• 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!

End Operations in Afghanistan, Karzai Tells NATO

Marshabar

Active member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
293
Reaction score
142
Location
United States
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yasar Hameed

Karzai's comments came after a week in which a relative of his was killed in a raid by foreign forces and he rejected an apology by the US commander of troops General David Petraeus for the deaths of nine children in a NATO strike.

"I would like to ask NATO and the US with honour and humbleness and not with arrogance to stop their operations in our land," Karzai said in Pashto as he visited the dead children's relatives in Kunar province, eastern Afghanistan.

"We are very tolerant people but now our tolerance has run out."

End operations in Afghanistan, Karzai tells NATO

I guess Karzai and the people of Afghanistan have decided the cure is worse than the disease. The drone attacks must be horrifying on many levels. It's too bad the coward terrorists insist on hiding behind women and children.
 
That, and I expect they just want to do this themselves. Americans would feel the same about any "friendly" nation occupying us, even if it was supposedly for our own good.
 
That, and I expect they just want to do this themselves. Americans would feel the same about any "friendly" nation occupying us, even if it was supposedly for our own good.

The difference is that the Karzai government isn't even capable of straightening up it's own frickin house. He really needs to be careful what he wishes for.
 
Personally, I am thinking Karzai sees an opportunity to be an autocrat.

hmmm... hadn't thought about that. You might be entirely right Mega. It's really a far cry now from back in 2001 when everyone seemed to love Karzai.
 
The difference is that the Karzai government isn't even capable of straightening up it's own frickin house. He really needs to be careful what he wishes for.

I mean if Americans were under similar circumstances we'd have the same desire. It wouldn't really matter if the occupying Canadian forces were there to protect us from the Albino Lumberjack insurgency, we'd still want them out of our country and want them to stop bombing our cities in an effort to destroy the lumberjacks.
 
I mean if Americans were under similar circumstances we'd have the same desire. It wouldn't really matter if the occupying Canadian forces were there to protect us from the Albino Lumberjack insurgency, we'd still want them out of our country and want them to stop bombing our cities in an effort to destroy the lumberjacks.

Agree Deuce. But again. Be careful what you wish for. He really needs to think this through and choose the lesser of two evils.
 
Personally, I am thinking Karzai sees an opportunity to be an autocrat.

He already is one, a NATO-protected one. It does bring to mind British PM James Callaghan talking about turkeys voting for an early Christmas. Should the allies pull out he wouldn't last 3 months.
 
End operations in Afghanistan, Karzai tells NATO

I guess Karzai and the people of Afghanistan have decided the cure is worse than the disease. The drone attacks must be horrifying on many levels. It's too bad the coward terrorists insist on hiding behind women and children.

It's an open question whether Karzai has made a deal with the Taliban. He has certainly had talks with them and there is a lot of money to be made in the drug trade.

He will always look after his own interests rather then the people of Afghanistan, and we should never expect otherwise.
 
The difference is that the Karzai government isn't even capable of straightening up it's own frickin house. He really needs to be careful what he wishes for.

That’s been the status quo for how many years now? Afghanistan, as a country, is like a landlocked Somalia.
 
hmmm... hadn't thought about that. You might be entirely right Mega. It's really a far cry now from back in 2001 when everyone seemed to love Karzai.

Don't forget, with the USA out of the picture Karzai's corruption can be swept back under the rug. But I do want us out of Afghanistan, and I want to stop sending money to that despotic little thief as well.
 
A few quick thoughts:

1. Mr. Karzai may be engaging in another one of his impulsive outbursts for which he is well-known. If so, NATO operations will not be impacted.
2. Mr. Karzai means what he says.

In the second case, the U.S. will need to make a strategic judgment as to whether U.S. interests--not Mr. Karzai's--are better served from adhering to or rejecting his call. If U.S. interests are better served from ignoring Mr. Karzai's demand, the U.S. should do just that.

In any case, I am not too surprised by this outcome. I have argued before that the Kabul-centric approach is a strategic blunder. It goes against Afghanistan's decentralized structure and it depends on an impulsive, emotional, frequently unreliable partner, whom many Afghans view as illegitimate. Perhaps this latest outburst might offer an opportune time for making a strategic change. Whatever the case, the U.S. should set its direction based on its interests, not Mr. Karzai's latest whim de jour.

The following excerpts from my November 29, 2009 discussion remain applicable:

IMO, placing emphasis on working with the tribal leaders rather than the inept, corrupt, and among many Afghans, illegitimate, government in Kabul will be key. Reliance on Kabul will likely lead to unsatisfactory outcomes...

Afghanistan is not a "nation" in the true sense of the word. It is comprised of largely autonomous areas, each with its own leaders, traditions, cultures, and needs. A functional military strategy has to be built on the structure that exists in Afghanistan, not one that might be preferable but is not present. A Kabul-centric strategy will likely leave things pretty much as they currently stand, with swaths of territory held by the Taliban and Taliban attacks continuing.


Although some progress has been made since the current strategy was put in place last year, I believe the progress is less than what would have been achieved had the Karzai regime's influence been limited. At this point in time, I still believe a reasonably satisfactory outcome in Afghanistan (one that limits the Taliban's/Al Qaeda's prospects of regaining a safe haven) can be salvaged.

Doing so will require tough strategic adjustments that better reflect that country’s history and structure, namely de-emphasizing Mr. Karzai and the present Kabul-centric approach. Under such a strategic change, Afghanistan’s tribal leaders would be charged with allocating resources that would be furnished for reconstruction, economic development, education within their areas of jurisdiction. Security operations would be coordinated with the tribal leaders. Local security forces would be developed and trained. Those forces would be charged with maintaining security in areas under the jurisdiction of each tribal leader. They would be developed with attention to maintaining a careful balance of power so that no local area would be in a position to try to gain preeminence at the expense of others.

Only truly national issues--those that impact the entire country--would be financed through and coordinated with the central government. Those efforts would immediately be focused on developing an adequate legal and constitutional framework, financial system, central army that would complement local security forces when needed (including a "balancing" role), not serve as a substitute for them, and ultimately an election that would establish a government that Afghans would widely view as legitimate.
 
The problem with Karzai is the same as we have witj Obama. He's an amateur and can't for a minute thing his rag tad military has the where with all to do the mission alone.

No one wants to see innocent civilians killed but it's was and shtuff happens and the only way to avoid it is to fold your tent and go home.

Does anyone have a clue how many 10s of thousands died in WW-II from collateral damage? It's the reality of war.

Karzai if not careful will end up with his head on a pole and his body in a ditch.
 
The problem with Karzai is the same as we have witj Obama. He's an amateur and can't for a minute thing his rag tad military has the where with all to do the mission alone.

No one wants to see innocent civilians killed but it's was and shtuff happens and the only way to avoid it is to fold your tent and go home.

Does anyone have a clue how many 10s of thousands died in WW-II from collateral damage? It's the reality of war.

Karzai if not careful will end up with his head on a pole and his body in a ditch.

But, in mitigation, he probably takes a little more care over his communiqués than you do.
 
Aghanistan : self-government :: 3-year-old : Quantum theory
 
Sadly I'd have to agree with this. I'd modify "self-government" to "democratic self-governance" though.

At what point do you think the Allies realised this blinding example of the bleeding obvious? Was the example of the Greeks, the Persians, the Turks, the British and the Russians not enough? What exactly does anyone believe can be achieved there? You are not going to export democracy (the Western version of it) to Afghanistan. So what will the Allies legacy be?
 
As far as I'm concerned Karzai can pound sand, this corrupt sob is in bed (IMO) with the Taliban. What Karzai wants should not be our main concern here, its whether or not the enemy has been defeated or lost the will to fight and carry on. I dont see this yet.

We originally went there to punish the bastards who were behind or complicit with the 9-11 attacks. If we leave now the Taliban will surely re-take that country in fairly short order and establish a terror state which will once again become a training ground for future attacks against the west. We cannot leave there until these people who insist on killing us are defeated even if we have to kill every last one of them. The alternative is to continually be fighting these people off, never knowing when or where the next one is going to hit, because they are not going to stop, there idealogy wont let them. They will have to be dealt with much in the same manner in which we did with the some of the hardcores in the Werhmact & Imperial army in WW2 who would not give up, even at the end.

While at some point here we may not need as many ground troops there I can forsee special forces assets & air assets staying there for the forseeable future.
 
At what point do you think the Allies realised this blinding example of the bleeding obvious? Was the example of the Greeks, the Persians, the Turks, the British and the Russians not enough? What exactly does anyone believe can be achieved there? You are not going to export democracy (the Western version of it) to Afghanistan. So what will the Allies legacy be?

The original intent was not so much as to export democracy as to eliminate or discourage the threat of the Taleban and terrorism. In order to do that it is necessary to have a government which is at least accountable in some way to the outside world, and if it is a functioning democracy with human rights, so much the better.

But if the west fails in Afghanistan, and elsewhere, it is not because we lack the military capability, it is because we lack the will. And although the Left may welcome such an event, everyone except the religious fanatics will be the worse for it.
 
At what point do you think the Allies realised this blinding example of the bleeding obvious? Was the example of the Greeks, the Persians, the Turks, the British and the Russians not enough? What exactly does anyone believe can be achieved there? You are not going to export democracy (the Western version of it) to Afghanistan. So what will the Allies legacy be?

That's the million-dollar(or Euro)-question isn't it? I don't think Afghanistan will suddenly embrace Jeffersonian democracy, their entire culture and society is still based around the tribe. The Allied legacy in Afghanistan remains to be seen.
 
The original intent was not so much as to export democracy as to eliminate or discourage the threat of the Taleban and terrorism. In order to do that it is necessary to have a government which is at least accountable in some way to the outside world, and if it is a functioning democracy with human rights, so much the better.

I'm not saying I advocate this personally, but many argue that we should have had a counterterrorism strategy built around killing and eliminating the terrorists rather than a costly counterinsurgency strategy that attempted at "nation"-building.

But if the west fails in Afghanistan, and elsewhere, it is not because we lack the military capability, it is because we lack the will.

Our success or failure in Afghanistan will have little to do with MILITARY capability. It's not the military's job to nation-build. If we fail, it will be because it is simply impossible to nation-build in a country where no nation exists. As for the question of will, when we're facing huge problems at home, it's understandable why many Americans (idk about Canadians) simply put the Afghan war out of their mind. Many blame the anti-war movement for our failure in Vietnam. Many fail to realize that war and politics are connected, whether we like it or not. Why should America's Vietnam policy have any support or will from the people when the policy itself was so flawed to begin with?
 
I'm not saying I advocate this personally, but many argue that we should have had a counterterrorism strategy built around killing and eliminating the terrorists rather than a costly counterinsurgency strategy that attempted at "nation"-building.

Actually that was part of the strategy Bush spoke at one time ealy during the WoT. If you recall he said that the US would fight on many fronts and that many of them would not be made public,, I think though that the intent was clear.

But public reactions, or at least the loudest public reaction, is coming from people who don't even want suspected terrorists incarcerated, want trials in NYC for them, and so on. So if we were to listen to these protesters, especially from former allies, that plan would be difficult to carry out. Public opinion, at least from the Left, sides with terrorists and their rights, rather then the safety of those who want to live without terrorism.
Our success or failure in Afghanistan will have little to do with MILITARY capability. It's not the military's job to nation-build. If we fail, it will be because it is simply impossible to nation-build in a country where no nation exists. As for the question of will, when we're facing huge problems at home, it's understandable why many Americans (idk about Canadians) simply put the Afghan war out of their mind. Many blame the anti-war movement for our failure in Vietnam. Many fail to realize that war and politics are connected, whether we like it or not. Why should America's Vietnam policy have any support or will from the people when the policy itself was so flawed to begin with?

It can be part of the military job to nation-build in the form of protection of those who are doing the building but, as you say, the military is designed to win wars. And while it is not the job of the military to nation-build, neither is it the job of civilians to direct military operations. Now the military is being run too much as a political arm of the government where opinion polls are directing military operations rather than focusing on the original intent. Harvard professors should no more run the military than the military should run Harvard.

I must add that Nixon said that the Vietnam withdrawal would be used against the US for decades, and he was right, and also that it would affect American credibility in the world as well, and he was right again.
 
Last edited:
End operations in Afghanistan, Karzai tells NATO

I guess Karzai and the people of Afghanistan have decided the cure is worse than the disease. The drone attacks must be horrifying on many levels. It's too bad the coward terrorists insist on hiding behind women and children.

The war is about caspian sea natural gas pipelines, not terrorism.

Terrorism is just a cover story so the NeoCons, can finish executing Dick Cheneys energy policy.

"The Energy Task Force, officially the National Energy Policy Development Group, was a task force created by then-president George W. Bush during his second week in office. Vice President Dick Cheney was named chairman. This group was intended to “develop a national energy policy designed to help the private sector, and, as necessary and appropriate, State and local governments, promote dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for the future."

Energy Task Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I must add that Nixon said that the Vietnam withdrawal would be used against the US for decades, and he was right, and also that it would affect American credibility in the world as well, and he was right again.
No, he was wrong. It isn't the withdrawal from Vietnam that is used against the US, it is the entire Vietnamese misadventure, including Kissinger's criminal bombing campaign against the friendly Lon Nol regime in Cambodia, which provided the impetus for the Khmer Rouge take-over and subsequent genocide.

When will Kissinger be accorded the full war criminal status he so richly deserves?
 
The war is about caspian sea natural gas pipelines, not terrorism.

Terrorism is just a cover story so the NeoCons, can finish executing Dick Cheneys energy policy.

"The Energy Task Force, officially the National Energy Policy Development Group, was a task force created by then-president George W. Bush during his second week in office. Vice President Dick Cheney was named chairman. This group was intended to “develop a national energy policy designed to help the private sector, and, as necessary and appropriate, State and local governments, promote dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for the future."

Energy Task Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WOW! It's still all about oil, huh?
 
Back
Top Bottom