And that’s what the U.S. “gets” for the privilege of serving as Hamid Karzai’s rent-a-cop.
In exchange, Afghanistan continues to receive all manner of goodies, only now as an “obligation”: “The United States shall have an obligation to seek funds on a yearly basis to support” the defense and security of the Afghan state, the draft agreement states. Sounds to me as if the Obama administration has just negotiated a new and massive entitlement program. Call it Afghan-O-care. Instead of community organizers serving as “navigators,” the new entitlement provides “relevant Afghan institutions” to administer the moolah. “Taking into account Afghanistan’s annual priorities, the United States shall direct appropriate funds through Afghan Government budgetary mechanisms, to be managed by relevant Afghan institutions ...”
The graft goes on.
But the Obama administration is claiming victory if only for having preserved U.S. jurisdiction over military and civilian personnel in Afghanistan. (American contractors and their American employees, however, are on their own under Afghan law.) What seems troubling, however, is a provision that allows the U.S. to give consent to surrender or transfer military personnel to the custody of an international tribunal or other state.
Why is that even in there?
Would a government so blind to American interests be able to resist bilateral or multilateral or transnational or sharia calls for “justice”?
It’s yet another point of concern for the U.S. Senate, which must start advising and, I trust, not consenting -- and soon.
Diana West’s new book is “American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character” from St. Martin’s Press. She blogs at dianawest.net, and she can be contacted via firstname.lastname@example.org. Follow her on Twitter @diana_west_.