Doing a Maliki: Karzai Demands Timetable In Afghanistan
By Steve Hynd Tuesday Nov 25, 2008 2:00pm
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has called for a timetable to end the occupation of Afghanistan by Western forces or if not, said that the West must accept negotiations with the Taliban to end bloodshed there.
President Hamid Karzai told a visiting U.N. Security Council delegation Tuesday that the international community should set a timeline to end the war in Afghanistan.
It appeared to be the first time Karzai has called for a time limit on the international effort to defeat Taliban militants and raise a stable and competent Afghan security force and government.
"If there is no deadline, we have the right to find another solution for peace and security, which is negotiations," Karzai was quoted as saying in a statement from his office.
Spencer Ackerman has the essential analysis, as usual. Although he thinks that Karzai is indeed trying to box the US and its allies into accepting a negotiated settlement with the Taliban, Spencer also writes:
My first instinct is that this is a measure to shore up Karzai’s waning support among war-weary Pashtuns. But could he really mean there ought to be a set date on ending the Afghanistan war? One thing that’s been entirely missing from the policy debate on Afghanistan — in the U.S., in NATO, in Afghanistan — is that no one even pretends to think about how the war is supposed to end. No one knows the endgame, and no one even proposes endgames.
Brian Beutler is right - it's about time someone in the West did start talking about an Afghanistan endgame and that someone is Barrack Obama. He was right about needing one in Iraq, something the Bush administration has belatedly signed on to in an embarassing climbdown. Now here's an opportunity for some more much-needed foresight and international leadership.
Crossposted from Newshoggers
Login or Register to post comments.
George gave him a table with a clock mounted in the center.
And we gotta make nice with the Taliban....we're so pathetic.
We're pathetic alright, for even being there (for OIL). The Taliban followed international law and offered to hand over Bin Laden et al if Bush provided evidence of guilt. Having none, Bush refused and attacked anyway.
The irony of it all is we, the USA, turned the Taliban into the Taliban-cong in the 80s and trained them how to repeatedly kick a 'superpower' in the balls (USSR) and NEVER lose. It worked then, its working now. On top of that, those tribal dirt urchins have been expelling / repelling occupiers and rivals for 1000s of years.. it's in their DNA to violently reject; and as long as they live there, they will never give up.
The average US citizen has no interest in what happens there, all of our daily routines would stay the same if that war (both wars) ended tomorrow. Chances are, angry tribal "terrorists" are not going to ride their Goat to the US and kill you.
This is a BS 'war' started by old elite rich men, that young poor men will fight & die in.
Usually rational countries turn over accused individuals for crimes they have been indicted for - proof of guilt is what trials are for.. Bin Laden was also implicated in the Cole bombing and the one in Kenya and Saudi Arabia. The US had every reason to ask for him to be turned over. The Taliban refused.
I don't trust the Taliban simply because they are religious zealots and won't stop until they kill all the infidels. They aren't rational and can't be depended on to abided by a "settlement". Hamid Karzai days are numbered. If the US is forced out the end of his leadership will come sooner rather than later.
Them's the facts.
If Obama wants a surge in Afghanistan, then he'll have to do it in defiance of the "government" there.
Obama will use this as a convenient way to let go of his not-so-brilliant idea of sending troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.
It would be really nice, and a breath of needed fresh air, if we could have at least a little break from the perpetual war of the last 8 years.
As long as opium and oil are flowing out of and through Afghanistan, an "endgame" was out of the question. Who wants to end huge profits?
in the U.S., in NATO, in Afghanistan — is that no one even pretends to think about how the war is supposed to end. No one knows the endgame, and no one even proposes endgames.
Because the end-game is tied to conditions in the trans-Caspian oil puddle. The Afghan 'surge' is designed to buy USer Aircraft quick-response capability over the former Russian 'Stans...
China, Russia, India, and Iran all have interests in that region, which is the source of the largest, mostly unexploited pool of petroleum left anywhere in the world, much of it pretty 'sweet.'
The USer economy is gonna be tied to petroleum, militarism, and globalism for the foreseeable future, no matter the promises and the rhetoric...
I have not seen maliki on tv in a while, quite a while actually. it's like he is hiding out, or like there is a news black out from iraq.
it was bush's urine in the snow spelling out a sentence, but it was carl rove's hand writing.
If Karzai loves cutting and running so much maybe he should marry it
To all those dedicated Obama supporters out there, ask yourself a simple question regarding Obama's proposed policies: how would I react if Bush did this? For instance, if Bush were to add 8 thousand more troops in Afghanistan in a new "surge", how would you react?
I used to be a fan of Crooks and Liars back in 2006, before the Dems took control of Congress and accomplished nothing. Now the blind loyalty to one side of the same political coin just seems sad.
Mr. O-bomb-a, no more massacred Afghan families! Out of Afghanistan NOW!
obama has his orders take afganistan we need the dope and pipelines, id say that our soldiers lives are for sale by obama and the rest of this countrys warwhores for profit! if obamas two girls were old enough to fight and possibly die in afganistan and he would send them there like hes going to others sons and daughters then fine have you war for the corporations
Obama is not President yet. Everything he is being told gets filtered through the ideologues at the White House. He is not going to get an honest assessment, until assuming office in January. I strongly suspect that the Pentagon and the CIA are going to tell Obama that the use of the military to combat terrorism is doing more harm than good. I also stronlgy suspect that he will be advised to treat terrorism as the international police matter that it is and not as a military matter. Now, it will be up to Obama to decide what to do. I'm willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt and withhold judgement, until the decisions are made. He may decide to follow through with his plan to have a surge in Afghanistan; or, he may decide to pull the plug on the operation the same way Clinton pulled the plug on Poppy Bush's ill-fated expedition to Somalia.
Adrian1
Very well said. Obama has cast aside the few antiwar advisers that he had in favor of those with much more hawkish views such as Rahm Emanuel, and Hillary Clinton. He is considering retaining Bush Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who would be most reluctant in pursuing the "radical" withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq. Obama's top military advisers are such war enthusiasts as Warren Christopher, Anthony Lake and Madeline Albright. It was Ms. Albright who believed that it was worth it when a half million Iraqi children were killed during the sanctions imposed upon Iraq by Clinton in the 1990s.
Obama has backed off from his previous plan to increase troops in Afghanistan by 7500 to 10,000. He has now said that he wishes to increase troop levels in that war-torn country of 15,000 to 25,000 more American soldiers which would substantially increase the chances that more Afghans will be slaughtered by American bombs and bullets. Violence in Afghanistan has now surged to its highest level sine the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of that country. In all likelihood, that increase of violence can be tied to the number of U.S. and NATO troops in that war-ravaged country.
It is way past the point that someone should inform the [alleged] antiwar president-elect that Afghanistan has become the graveyard of those countries which believed that they could conquer and occupy Afghanistan, ranging from Alexander the Great to the Russians in the 1980s. Afghanistan could become America's next Vietnam. This begs the question of whether Obama recognizes the meaning of the word quagmire.
any takers on the over/under on how long it takes for karzai to be hanging from a lamppost if we pull out?
not saying we should stay there, but... be careful what you wish for, big guy.
...Tariq Aziz's is still on the market and if Citigroup can hook him up with a decent loan.
I think think that's a fabulous idea. Afghanistan has been torn to pieces by two decades of invading armies. There seems to be no end in sight the way things are going. There is nothing left and no present hope to rebuild. Should they watch their country be destoryed further for another 2 decades, or more?
I get so tired of the arrogant West, even though I'm from there.
Polica action is required, not "war" (occupation.)
Canada has planned to leave by 2011. We're glad that we've got more support in Kandahar from NATO now because it was needed.
Here's a clip of our PM on the subject:
http://canuckpolitics.com/2008/09/10/harper-c...
The day after the USA and NATO forces leave Afghanistan you will be on the first plane to Switzerland where you can live off of the money you have stowed away in a Swiss bank account( mostly American tax payers money).
If you choose to stay in Afghanistan you know what will happen.
Obama has been gung ho on sending thousands to fight in Afghanistan.
No thank you, say they.
Hopefully this was all campaign bluster from Obama - and he can concentrate on getting our troops home from Iraq.
Re: Afghan families.
CNN had a little human interest piece yesterday about a little Afghan girl who underwent surgery at a U.S. military hospital.
But, CNN didn't mind covering for the military and it's spokespeople when it ignored the 120 civilians killed at 2 weddings in U.S. bombing raids.
Watching CNN can only lead one to conclude that the U.S. is in Afghanistan saving lives and caring for the weak and poor.
It's astonishing how compassionate an occupying army can be once you get past the slaughter of innocent civilians. [/snark]
Facts Karzai worked for Unicol and met the Bush Family and Cheney. He was asked to be President when the US finally went to look for Bin Laden. Why Karzai because the first line of business after stealing the election was to sign the pipe line deal for Halliburton. Now as for the famous enemy the Taliban. Bush invited the Taliban to come to the US as his guest and even showed them around the USA. Things went bad with that friendship as you see. Now Karzai is up for election and he knows his chances are slime since he has given Afghanstan to the Bush Administration. What's even funnier is Karzai and the Taliban were friends before he got his American job with Unicol. Karzai knows if he wants to stay President he will be working for the Taliban next.Talk about changes Bush is out Obama is in, Karzai has to now made a deal with old friends and work for them or leave and come back to the United States.
Login or Register to post comments.