April 06, 2010
— DrewM Let us stipulate that Hamid Karzai is a less than stellar leader, what with the corruption, fraud and all. Let us also stipulate that at the moment, heÂ’s the only game in town (unless, you know, things change).
Seems a bad relationship has only gotten worse since ObamaÂ’s visit. According to several Afghan officials, Karzai is talking up a very dangerous game behind closed doors.
"He said that 'if I come under foreign pressure, I might join the Taliban'," said Farooq Marenai, who represents the eastern province of Nangarhar."He said rebelling would change to resistance," Marenai said — apparently suggesting that the militant movement would then be redefined as one of resistance against a foreign occupation rather than a rebellion against an elected government.
Marenai said Karzai appeared nervous and repeatedly demanded to know why parliament last week had rejected legal reforms that would have strengthened the president's authority over the country's electoral institutions.
Two other lawmakers said Karzai twice raised the threat to join the insurgency.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the reports were troubling. "On behalf of the American people, we're frustrated with the remarks," Gibbs told reporters.
Now I’m sure Karzai would text us saying “jk lol” but this is not good. Yes, he may well be playing to his domestic audience with this kind of tough talk but it’s starting to get out of hand. Gibbs then upped the ante by refusing to say whether or not the US still considers Karzai an ally.
Right now there are tens of thousands of Americans fighting and dying in Iraq (along with allies from other nations) and Karzai is going to play with this kind of fire while the administration does nothing to cool things off?
While the military operations are continuing apace, the political situation, at least at the national level, seems to be deteriorating. Keep in mind that a central tenant of our COIN strategy is that military operations be seen by the population as being in service of the indigenous government.
From Gen. McChrystalÂ’s initial report on the situation in Afghanistan.
ISAF (International Security Assistance Force)Â’s center of gravity is the will and ability to provide for the needs of the population "by, with, and through" the Afghan government. A foreign army alone cannot beat an insurgency; the insurgency in Afghanistan requires an Afghan solution. This is their war and, in the end, ISAF's competency will prove less decisive than GIRoA's; eventual success requires capable Afghan governance capabilities and security forces. While these institutions are still developing, ISAF and the international community must provide substantial assistance to Afghanistan until the Afghan people make the decision to support their government and are capable of providing for their own security.
KarzaiÂ’s talk of joining the Taliban, no matter how insincere it is, only hurts that effort. It puts doubt in the mind of average Afghanis about how much to trust US forces and their promises of security. It also offers hope to the Taliban. Not that Karzai is joining up but that thereÂ’s distance between the allies and the Afghanistan government (such as it is). Time is on their side and this public feuding only shows the time they have to wait is less than they might have thought.
As one who has long been suspect that something can be made of Afghanistan this doesnÂ’t surprise me but then I didnÂ’t run for President on the idea that my election alone would transform the realities of a complex and dangerous world. Are there any allies that Obama hasnÂ’t gotten into a public fight with?
If I had to guess, and that’s all it is, I’d say Obama is fine with this flare up in tensions with Karzai. It will just make it easier for him to throw up his hands and say, “Look, we tried. We increased troops and while they did magnificent work, this Karzai guy is beyond hope. We’re out of here”.
Karzai , with his bizarre and provocative rhetoric looks to be setting himself up for that day as well.
It seems to me as we are seeing the beginning of the political end game in Afghanistan.
Added: This is how weakness, real and perceived, emboldens others. Karzai would never have pulled this kind of talk with Bush, McCain or someone of their ilk. He would have known that under a President like them America would be committed to staying the course in Afghanistan and he would have to live with that reality. Under Obama, he needs to hedge his bets, which makes things worse, which leads to increasing daylight between the two and so on, and so on, in a feedback loop.
Weakness and a telegraphed lack of commitment makes things more dangerous, not less. It's a lesson some of us seem to need to relearn every so often. Others never learn it at all.
Posted by: DrewM at
01:15 PM
| Comments (43)
Post contains 822 words, total size 6 kb.
Posted by: Bomber at April 06, 2010 01:23 PM (qzoN5)
The damage being done may not be repaired in our lifetimes.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at April 06, 2010 01:25 PM (swuwV)
Posted by: Commodus at April 06, 2010 01:28 PM (0fq7b)
Seems to me that shit for brains complaining about the "corruption" in Afghanistan is pretty damn hypocritical considering just how corrupt and fraudulent his administration is. Karzai should have laughed in his stupid smug face. If our Warriors weren't over there bleeding and dying for the Afghan people, it would be funny. This along with shit for brains showing his stupidity with regards to nuclear power is going to get a lot of good people killed. ItÂ’s going to take years before we recover from this dumbass mistake. Thanks again 52% fucktards.
Posted by: Theresa, MSgt (ret), USAF at April 06, 2010 01:29 PM (NJzZr)
Not necessarily. Some Afghanis may like him a little more if he switches from "flawed American ally" to "vicious anti-American Islamist" - but the Obama administration would like him a lot more. No worse friend, no better enemy.
Posted by: bgates at April 06, 2010 01:33 PM (/ULmf)
Posted by: GarandFan at April 06, 2010 01:33 PM (6mwMs)
"Are there any allies that Obama hasnÂ’t gotten into a public fight with?"
No. And his stupid nuke announcement today only encourages them to think that being our ally isn't what it once was.
It will be interesting to read the foreign papers the day after the 2012 election if he loses. Heck, they are starting to turn on him already.
Posted by: PugBoo at April 06, 2010 01:33 PM (kC3nL)
May the last helicopter out leave a large nuke on a timer for a "scorched earth" withdrawl.
Posted by: SGT Dan at April 06, 2010 01:37 PM (GgXZc)
Posted by: SGT Dan at April 06, 2010 01:38 PM (GgXZc)
Here's what I think.
I think Obama and the Demoncrats would like nothing more than a bio/chem attack on a major swath of America's heartland.
Why? Because it would enable them to claim "emergency powers" and "suspend" the Second Amendment.
Ask yourself: why did the leftist mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin, order confiscation of firearms during the Katrina disaster?
He didn't do it to prevent grandmothers from going on a crime wave.
He also didn't do it to illegally end firearms ownership in NO; after all, the city was being evacuated, and there was no possible way the confiscation would stick. And it isn't as if the gun owners involved couldn't just get replacement firearms.
No, Ray Nagin ordered the confiscation of firearms in New Orleans as a dry run for the coming "Night of the Long Knives," in which the leftists controlling the Demoncrat Party will use a terrorist attack, brought on by deliberate hints of weakness to Iran, as a pretext for not only confiscating firearms, but also, in one very clever but very evil stroke, exterminating a large portion of the pro-liberty opposition.
This is why the Demoncrats have done everything possible to ensure a sense of US weakness abroad. They are, in effect, in an alliance with Iran and al-Qaeda to violently take absolute control and establish a Pol Pot-type Communist dictatorship in America that will last forever.
Posted by: Ken at April 06, 2010 01:39 PM (EawMs)
Here is what I know. Karzai left a comfortable life in Europe and went back to Afghanistan. He didn't have to do this. The special forces guys who guarded him came to hear him speak before Congress, and said he was a super guy that they were honored to know.
It seems to me all of this corruption talk started about 2006, when the democrats got control of Congress. It has escalated over the last year. Do we have any proof that it is true?
Posted by: Miss Marple at April 06, 2010 01:41 PM (4DwVn)
Posted by: av at April 06, 2010 01:43 PM (rG4O2)
Politically, though, without a draft the war in A-Stan can go on forever without causing the uproar that Vietnam did.
Posted by: SantaRosaStan at April 06, 2010 01:45 PM (JrRME)
Drew - What gives? Yesterday you add that sweet vid of W throwing the heat over the plate and finish with "Yeah, I tear up a bit when I watch that" to throwing him in with McCain or someone of their "ilk" in the end of this post.
I don't guess I would use a word like ilk to describe W and what he's done or would do on the terror front.
But that's just me.
Posted by: Roadking at April 06, 2010 01:46 PM (Zoz4u)
Posted by: Miss Marple at April 06, 2010 01:46 PM (4DwVn)
"Ilk" is not an insult.
It means "same" or "class" or "kind"
Posted by: DrewM. at April 06, 2010 01:49 PM (9B5OK)
Smell, stink, fragrance and odor all have similar meanings. There are shades of difference between them,. though.
Ilk is not used in groupings in which you like people. Period.
Posted by: Miss Marple at April 06, 2010 01:55 PM (4DwVn)
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at April 06, 2010 01:57 PM (P33XN)
Nobody thinks the election was on the up and up (that doesn't bother me personally but it's corruption/fraud).
No one denies that Karzai's brother is one of the big drug dealers in the south. Seems that's corruption (protecting your brother's organized crime organization)
The military says half of all aid is stolen there. Not by Karzai personally but it's part of the deal.
It's not like Karzai is going to be brought up on charges as that would end the whole deal but let's not pretend he's the only honest man there.
Posted by: DrewM. at April 06, 2010 01:59 PM (9B5OK)
Posted by: Diogenes at April 06, 2010 02:01 PM (eVJ7T)
Posted by: Christoph at April 06, 2010 02:10 PM (0fq7b)
"That same week, coincidentally, the New York Times reported on the front page the name of a purported CIA-paid undercover asset. It was none other than Ahmed Wali Karzai, the powerful brother of the Afghan president.The Times cited, on background, Obama administration "political officials," "senior administration officials" and others as its sources to the effect that the Afghan president's brother has been secretly on the CIA payroll for eight years as well as being a major narcotics trafficker. (Emphasis supplied.)"
Posted by: Diogenes at April 06, 2010 02:10 PM (eVJ7T)
Posted by: Diogenes at April 06, 2010 02:12 PM (eVJ7T)
As far as the election, "nobody thinks" it was on the up and up because the only info we get is from people like the NYT who have an interest in seeing the whole thing collapse.
I am just trying to get you to understand that a lot of what we all "know" is framed by the press, and they are not playing straight.
Karzai might be corrupt. I will need something more than the New York Times and CNN's accounts before I believe it. And I am not pretending he is the only honest man there. But he also may not be the villain the press is trying to create, either.
Posted by: Miss Marple at April 06, 2010 02:12 PM (4DwVn)
Posted by: Vic at April 06, 2010 02:13 PM (QrA9E)
-Number 5
Posted by: Diogenes at April 06, 2010 02:17 PM (eVJ7T)
Drew - I got it. It's just got a negative conotation to me I guess.
Good post - I'll be praying for our guy's over there.
Posted by: Roadking at April 06, 2010 02:18 PM (Zoz4u)
Karzai's gonna end up swinging from a lamppost before it's all said and done.
sic semper tyrannis.
Posted by: Tom Servo at April 06, 2010 02:29 PM (T1boi)
Posted by: Cobalt Shiva at April 06, 2010 02:41 PM (v3pYe)
Posted by: Cobalt Shiva at April 06, 2010 02:43 PM (sGtp+)
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at April 06, 2010 03:17 PM (kmEfr)
It is not fair to put our brave men into a no-win situation with no end in sight. The mission creep on this has been incredible. Our original mission was to destroy Al Qaeda, and we did a decent job of that but nation building in a country that resembles the 6th century is not going to succeed. Even if they stabilized somewhat, what is to stop them from radicalizing and becoming our enemy again when we leave?
The notion of being there to "prevent Al Qaeda from having a training ground" is pointless too. A 9/11 style attack can be planned anywhere, even within the US itself. The strategic importance is far less than Iraq, and we are going to lose Iraq if we keep diverting resources to Afghanistan. Even long term success in Iraq is not assured but given the importance of the flow of oil from that region it is worth seeing it through. Iraq also has an economy and a history of a functioning country to build upon.
I understand the need to keep Pakistan from going to shit, but we can accomplish that without trying to modernize the stone age dump next door, especially when we are working with a corrupt regime.
Posted by: Ken Royall at April 06, 2010 04:05 PM (9zzk+)
Posted by: Miss Marple at April 06, 2010 04:10 PM (4DwVn)
Posted by: Doom Dealer at April 06, 2010 04:34 PM (crDIp)
Posted by: Doom Dealer at April 06, 2010 04:36 PM (crDIp)
Posted by: aziz at May 04, 2011 10:46 AM (mQ7gk)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
61 queries taking 0.0835 seconds, 168 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Christoph at April 06, 2010 01:18 PM (0fq7b)