From our partners at The Agonist
Jim Hruska is decidedly underwhelmed by the Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the United States of America:
Without the advice and consent of the Senate, Mr. Obama and Mr. Karzai’s partnership lacks even the heft of a Civil Union, and is therefore not worth the paper on which it is written. Where are the references to the imperative for a Senate vote? The lack of discussion suggests that the United States has something to gain from this “agreement”, which make Afghanistan into a major non-NATO ally.”
Which suggests the question: How can the 3rd poorest and most corrupt nation in the world, with a Gross National Product of $16 billion, morph into a major ally? Exactly what does “security and defense cooperation”actually translate into in definable parameters? How did the security and defense of Afghanistan become a strategic objective of U.S.policy? Why would we even care?
[Insert requisite noun, verb, & 9/11 here.]
Related: Ex-State Dept spokesperson PJ Crowley: “The strategic partnership agreement makes sense from a policy standpoint…but the odds of success are no better than 50-50.”
Update: JPD, in comments, outlines the 2nd rule of holes:
Ask yourself one simple question: When you’re going to wallpaper over the hole in the wall and leave, what’s more credible in helping deny the existence of the hole? Cheap wallpaper, or expensive wallpaper?