"What I Learned About Afghan Politics by Selling Rugs"

[karynnj]

That is the title of an article written by an Afghani explaining the agreement that led to a new President taking office as part of a unity government in which the loser got a role as well.

This really is a remarkable diplomatic achievement. Reading the various accounts, the NYT, using American logic, complained about whether it was really "Constitutional" - but, this story shows that - more importantly - it was consistent with Afghan culture.

Wherever this goes, it is useful to remember where things were going (essentially over the cliff) before the agreement happened. This will give Afghanistan a chance - and the outcome will be what they make of it. It seems lucky to me that they found a wise, trusted elder (Kerry) willing to listen and hear - not just what they wanted - but the minimum they would accept.

I strongly recommend reading this article - because it seems to better explain what happened than anything else I have read - including one that referred to Kerry and miracles (somewhere I won't go in spite of about 10 years with DU JK as my home!) - and because it is very very well written.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/09/afghanistan-politics-carpets-election-ghani-abdullah/380924/

With everything happening with ISIS/Iraq?Syria, this has gotten little attention. However, it really could be - along with the removal of chemical weapons from Syria (that otherwise could now be in ISIS hands) - the biggest foreign policy achievement of Obama's administration.

[Texasgal]

1. Great article.

Thank you for posting!

[karynnj]

3. Thank you - I really loved it

Obviously, I have no way to know if it rings true to in that culture, but it does explain a huge amount that nothing else did.

What I especially liked was that, though different than here, solutions done this way would seem to respect everyone and, done well, everyone gets at least a reasonably fair deal.

[leftstreet]

2. Obama is not responsible for Syria's chem weapon removal

Putin is

During the G20 summit on 6 September, Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama discussed the idea of putting Syria's chemical weapons under international control.[3] On 9 September 2013, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry stated in response to a question from a journalist that the air strikes could be averted if Syria turned over "every single bit" of its chemical weapons stockpiles within a week, but Syria "isn't about to do it and it can't be done."[3][25] State Department officials stressed that Kerry's statement and its one-week deadline were rhetorical in light of the unlikelihood of Syria turning over its chemical weapons.[26][27] Hours after Kerry's statement, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov announced that Russia had suggested to Syria that it relinquish its chemical weapons,[28] and Syrian foreign minister Walid al-Moallem immediately welcomed the proposal.[12][28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Syria%27s_chemical_weapons

Obama/Kerry wanted to bomb Syria

[karynnj]

4. Wikipedia is written by whoever wants to write it

The fact is that Obama/Kerry had - even before the August use - pushed Russia to use their leverage to get the chemical weapons out.

Russia's leverage with Syria was no stronger in September than in May. If Russia had WANTED to get the weapons out unilaterally - they could have. They had absolutely no desire to do so. What changed their calculation -- the threat of US force.

The fact is that Kerry's answer was NOT a gaffe. The reason that both Obama and Kerry gave for a strike was that they wanted a strategic strike that would raise the cost for using chemical weapons so Syria would be less likely to use them again. ( There was also the fact that Obama repeatedly said it was a red line.)

Just because the antiwar left CONFLATED the Obama goal to make future use of Chemical weapons less likely with the McCain et al goal of massive attacks to bring down Assad. ( Long forgotten is McCain blasting Kerry for speaking of how limited the goal was)

Given Obama's goal, Kerry's response is completely obvious - and really the ONLY thing he could have said. (Note if he were McCain - he would have said if Assad stepped down. ) The fact is that Obama and Kerry deserve at least as much credit as Putin and Assad here. Not to mention, if you followed the Geneva negotiations and those at the UN, they ended up very very close to what Kerry proposed when he went there. Kerry is on record that he thought that even if they only succeeded in getting most of the CW this way, it was still better because it achieved the goal of making the use less likely and it was better to get that without attacks.