Archive for Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Lawmakers: Karzai threatens to join Taliban

April 6, 2010


— Afghan President Hamid Karzai threatened over the weekend to quit the political process and join the Taliban if he continued to come under outside pressure to reform, several members of parliament said Monday.

Karzai made the unusual statement at a closed-door meeting Saturday with selected lawmakers — just days after kicking up a diplomatic controversy with remarks alleging foreigners were behind fraud in last year’s disputed elections.

Lawmakers dismissed the latest comment as hyperbole, but it will add to the impression the president — who relies on tens of thousands of U.S. and NATO forces to fight the insurgency and prop up his government — is growing increasingly erratic and unable to exert authority without attacking his foreign backers.


jaywalker 8 years, 1 month ago

Swell. Afghanistan was always a tenuous operation; this doesn't bode well.

Paul R Getto 8 years, 1 month ago

The Afghan president is spoiled and lashes out when under stress. This is a good example of why we are pouring money down the same rathole that has brought earlier empires to their knees. Get out now; meet them at the border and buy the dope once a year to keep it out of circulation. Paying market value for the drugs and spending money to build schools is a much better investment. We can build them faster than they can burn them down. Educating a generation of women who can tame these wild men is our only hope. Otherwise, we will still be watching this mess in 20 years and wondering what went wrong.

Paul R Getto 8 years, 1 month ago

Defender: Don't pick on Barry; at least he has the lyrics to the song memorized. He's in a groove (or is it a rut?)

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 1 month ago

So I wonder if BushCo knew that Karzai was closet Taliban when they installed him as mayor of Kabul.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 1 month ago

It was a simple question, Tom. Can you answer it? Or can you offer nothing more than a knee-jerk defense of all things BushCo? (rhetorical question.)

jaywalker 8 years, 1 month ago

"It was a simple question, Tom. Can you answer it?"

Negative. It was a self-serving, agenda driven, psychosis revealing, ignorant musing. Not a question. Even if it were a 'question it'd be lacking any true intelligent thought and/or rationality behind it.


just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 1 month ago

" Can you cite anything to back up this hypothesis of yours?"

What hypothesis? It was a question.

Flap Doodle 8 years, 1 month ago

Worth repeating: • jkealing (Jonathan Kealing) says… bronze- I've warned you privately, now I'll warn you publicly. You do not have bearded_gnome's name correct. If you don't immediately cease to attempt to out an anonymous user, your account will be banned. In addition, I will immediately ban any account I suspect to be created by you without notice, warning or further cause. This is your final warning. Jonathan Kealing Online editor

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 1 month ago

" Made me shake my head to think there are people that don't understand the very simple and demonstrable fact that there are quite a number of people in the world that don't believe that peace is a worthwhile goal."

And the best financed and armed of all of them have been running US foreign and military policy over the last 30 or so years, and all the more reason that we should "teach peace."

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 1 month ago

I don't put bumper stickers on my car, primarily because I don't want to attract the road rage of violence worshippers like yourself, 75.

jaywalker 8 years, 1 month ago

Violence worshippers? Paranoia may destroy ya......bum, bum bum, baa bumbumbum...

Richard Heckler 8 years, 1 month ago

After First Denying Involvement, US Forces Admit Killing Two Pregnant Afghan Women & Teenager

US-led forces have admitted for the first time to killing two pregnant Afghan women and a teenage girl during a nighttime raid in eastern Afghanistan on February 12th. NATO officials initially denied any involvement but were later forced to admit to the killings after the Times of London and other news outlets published accounts of survivors who described how the atrocity was carried out by US-led forces. We speak with Jerome Starkey, the Times of London correspondent in Afghanistan who broke the story.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 1 month ago

Strategic Errors of Monumental Proportions

What Can Be Done in Iraq? by Lt. Gen. William E. Odom (Ret.)

Text of testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 18 January 2007

Good afternoon, Senator Biden, and members of the committee. It is a grave responsibility to testify before you today because the issue, the war in Iraq, is of such monumental importance.

You have asked me to address primarily the military aspects of the war. Although I shall comply, I must emphasize that it makes no sense to separate them from the political aspects. Military actions are merely the most extreme form of politics. If politics is the business of deciding "who gets what, when, how," as Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall in New York City once said, then the military aspects of war are the most extreme form of politics. The war in Iraq will answer that question there.

Strategic Overview

The role that US military forces can play in that conflict is seriously limited by all the political decisions the US government has already taken. The most fundamental decision was setting as its larger strategic purpose the stabilization of the region by building a democracy in Iraq and encouraging its spread. This, of course, was to risk destabilizing the region by starting a war.

Military operations must be judged by whether and how they contribute to accomplishing war aims. No clear view is possible of where we are today and where we are headed without constant focus on war aims and how they affect US interests. The interaction of interests, war aims, and military operations defines the strategic context in which we find ourselves. We cannot have the slightest understanding of the likely consequences of proposed changes in our war policy without relating them to the strategic context. Here are the four major realities that define that context:

  1. Confusion about war aims and US interests. The president stated three war aims clearly and repeatedly:

  2. the destruction of Iraqi WMD;

  3. the overthrow of Saddam Hussein; and
  4. the creation of a liberal democratic Iraq.

The first war aim is moot because Iraq had no WMD. The second was achieved by late Spring 2003. Today, people are waking up to what was obvious before the war -- the third aim has no real prospects of being achieved even in ten or twenty years, much less in the short time anticipated by the war planners. Implicit in that aim was the belief that a pro-American, post-Saddam regime could be established. This too, it should now be clear, is most unlikely. Finally, is it in the US interest to have launched a war in pursuit of any of these aims? And is it in the US interest to continue pursuing the third? Or is it time to redefine our aims? And, concomitantly, to redefine what constitutes victory?

  1. The war has served primarily the interests of Iran and al-Qaeda, not American interests...

Richard Heckler 8 years, 1 month ago

As a result of 9/11/01 close to 11,000 americans have died so how many more is okay?

If massive death, blood and guts represent democracy why would others be interested?

Bring the troops home NOW!

verity 8 years, 1 month ago

Announce that we've won and get the bloody hell out. Bring the women and children with us---it's a small country, can't be that many and leave the men to do whatever it is they do.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.