Afghanistan: The Arrogance of The New York Times Editorial Board

In an editorial today entitled "President Karzai Lashes Out", The New York Times lashes out at Afghanistan's President Karzai for "delusional criticism of the United Nations and governments whose troops are risking their lives by fighting the Taliban." The editorial concludes:

The pressure on Mr. Karzai has, at times, been applied inartfully, but Mr. Obama is right to hold him to account in ways President George W. Bush did not. He should make clear that Washington will work around him if needed, funneling aid through competent cabinet ministries and helping beef up local governments.

Mr. Karzai is encouraging those who want the United States out of Afghanistan. He risks boiling down a more complicated policy debate to the notion that American lives are being sacrificed simply to keep him in power. It’s hard to think of a better way to doom Afghanistan’s future, as well as his own.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/opinion/03sat1.html?hp

This is the lofty conviction of The New York Times brain trust? Let's give it some thought.

The Times would have us believe that Obama "held Karzai to account" by running over to Kabul and dining with this petty tyrant in the presidential palace following Karzai's threat to diss Obama (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/03/dissed-by-karzai-obama-seeks-to-kiss.html), days after pointedly refusing to have dinner with Netanyahu at the White House. Yeah, sure, Obama's a real tough guy, and Bush was a stooge. Sorry, but Obama decided upon escalation after months spent studying the matter, this is now Obama's war, and there can be no shifting the blame - not upon Israel (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/04/obama-adminstration-blaming-israel-for.html) and not upon Bush.

The Times editorial board says that Obama "should make clear that Washington will work around [Karzai] if needed, funneling aid through competent cabinet ministries and helping beef up local governments." Is the editorial board suggesting that the U.S. take responsibility for local government in Afghanistan or orchestrate a coup d'état? How else do you bypass the Afghan president and funnel aid directly to "competent" ministries, i.e. ministries willing to play ball with Obama?

The editorial board writes, "It’s hard to think of a better way to doom Afghanistan’s future, as well as his own." From their offices in Manhattan, The Times editorial board cannot possibly know the Afghan landscape better than Karzai. Karzai is a fox, and his carefully reasoned double-dealing is intended to promote, as always, his own best interests. Afghanistan's future? Hi-tech? Democracy and religious tolerance? Boys and girls studying biology and chemistry together in gilded classrooms? Sorry, but it is not destined to occur in our lifetimes.

Surely The Times is pulling our collective leg. Or perhaps, what they really want to say of Karzai's treachery:

"It’s hard to think of a better way to doom the Obama administration’s future, as well as the credibility of The Times , which has paid servile lip service to Obama's Afghan folly."