President Hamid Karzai, along with a sizable delegation of Cabinet members, made a four-day visit to Washington, designed to shore up shaky relations with the White House, as well as gain support for the National Consultative Peace Jirga scheduled for later this month in Kabul.

While the meetings, receptions, dinners and briefings made a good show of unity and friendship, behind the scenes there are still signs of strain.

As Karzai returns apparently victorious from his summit with the Americans, many at home are wondering just why the United States is being so lenient on a man they have publicly and repeatedly criticized for leading a corrupt and ineffective government.

“There is no acceptable replacement for Karzai,” said political analyst Wahid Mojda. “Karzai has blocked all possible alternatives. And if he dies or is killed, his deputy assumes power; that could be even more challenging for the United States than Karzai himself.”

Karzai’s First Deputy Vice President, and his successor should disaster strike, is Marshal Mohammad Qasim Fahim, a controversial figure widely accused of corruption and high on many human rights organizations’ lists of war criminals.

Also, with the United States planning a major operation in Kandahar this summer, the White House needs the support of the Kabul government, which has so far been far from enthusiastic about the proposed offensive.

Prominent on the agenda for the meeting was the National Consultative Peace Jirga (NCPJ), during which representatives of the Afghan people will discuss possible measures to bring the insurgents back into the fold. This has been a major facet of Karzai’s foreign policy since the London Conference in January, but the international community, particularly the United States, has given off mixed signals about their support. While ostensibly backing the peace process, the White House has ringed it around with so many caveats and conditions that many doubt anything productive could come of possible talks. Obama has said that the United States would support negotiations with Taliban who cut their relations with Al Qaeda; something that many former Taliban and current insurgents have said is tantamount to surrender.

“Foreign troops are now fighting the Taliban, so there is no benefit in supporting peace talks at the same time, said parliamentarian Khaled Pashtoon. “President Obama’s support was merely symbolic.”

According to Mojda, Washington is aware of the power Karzai will wield over the Jirga. With tensions running high over civilian casualties, it would not be difficult for the Afghan president to inflame emotions against the already unpopular foreign troops, something that could exponentially complicate the Kandahar operation.

Another major irritant in relations between Kabul and Washington has been corruption. In the fall, the White House gave Karzai six months to show progress in his fight to clean up his government; that deadline has long since passed, with little to show except a new oversight committee.

“Fighting corruption is not at the top of president Karzai’s working agenda,” said Mojda. “He has little interest in tackling corruption because many of those implicated are his friends. No one wants to create problems for himself, his friends and relatives.”

Karzai’s half-brother, Ahmad Wali Karzai, the strongman of Kandahar, has been a bone of contention in relations between Kabul and Washington. But during the visit, the issue seems to have been cleared up, again to Karzai’s advantage; Ahmad Wali will stay in place, and Washington will tone down its criticism.

With all of the problems between the two countries, many are wondering just what benefit the Washington “summit” will bring.

“Both the United States and Afghanistan have made many mistakes in the last eight years, and they are both trying to compensate,
said political analyst Mohammad Saiqal. “But visits and words cannot make up for errors unless they take practical action.”

This is exactly what is lacking, he added.

“We talk about democracy and rule of law but we see nothing practical,” he said. “Noting has been implemented in the last eight years. Instead, we are getting further and further away from rule of law and good governance.”

Part of the fault lies with Washington’s priorities,” he insisted.

“Obama just wants to fight terrorism,” he said.

Still, both sides have tried to paint a positive picture of the visit. Presidential spokesman Wahid Omar told the media that the Kabul delegation had obtained a promise of long-term engagement from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“The Secretary of State declared that her country is willing for a long-term strategic partnership with Afghanistan,” he said. “Our cooperation will continue under a long-term strategic treaty whether or not U.S. troops leave Afghanistan.”

Obama’s deadline to begin withdrawing U.S. troops is barely a year in the future; the date has many in Afghanistan nervous about the future.

But according to political analyst Saiqal, it is all just fine words without political will.

 “Undoubtedly, Afghanistan needs to have long term strategic relations with the United States of America,” He said. “The Afghan government has been at a critical stage for the last eight years and its fall is possible at any time. Such relations are tightening when we have political will. But, unfortunately, there is no political will for establishing good governance in Afghanistan.”

The visit, according to most observers, was a case of making the best of a bad situation.

“President Karzai is a problem for the United States, but looking at all of the other problems there are, Washington has to accept him,” said Mojda.