• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can Karzai Save Us?

How should we leave Afghanistan?


  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Ron Paul: Can Karzai Save Us?
Can Karzai Save Us?

By Ron Paul
November 30, 2013 "Information Clearing House - After a year of talks over the post-2014 US military presence in Afghanistan, the US administration announced last week that a new agreement had finally been reached. Under the deal worked out with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the US would keep thousands of troops on nine military bases for at least the next ten years.

It is clear that the Obama Administration badly wants this deal. Karzai, sensing this, even demanded that the US president send a personal letter promising that the US would respect the dignity of the Afghan people if it were allowed to remain in the country. It was strange to see the US president go to such lengths for a deal that would mean billions more US dollars to Karzai and his cronies, and a US military that would continue to prop up the regime in Kabul.

Just as the deal was announced by Secretary of State John Kerry and ready to sign, however, Karzai did an abrupt about-face. No signed deal until after the next presidential elections in the spring, he announced to a gathering of tribal elders, much to the further embarrassment and dismay of the US side. The US administration had demanded a signed deal by December. What may happen next is anybody’s guess. The US threatens to pull out completely if the deal is not signed by the end of this year.

Karzai should be wary of his actions. It may become unhealthy for him. The US has a bad reputation for not looking kindly on puppet dictators who demand independence from us.

Yet Karzai’s behavior may have the unintended benefit of saving the US government from its own worst interventionist instincts. The US desire to continue its military presence in Afghanistan – with up to 10,000 troops – is largely about keeping up the false impression that the Afghan war, the longest in US history, has not been a total, catastrophic failure. Maintaining a heavy US presence delays that realization, and with it the inevitable conclusion that so many lives have been lost and wasted in vain. It is a bitter pill that this president, who called Afghanistan “the good war,” would rather not have to swallow.

The administration has argued that US troops must remain in Afghanistan to continue the fight against al-Qaeda. But al-Qaeda has virtually disappeared from Afghanistan. What remains is the Taliban and the various tribes that have been involved in a power struggle ever since the Soviets left almost a quarter of a century ago. In other words, twelve years later we are back to the starting point in Afghanistan.

Where has al-Qaeda gone if not in Afghanistan? They have branched out to other areas where opportunity has been provided by US intervention. Iraq had no al-Qaeda presence before the 2003 US invasion. Now al-Qaeda and its affiliates have turned Iraq into a bloodbath, where thousands are killed and wounded every month. The latest fertile ground for al-Qaeda and its allies is Syria, where they have found that US support, weapons, and intelligence is going to their side in the ongoing war to overthrow the Syrian government.

In fact, much of the US government’s desire for an ongoing military presence in Afghanistan has to do with keeping money flowing to the military industrial complex. Maintaining nine US military bases in Afghanistan and providing military aid and training to Afghan forces will consume billions of dollars over the next decade. The military contractors are all too willing to continue to enrich themselves at the expense of the productive sectors of the US economy.

Addressing Afghan tribal elders last week, Karzai is reported to have expressed disappointment with US assistance thus far: “I demand tanks from them, and they give us pickup trucks, which I can get myself from Japan… I don’t trust the U.S., and the U.S. doesn’t trust me.”

Let us hope that Karzai sticks to his game with Washington. Let the Obama administration have no choice but to walk away from this twelve-year nightmare. Then we can finally just march out.




Ron Paul: Can Karzai Save Us?

Did we win when we killed OBL?

If we leave, does the record 9,000 ton Opium crop go back to PreUSA 290 ton levels?

Is Karzai nuts?

Are the Taliban good guys or bad guys?

Are we good guys or bad guys?

Will there be a blood bath if we leave?

Do we need to stay to protect the pipeline route? (Moldova, Georgia, Azerbajan sp, Afghanistan)




 
We are going to need a base of operations, in the area, for the never ending 'war on terror' so it may as well be there.
 
I'll be very interested to see how other respond to this. To me it shows that the Obama regime is just as corrupt as the Bush regime, concerned with spending our tax dollars to accomplish....what?

Well, it's good news for heroin addicts that the price of smack will stay stable, since most of that opium crop is headed for the US markets. Why, gosh, they're protecting us from inflation. That's real partnership.

Sigh©
 
I'll be very interested to see how other respond to this. To me it shows that the Obama regime is just as corrupt as the Bush regime, concerned with spending our tax dollars to accomplish....what?

Well, it's good news for heroin addicts that the price of smack will stay stable, since most of that opium crop is headed for the US markets. Why, gosh, they're protecting us from inflation. That's real partnership.

Sigh©

Excellent point! Perhaps Big Corporate Pharma should pay for any residual involvement by USA forces. Perhaps they could share the costs with Big Corporate Energy.
 
I was for going into Afghanistan and destroying terrorist training bases and making the Taliban suffer so they would think long and hard about letting Alquiada back in. I never was for the nation building fiasco though. Absolutely no offense to all you guys that served there though, you have my utmost respect.
 
I understand why we went to Afghanistan. I supported it. I wish someone would give me a good reason why we stay.
 
We are going to need a base of operations, in the area, for the never ending 'war on terror' so it may as well be there.

I personally think that we are the "Terror War" and that it is a construct of the Military/Industrial/Corporate complex as a marketing promotion to maintain/enhance weapon sales. "War is good business," and business is good, USA style.
 
I was for going into Afghanistan and destroying terrorist training bases and making the Taliban suffer so they would think long and hard about letting Alquiada back in. I never was for the nation building fiasco though. Absolutely no offense to all you guys that served there though, you have my utmost respect.

I don't know -- I have to admit, I think the American aversion to nation-building is misguided. If you're going to invade and destroy a country, you need to build it back up afterwards, or you've just caused yourself a headache further down the pipeline.

Britain's had quite a few successful nation-building experiences, and I'm sure the US could do the same.
 
1) I understand why we went to Afghanistan. 2) I supported it. I wish someone would give me a good reason why we stay.

1) I do not and 2) I did not. The 911 terrorist crew were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen. The only connection to Afghanistan was the use of a few "training camps" in that third world, lawless nation. That situation exists in virtually all of the Muslim world and we would be fools to attempt to use military force to try to "build nations" friendly to us in any of them.

Why do we send thousands of US troops to Afghanistan yet not do so in Mexico? The Mexican drug cartels, with their numerous "training camps" in that nation, kill far more US citizens than the Muslim terrorists ever will. Mexico also has an official policy to not allow US extradition of these criminals, thus Mexico is a state sponsor of crime (terrorism?), while enjoying the massive influx of narco-terrorist money.
 
Last edited:
1) I do not and 2) I did not. The 911 terrorist crew were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen. The only connection to Afghanistan was the use of a few "training camps" in that third world, lawless nation. That situation exists in virtually all of the Muslim world and we would be fools to attempt to use military force to try to "build nations" friendly to us in any of them.

Why do we send thousands of US troops to Afghanistan yet not do so in Mexico? The Mexican drug cartels, with their numerous "training camps" in that nation, kill far more US citizens than the Muslim terrorists ever will. Mexico also has an official policy to not allow US extradition of these criminals, thus Mexico is a state sponsor of crime (terrorism?), while enjoying the massive influx of narco-terrorist money.

Here's the way I saw it at the time. Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 and he was in Afghanistan. I would have supported any means necessary to get him, including nuclear. Gradually mission creep transfered the enemy to the Taliban. I think that as a group, the Taliban are awful people but in my mind the singular mission in Afghanistan was to get Bin Laden and the Taliban only posed a threat to works of art and Afghan women, not American interests.

I don't see an end game in Afghanistan other than our leaving and the Afghan people bending to the will of who ever fills the power vacuum. I see no pressing national interest in our remaining there. When we leave, Karzai is a dead man. Sooner the better.

With respect to Mexico, since you brought it up, I would be fine with sending troops now in Afghanistan to the border. Going into Mexico, not so much. There is a constitutional mandate to protect our borders.
 
The deal is we are to sign on for 10 years and keep training them. Karzai wants to wait. But Rice just showed up and gave hima direct message from Obama. Either sign the paper or we will pull the plug on all of it. Aid too.

I don't think we need to keep a base of operations in this part of region.....its not like the Iranians wouldn't know. What other reason than the appearance of being on all sides of Iran, now with the Obama deal and them?

Karzai saves us if he doesn't sign that piece of paper. Only way.
 
Here's the way I saw it at the time. Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 and he was in Afghanistan. I would have supported any means necessary to get him, including nuclear. Gradually mission creep transfered the enemy to the Taliban. I think that as a group, the Taliban are awful people but in my mind the singular mission in Afghanistan was to get Bin Laden and the Taliban only posed a threat to works of art and Afghan women, not American interests.

I don't see an end game in Afghanistan other than our leaving and the Afghan people bending to the will of who ever fills the power vacuum. I see no pressing national interest in our remaining there. When we leave, Karzai is a dead man. Sooner the better.

With respect to Mexico, since you brought it up, I would be fine with sending troops now in Afghanistan to the border. Going into Mexico, not so much. There is a constitutional mandate to protect our borders.

Are you kidding me? You honestly think that a proper mission of the US military is to "get" a criminal in a foreign land? Why not send the military after the cartel bosses in Mexico?
 
Are you kidding me? You honestly think that a proper mission of the US military is to "get" a criminal in a foreign land? Why not send the military after the cartel bosses in Mexico?

No kidding. Bin Laden was more than a criminal. He was the mastermind of a terrorist organization who acted against American interests. I don't have the same opinion of the Mexican drug cartels. In truth, the war on drugs is a failure. I used to smoke pot in the 70's and I don't think that it's particularly good for individuals but I'm starting to believe that the war on drugs does as much harm to our society as drugs. Make pot legal and the cartels loose their power. Tax the crap out of pot and move taxes in general to where I think they should be anyway, consumption.
 
Are you kidding me? You honestly think that a proper mission of the US military is to "get" a criminal in a foreign land? Why not send the military after the cartel bosses in Mexico?

I will address the point made earlier. The Taliban production of "Opium" was 270-290 tons per year in Afghanistan in 2002. We have been in charge since 2003 and "Opium" production has burgeoned to 9000+ tons per year under our stewardship. Despite loud denials by USA officials, this means the USA supports this business. Now, if we are surreptitiously supporting a drug business in Afghanistan, would we also be surreptitiously supporting a drug business in Mexico. After all, a drug war is good for the Military/Industrial/Corporate complex to gin up weapons to "fight" the drug war, and the terror war, and the militarization of USA police Forces. Promotion and marketing gin up "WARS" that need weapons. It's just good business.
 
I will address the point made earlier. The Taliban production of "Opium" was 270-290 tons per year in Afghanistan in 2002. We have been in charge since 2003 and "Opium" production has burgeoned to 9000+ tons per year under our stewardship. Despite loud denials by USA officials, this means the USA supports this business. Now, if we are surreptitiously supporting a drug business in Afghanistan, would we also be surreptitiously supporting a drug business in Mexico. After all, a drug war is good for the Military/Industrial/Corporate complex to gin up weapons to "fight" the drug war, and the terror war, and the militarization of USA police Forces. Promotion and marketing gin up "WARS" that need weapons. It's just good business.

That's a good point. We turn our heads away from opium production in Afghanistan, primarily because while we have the ability to eradicate it, doing so would alienate too many Afghans and lord know we don't want to do that while we are fighting a war against them.
 
6 DECADES later we still have over 25,000 troops in S. Korea. Might as well keep parking infantry divisions all over the world, right? After all, "infantry wins wars." :roll:
 
6 DECADES later we still have over 25,000 troops in S. Korea. Might as well keep parking infantry divisions all over the world, right? After all, "infantry wins wars." :roll:

Does exporting armies qualify as ginning up wars, or is that a stretch. I mean, defensive forces should be at home, don't you think?
 
I understand why we went to Afghanistan. I supported it. I wish someone would give me a good reason why we stay.
Amen. The initial incursion into Afghanistan was a master stroke in Unconventional Warfare. I believe it was the single operation that will illustrate the need for the US Army Special Forces (Green Berets) for the next 50 years. However, as soon as conventional forces began building up and the individual services began demanding a piece of the pie, it turned in to the standard fiasco that it always does all in the name of "jointness". Jointness, for those that haven't heard it, is another name for "let every branch of service in to theater so no one can claim they were left out of the war". I believe the SF guys, along with CIA paramilitary, did what needed to be done and should have been extracted as soon as the Northern Alliance looked to be on top. There was a point when we had them on our side and they were driving Al Qaeda out of the country. We should have left then. Instead, we built up and here we are.
Further, I hope to God that Karzai doesn't sign any deal and we just pull out of there like we did Iraq. Sure, the GOP will probably stumble all over that again like they did during the last Presidential election (remember Romney criticizing Obama for no Iraqi SOFA?) but whatever. I value no servicemember ever having to deploy to that place again over some politician's talking points. Hopefully Karzai has some balls and signs nothing. I'm not betting on it.
 
6 DECADES later we still have over 25,000 troops in S. Korea. Might as well keep parking infantry divisions all over the world, right? After all, "infantry wins wars." :roll:
I love your "infantry wins wars" comment in spite of the fact that have yet to counter my latest points here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...irement-female-marines-52.html#post1062602492. Keep your very elementary (elementary in generous) comments about warfare to yourself and instead comment on the political ramifications of keeping troops there. We can all have an opinion on that as politics obviously require no real experience (see current POTUS) and instead an ability to articulate one's thoughts in a capable manner. Can you do that capably?
 
Last edited:
That's a good point. We turn our heads away from opium production in Afghanistan, primarily because while we have the ability to eradicate it, doing so would alienate too many Afghans and lord know we don't want to do that while we are fighting a war against them.
The only effort made against that was the "suggestion" that they grow wheat instead. Most people don't know that members of the Dept of Agriculture have been deployed over there numerous times, to no avail. We need to do one of two things. A) Leave or B) Burn every single poppy field we find and replace it (free of charge) with wheat. We either get serious about winning or leave. There's no reason to go halfway on this thing.
 
I doubt that Karzai will be able to save Afghanistan.

The USA and it's allies need to get out of there asap and let the Afghans take care of their own problems.

We have plenty of problems in the USA that we need to deal with.
 
Back
Top Bottom