Not Liking Eike.

Someone - possibly the White House’s man in Kabul himself - seems to be making life tough for US Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry.  After expressing objections about the Karzai government’s endemic corruption and reliability as a partner, Eikenberry put his thoughts into writing, which then ended up in such low-profile pages of trivial publications like the Washington Post and New York Times.

Yikes.

My first reaction was that Eikenberry leaked the memos himself to publicly turn the screws on Afghani President Hamid Karzai.  After all, the only real leverage the Obama administration has right now is to take its football and go home.  Impressing that possibility on Karzai as part of the public debate may compel el presidente to make an actual - rather than window-dressing - effort to clean up his act.

Andrew Exum at Abu Muqawama worries that the leak will undercut any sort of credibility Eikenberry had with Karzai.  I don’t think that’s true - I’m sure the anti-corruption message was loud and clear, if previously made behind closed doors.

Furthermore, the administration is reportedly leaning towards a counterinsurgency strategy that aims to protect 10-12 major population centers throughout the country.  In theory, this means working more with regional governments, tribal leaders, and local warloads in a plausable attempt to by-pass Kabul and marginalize Karzai.

Regardless, Eikenberry’s objections have given Obama pause to ensure that an exit strategy is a more concrete part of the deployment plan.  If it the Way Out wasn’t included in the strategy thus far, then Eikenberry’s contributions should end up as a net positive.