But few were buying it. "I hope and I assume you are speaking plainly and directly in private and will do so to the president of the United States," Hagel pleaded with Karzai. "Because you know, there aren't many more chances here. And if you leave an impression that everything is going well and the problems ... are minimal, ... the next time you come back, then your credibility will be in question." Karzai's denial that he wanted an increase in ISAF troops led Hagel to tell reporters after the hearing that the administration had "coached [him] on that a little bit."

"My guess is he has been told by U.S. government officials he needs to put a very positive face on what's going on," Hagel said.

The White House's response to this was for Bush to telephone Karzai and apologize for the senators' rude treatment. "There is a longstanding tradition of foreign leaders, when they testify before the Senate, of being received with a level of decorum, and the president thought that an apology was warranted in this matter," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said on March 11.

Administration pressure on Karzai has also hurt him in other ways. The Bush administration urged him to voice support for the war against Iraq -- bitterly opposed by many in the Muslim world, including Afghans. "It made the government look like a puppet of the U.S.," Rubin says. Utilized effectively by the Taliban and others for propaganda purposes, Karzai's announcement has resulted in some commanders outside Kabul taping photographs of Saddam to the dashboards of their jeeps.

No one should pretend that there haven't been improvements in Afghanistan. Millions of dollars' worth of food and medicine have been distributed by humanitarian organizations. Millions of Afghan school kids are taking their first classes, there are clearly greater freedoms in many parts of the country, and steps are being made toward democracy. The U.S. is sending money and has just over 9,000 troops there. The problem isn't that the U.S. bombed the country and left.

"While I think Afghanistan is in a better place than it was under the Taliban, it's a far cry from being anything like a functioning unitary state where individuals can pursue their potentialities and prosper," says Arthur C. Helton, director of Peace and Conflict Studies for the Council on Foreign Relations. "We don't have system preparing very well for these kinds of things. The approach we've taken has been to toss everything up and see how it lands."

Is that what will happen in Iraq? Helton doesn't think so. "I hate to put it this way, but maybe we can get away with that in Afghanistan; we won't be able to in Iraq."

But just what will the United States be "getting away" with? Even Karzai presented the need for America to fulfill its commitment as a matter of not just altruism but also American national security. "If you reduce attention because of Iraq to Afghanistan, and if you leave the whole thing to us to fight again, it will be repeating the mistakes of the United States made during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan," he warned. "Once the Soviets left, the Americans left." After that, of course, the warlords took over, paving the way for the oppressive Taliban. To forget about Afghanistan would be "very unwise," Karzai said.

Hagel agrees. "One, because Afghanistan was the first true test of how the U.S. and our allies generally would deal with terrorist threats," he says. "And two, Afghanistan is a very important country because it represents an effort of our will and our word to other nations in a very dangerous part of the world.

"We can't fail in that area," Hagel continues "We can't fail in Afghanistan. We have to stay focused on it. You know, things don't automatically get better in life. Vacuums will be filled. And usually not with good things."

Recent Stories