ShareThis Page

Our Afghan 'friends' Part II: Conniving thieves

| Tuesday, March 12, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Once again thumbing its nose at America, the corrupt Karzai regime dropped the most serious charges in a case related to 2010's fraud-driven collapse of Afghanistan's biggest private bank — and thereby flouted an international aid agreement requiring it to recover more than $800 million owed by two top former bank executives.

A special Afghan court did convict Kabul Bank's ex-chairman and ex-chief executive of fraud and sentence them to five-year prison terms. But by dropping — without explanation — their money-laundering and embezzlement charges, it avoided triggering Afghanistan's Anti-Money Laundering Law. And that violates the Karzai government's 2012 pledge to international donors to “enforce asset recovery and accountability for those responsible for the Kabul Bank crisis,” The Wall Street Journal reports.

Not even charged , despite receiving fraudulent loans, were two prominent Kabul Bank former shareholders — who happen to be brothers of President Hamid Karzai and his vice president.

Worse, Obama administration action is unlikely. Analysts say America and its allies don't want to risk a Karzai-regime collapse before 2014's troop withdrawal. And U.S. officials say “pushing too hard publicly in a country where pride is emphasized would do more harm than good,” as The Journal puts it.

The reliably corrupt Karzai government again has proven how unreliable an “ally” it is — and why U.S. aid and troops should have been withdrawn from Afghanistan long ago.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.