Max Boot, neocon, came right out and said it. The United States should just pick the winner of next year's presidential election in Afghanistan.
The U.S. ambassador, CIA station chief and U.S. military commander in Kabul, acting in close concert with officials in Washington, should pick a favorite among the many candidates maneuvering to succeed Karzai — the best (or, more likely, least bad) leader for Afghanistan's future. The U.S. could then use its influence, including those notorious bags of CIA cash, to do what it can to secure the election of whichever candidate is judged most likely to be a strong, unifying leader who will take on both the Taliban and corrupt government officials.It's nice that Max Boot wrote the editorial. So now there's a good paragraph to cut and paste, to show what they are up to. It's handy.
Choosing sides in Afghanistan, Los Angeles Times
And you've got to admire someone who can write a sentence that says that the United States should use its bags of cash to steal an election for our guy in Afghanistan, who would then take on all the corrupt Afghan officials. That's the basic U.S. political strategy of the last ten years, reduced to one sentence. All that is at issue now, is who our selected guy should be. Where, exactly, we would deliver those notorious bags of CIA cash.
I like Boot's sense of the power structure. Three specific people in Kabul
The U.S. ambassador, CIA station chief and U.S. military commander in Kabulwould choose the winner. And those three people would occasionally
acting in close concert with officials in Washingtonsend an email to the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Secretary of Defense about how the election stealing plot was going.
And the three in Washington would occasionally tell the President how the plot was going. Maybe in morning briefings from time to time.
And the American President would not have to tell the American or the Afghan people how the American plot to steal the Afghan presidential election was going.
- The Afghan people because, they already believe it's true.
- And the American people because, the plot was once printed up and explained in a Max Boot editorial in the Los Angeles Times.
General John Allen, (USMC, Retired), Michèle Flournoy (former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy), and Michael O'Hanlon (opinion writer for hire) wrote up their plan for Afghanistan.
Their paper is a lot like the Winston Churchill Victory speech.
The United States and other international security and development partners would risk snatching defeat from the jaws of something that could still resemble victoryAs rewritten by Michael O'Hanlon.
You ask, What is our aim? I can answer with thirteen words: not snatching defeat from the jaws of something that could still resemble victory - not snatching defeat from the jaws of something that could still resemble victory at all costs, not snatching defeat from the jaws of something that could still resemble victory in spite of all terror, not snatching defeat from the jaws of something that could still resemble victory however long and hard the road may be; for without not snatching defeat from the jaws of something that could still resemble victory there is no survival.It's the basic U.S. military strategy of the last eleven years, reduced to one stirring sentence.
Michèle Flournoy et al tell us what to do about the presidential election.
Not that the United States should just pick a winner. No. The United States would never do something like that. Or even think about it. Ever. It's just that, well, you see,
Although the United States and other key outside nations should not and will not try to pick a winner, America should do what it can to ensure that the next election is freer and fairer than the last. Since the United States has promised at least $5 billion a year in future aid (for half a decade or more) and is considering spending $10 billion a year or more on a post-2014 military presence, Americans have a stake in the electoral process and outcome.it's just that we have spent so much money. Afghanistan owes us, it's our stake in the place, between $5 and $10 billion worth of votes.
Yikes. Holy shit. Mother of fuck nightmare. Jeebus H. Christ on a bin Laden cracker.
Zalmay Khalilzad has been lurking about Afghanistan lately, meeting with the warlords again. Not that the United States would ever just select an Afghan government, or pick a winner of an upcoming election. No. Of course not.
The former US Ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad on Saturday said that he has been discussing with Afghan leaders over a national consensus before the 2014 presidential election, but adding that no consensus can be an alternative to the vote.
Speaking to TOLOnews in Kabul, he said that it was better if the Afghan political elites agree on a few candidates and on a national agenda.
This week in Afghanistan, and according to unnamed sources, a presidential candidate has been selected.
KABUL (PAN): Renowned jihadi leader Abdul Rab Rassoul Sayyaf would contest the presidential vote, with Qaseem Fahim and Mohammad Mohaqiq named as his running mates, a well-placed source said.They want Abdul Rab Rassoul fucking Sayyaf as president?
Mother of fuck nightmare. Jeebus H. Christ on a bin Laden cracker.