Strategic Partnership Agreement

"Relax," said the night man,
"We are programmed to receive,
You can check out anytime you like
... but you can never leave"
--Hotel California, The Eagles

“The Case for Preemptive War:
Taking the ‘Re-’ Out of Retaliation”
--Book by the fictional Institute for Continuing Conflict in
They Eat Puppies, Don't They, Christopher Buckley

How could I have loved someone
like the one I see in you?
I remember the good times baby now,
and the bad times too
--Goodbye to You, Scandal

She asked me to stay
and she told me to sit anywhere,
So I looked around and I noticed
there wasn't a chair
--Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown),
The Beatles
_________________

President Obama and Islamic Republic of Afghanistan President Karzai had their own May Day celebration by signing the Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the United States of America (as opposed, presumably, to the "non-enduring, not-so-strategic" partnerships; of course, it is hard to have relationship sans good dialog, so maybe this really is something new.)

However, no matter how cheerily the new partnership begins, without the imprimatur of a super majority of the Senate, it lacks the weight of a treaty. We all should know that without the official piece of paper, a partnership is only so much pipe smoke, as partners may just roll up their goods in an Afghan rug or Bodhi bag and hie thee out of there at any moment.

This is not to say partners don't fail to honor the real deal (marriage/treaties) all the time. It's just more difficult, and with that impending effort, a little more consideration and circumspection between the partners is called upon. With a non-binding agreement Mssrs. Obama and Karzai are like the ill-fated live-in lovers, and a divorce or separation is imminent.

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 makes Afghanistan into a "major non-NATO ally."

Which presents 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?

It matters naught if the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is securely defended since we invaded that country to defeat al Qaeda and to neutralize their threat to the American Homeland. The two concepts are not reliant on each other.

We should remember that President Nixon and Secretary of State Kissinger offered the South Vietnamese our pledge of support in 1970 and '71, then threw in the towel shortly thereafter. Surely the Afghan leadership has not forgotten that lesson, for all of Mr. Obama's convection to move "Forward!", and not be troubled by such things as prosecuting our own war criminals.

Surely Mr. Karzai also notes that John Yoo, torture memoist, cannot be prosecuted for his illegal work. Mr. Obama is behaving at home like the member of a partnership who must suck it up and give a pass for the bad behavior of his household members for the sake of peace in the house. It is not a very strong position.

Legal concepts are the basis of our Constitution, and words express these concepts. Mr. Obama is a Constitutional law specialist, so they say. The words, "Advise and consent" by the Senate express the needful basis of a binding treaty between partner countries. Anything shy of that bar is an unconstitutional exercise of Executive power.

Is Obama sampling Afghan poppy products when he signs such agreements?