smell the poppies.

Nuphedrine

Recent developments in Obamaland

This week and we have a trifecta: three excellent columns about recent events in the Obama White House. The first is by Mark Steyn. His reference to "Mao Ze Dunn" is priceless.

Next, Charles Krauthammer weighs in with a column on the Fox Wars.

Finally, Victor Davis Hanson has a column about the rapidly-changing perceptions of, and dwindling support for, our new President (here).

One salient thought occurred to me even before reading these articles: President Obama has the will to wage an unrelenting war against Fox News, but not against the Islamic Jihadists in Afghanistan.

What is wrong with this picture?

President Obama 's non-strategy in Afghanistan

President Obama says we need a strategy in Afghanistan. Of course we do. But on March 27, he claimed to have forged a "comprehensive" strategy for Afghanistan after a thorough review that included consultations with the military, the leaders of various countries, and key members of Congress. He even appointed a new general to implement his new strategy. (See Charles Krauthammer's excellent Washington Post Article for more details.)

What changed? Nothing changed in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has not changed fundamentally for centuries. That is regrettable, but it hardly explains the President's decision to scrap a comprehensive strategy that he has only begun to implement.

What has changed is the the political landscape in the United States. Obama wanted the government takeover of health care to be completed before the August recess. That didn't happen, and his various schemes are becoming less popular by the week. And a cap and trade bill was supposed to have been passed before government-run healthcare. That bill is moribund. (And gays still can't serve openly in the military, and Guantánamo Bay is no closer to being closed.) In short, Obama is taking a lot of heat from the left, and committing the resources needed to implement a serious strategy in Afghanistan would only make matters worse.

Something had to give, and national security, to which Obama was never committed to begin with, was the obvious choice.

The war in Afghanistan

A lively debate over the war in Afghanistan has broken out, sparked by George Will's most recent column,Time to Get Out of Afghanistan. His column has already drawn responses from Frederick W. Kagan, Mark R. Levin, Rich Lowry, Mark Steyn, and others.
No doubt,many more will follow.

Each of these authors makes valid points. Afghanistan is a mess, both geographically and politically. I don't know what "victory" there would consist of. What are our near-term and long-term goals, and what price -- especially in blood -- are we willing to pay to achieve them? Maybe this debate will help to clarify these issues

Wars are inherently difficult and bloody undertakings with uncertain outcomes. I certainly don't claim to have any answers. I can only hope that our leaders are giving these issues as much thought as the columnists and bloggers are.