The future with Karzai: a debate (merged thread with new title)

[slapout9]

As to Mr. Karzai, that is a matter between him and the people of Afghanistan. The U.S. needs to get out of the mindset of thinking that if we don't like a particular leader of another nation that we have some right to change that leader.

We need to make our focus the people of Afghanistan. The Afghan Army is never going to threaten the US; but if we take positions that are counter to the well being of the populace of Afghanistan the people certainly can.

Hi Bob, couple of points.

1-As long as we are fighting,dying and paying for the Government I think we have a legitimate interest in having some control of that Government.

2-As for focusing on the people of A'stan correcting the corrupt leadership of the country is focusing on the people of A'stan, isn't it?

[Ken White]

debbil's advocate, let me flip 'em for disccussin' purposes.

1-As long as we are fighting,dying and paying for the Government I think we have a legitimate interest in having some control of that Government.

An alternative question is: Is our interest in control of the government of 'X' legitimate enough for us to be fighting, dying and paying for that government? *

2-As for focusing on the people of A'stan correcting the corrupt leadership of the country is focusing on the people of A'stan, isn't it?

If the people of A'stan do not look upon their methods of interchange and intercourse as 'corrupt,' do we have an obligation -- or even a right -- to decide for them that they are wrong?

More importantly, how much time and effort are we prepared to expend in the almost certainly very difficult if not doomed attempt to turn around several centuries of practice?

A practice that while technically illegal and frowned upon still exists and skews things in our own nation to an admittedly lesser but still pervasive extent? What does such an effort say to others about our being hypocritical and thus encourage them to ignore our preaching as we do indulge in the practice ourselves...



* I realize we are there and my question thus is marginal on the merits and 'what if' doesn't do it. I ask it not so much for Afghanistan which is on a course that is set and we will not, cannot, significantly affect but for consideration prior to embarking on future operations.

[Bob's World]

I like Ken's version.

[slapout9]

debbil's advocate, let me flip 'em for disccussin' purposes.An alternative question is: Is our interest in control of the government of 'X' legitimate enough for us to be fighting, dying and paying for that government? * If the people of A'stan do not look upon their methods of interchange and intercourse as 'corrupt,' do we have an obligation -- or even a right -- to decide for them that they are wrong?

More importantly, how much time and effort are we prepared to expend in the almost certainly very difficult if not doomed attempt to turn around several centuries of practice?

A practice that while technically illegal and frowned upon still exists and skews things in our own nation to an admittedly lesser but still pervasive extent? What does such an effort say to others about our being hypocritical and thus encourage them to ignore our preaching as we do indulge in the practice ourselves...



* I realize we are there and my question thus is marginal on the merits and 'what if' doesn't do it. I ask it not so much for Afghanistan which is on a course that is set and we will not, cannot, significantly affect but for consideration prior to embarking on future operations.

Hi Ken, all I can say is agree with you 100%. The correct Political Questions have never been asked and answered. I do think that Brzezinski's viewpoint has a lot of merit. Link to interview below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXy8mz_UVEU

[Sylvan]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ctions_opinion

Snip
Some months ago, our envoy to Kabul, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, saw into the heart of the matter in a memo to his superiors. Mr. Eikenberry was without illusions about President Karzai. He dismissed him as a leader who continues to shun

responsibility for any sovereign burden, whether defense, governance or development. He and his circle don't want the U.S. to leave and are only too happy to see us invest further. They assume we covet their territory for a never-ending war on terror and for military bases to use against surrounding powers.

The Eikenberry memorandum lays to rest once and for all the legend of Afghanistan as a "graveyard of empires." Rather than seeking an end to the foreign military presence, the Afghans and their leader seek to perpetuate it. It spares them the hard choice of building a nation-state, knitting together feuding ethnicities and provinces, and it brings them enormous foreign treasure.

[Firn]

[QUOTE=Sylvan;96502]
...

"responsibility for any sovereign burden, whether defense, governance or development. He and his circle don't want the U.S. to leave and are only too happy to see us invest further. They assume we covet their territory for a never-ending war on terror and for military bases to use against surrounding powers."

So in short he thinks that he and his circle think that the necessities of a perceived Realpolitik of the West and especially of the US gives him enough hand to bite in and to gain political capital out of it. I really wonder if he does see it like that and very much so if his biting is in our interest.


Firn

[Sylvan]

[QUOTE=Firn;96509]

...


So in short he thinks that he and his circle think that the necessities of a perceived Realpolitik of the West and especially of the US gives him enough hand to bite in and to gain political capital out of it. I really wonder if he does see it like that and very much so if his biting is in our interest.


Firn

Karzai believes he is in an inpenatrable position. I believe he is correct in his assessment.
He is, "our man" We failed to rein him in in the last election and now he is free to do as he sees fit. He believes we won't leave and Obama doesn't give off the vibe of strength that Bush did.
thats why the "You leave or we do" ultimatim is our only viable course of action if we are serious about good governance in Afghanistan.

[slapout9]

The Eikenberry memorandum lays to rest once and for all the legend of Afghanistan as a "graveyard of empires." Rather than seeking an end to the foreign military presence, the Afghans and their leader seek to perpetuate it. It spares them the hard choice of building a nation-state, knitting together feuding ethnicities and provinces, and it brings them enormous foreign treasure.

Yea, we are being played for suckers