Clinton signals new line on Kabul

#1
The presidential palace in Kabul is viewing Barack Obama’s move into the White House next week with great unease.

Hillary Clinton, who is set to become US secretary of state in a matter of days, this week labelled Afghanistan a “narco-state” whose government was “plagued by limited capacity and widespread corruption”.

Setting out the tough approach of the incoming administration, Mrs Clinton said the US would “tie aid to better performance by the Afghan national government, including anti-corruption initiatives and efforts to extend the rule of law across the country”. Since 2001, the US government has provided more than $32bn (€25bn, £22bn) to Afghanistan and the Obama administration wants to increase non-military aid further, as well as raise US troop numbers.

But Mrs Clinton’s comments are only the latest sign that relations with the new US administration are likely to be stormy, contrasting with the friendly ties between George W. Bush and Hamid Karzai ever since the Afghan president took office in 2002.
A visit by Joe Biden caused disquiet last year when the now vice-president-elect became so irritated with Mr Karzai that he abruptly ended the meeting.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c60d8e24-e334-11dd-a5cf-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
 
#2
I always feel uneasy when I hear about stories like this. It just goes to show that the Americans and pretty much every western country doesn't understand how things are done in the likes of Afghanistan. We expect them to behave exactly like us because they are a notional democracy. Everyone in the tribe voted exactly how their elder told them and this was because that particular candidate would do best by their tribe.

These countries have operated in their own way for hundreds of years. The tribal system is ingrained in them as is taking their 'cut'. Whilst I don't agree with it isn't it about time we at least looked at this realistically ? I spent a bit of time in Afghanistan before we moved south and back then we were looking at alternate means for farmers etc. If you listed the 10 most profitable crops, poppy was number 1 and you got more for growing that crop than the other 9 put together. Of course its a narco state. With huge ammounts flying around, backhanders are always going be taken. Our own MPs are lets say, economical with the truth when it comes to their expenses - what is the difference ?

Warlords, tribes or whatever you want to call them have ran Afghanistan for hundreds of years and it is all not going to change in 7 years. Those tribes will do whats best for them, not whats best for whatever invading power (as they see it) is there for the next 20 years.

Just buy the fooking lot every year direct off the farmers and pay a sales tax to the Govt. Done. Its that simple isn't it ? ;-)
 
#3
I guess that the History is repeating herself. The Soviet Union had own puppet - Babrak Karmal who merely was sitting in his palace and did nothing. He also was not a Pushtun. So Soviet leadership had changed the puppet for young, active Pushtun - Nadjibullah. He was relatively successfull. He managed to keep power 2 years after complete withdrawal of Soviet troops.

So, likely Karzai is doomed to be replaced because he is useless and hopeless.
 
#4
I find it strange to find myself saying this but at last someone in the US is waking up to the truth. AFG is not, and has never been a stable country in the Western mode. The rulers of Kabul have never ruled the rest of the country - however, from time to time they've cut deals that have reduced the blood letting considerably. Karzai is currently letting the West spend their blood and treasure to extend his rule where it has never previously been - no wonder he supports us. He can't deliver stable government in the areas we clear though, but as long as the foreign aid keeps coming he's happy.

If we're serious about sorting out AFG we should tell him to get back in his box and negotiate with the other actors directly. Then sit back and wait to see what emerges, and if it's not a unified country then who cares.
 
#5
KGB_resident said:
I guess that the History is repeating herself. The Soviet Union had own puppet - Babrak Karmal who merely was sitting in his palace and did nothing. He also was not a Pushtun. So Soviet leadership had changed the puppet for young, active Pushtun - Nadjibullah. He was relatively successfull. He managed to keep power 2 years after complete withdrawal of Soviet troops.

So, likely Karzai is doomed to be replaced because he is useless and hopeless.
Was Karmal voted in by the people of Afghanistan then Sergey?
 
#6
Sven said:
KGB_resident said:
I guess that the History is repeating herself. The Soviet Union had own puppet - Babrak Karmal who merely was sitting in his palace and did nothing. He also was not a Pushtun. So Soviet leadership had changed the puppet for young, active Pushtun - Nadjibullah. He was relatively successfull. He managed to keep power 2 years after complete withdrawal of Soviet troops.

So, likely Karzai is doomed to be replaced because he is useless and hopeless.
Was Karmal voted in by the people of Afghanistan then Sergey?
You do know the answer. No. Of course, no. He was a Soviet puppet who became a nominal president of Afghanistan after former president Amin was killed then KGB spetsnaz Alpha stormed his palace.

Edited to add. I see your point. You mean that pres.Karzai was 'democratically' elected. I fancy that Taliban fighters used bullets instead of ballots. However likely they were not counted.
 
#8
If we could withdraw all our people and the Afghans to their own thing and if it just turned into a complete mess, why would we care?

How would it affect us?
 
#9
Speedkuff said:
If we could withdraw all our people and the Afghans to their own thing and if it just turned into a complete mess, why would we care?

How would it affect us?
You have a mind-numbing short memory if that wasn't a WAH.
 
#10
Domovoy said:
One_of_the_strange said:
Then sit back and wait to see what emerges, and if it's not a unified country then who cares.
Then what?
Again, who cares ? As long as they're not exporting instability they can be one country or a hundred as far as I'm concerned.
 
#11
One_of_the_strange said:
Domovoy said:
One_of_the_strange said:
Then sit back and wait to see what emerges, and if it's not a unified country then who cares.
Then what?
Again, who cares ? As long as they're not exporting instability they can be one country or a hundred as far as I'm concerned.
So we police the country to ensure this happens, good. We just need around 40,000 armed policemen or troops...oh wait, I see where this is going... :roll:
 
#12
40, 000 - that's a bit thinly spread I would sugest. How many did the Soviets have?

Just rhetoric from Hillary at the moment. She hasn't had time to get fully briefed yet.
 
#13
KGB_resident said:
Sven said:
KGB_resident said:
I guess that the History is repeating herself. The Soviet Union had own puppet - Babrak Karmal who merely was sitting in his palace and did nothing. He also was not a Pushtun. So Soviet leadership had changed the puppet for young, active Pushtun - Nadjibullah. He was relatively successfull. He managed to keep power 2 years after complete withdrawal of Soviet troops.

So, likely Karzai is doomed to be replaced because he is useless and hopeless.
Was Karmal voted in by the people of Afghanistan then Sergey?
You do know the answer. No. Of course, no. He was a Soviet puppet who became a nominal president of Afghanistan after former president Amin was killed then KGB spetsnaz Alpha stormed his palace.

Edited to add. I see your point. You mean that pres.Karzai was 'democratically' elected. I fancy that Taliban fighters used bullets instead of ballots. However likely they were not counted.
IIRC Karzai got the job initially because of his connections to Unocal(a Bush 'appointment').
 
#14
jboldie said:
IIRC Karzai got the job initially because of his connections to Unocal(a Bush 'appointment').
And since oil business is still in charge of the US I can't see Mrs Clinton persisting with “tying aid to better performance by the Afghan national government, including anti-corruption initiatives and efforts..." Obama may change a figurehead, but nothing more radical than that.
 
#15
London_Lad said:
One_of_the_strange said:
Domovoy said:
One_of_the_strange said:
Then sit back and wait to see what emerges, and if it's not a unified country then who cares.
Then what?
Again, who cares ? As long as they're not exporting instability they can be one country or a hundred as far as I'm concerned.
So we police the country to ensure this happens, good. We just need around 40,000 armed policemen or troops...oh wait, I see where this is going... :roll:
Or we do what we used to do ... if one bunch start getting out of order we pay another to mallet them. Repeat as necessary. If it was good enough for the British Empire ...

In fact, better still we tip the nod to India that they can do what they like as long as they don't start a nuclear war with Pakistan and let them get on with it.
 
#16
One_of_the_strange said:
London_Lad said:
One_of_the_strange said:
Domovoy said:
One_of_the_strange said:
Then sit back and wait to see what emerges, and if it's not a unified country then who cares.
Then what?
Again, who cares ? As long as they're not exporting instability they can be one country or a hundred as far as I'm concerned.
So we police the country to ensure this happens, good. We just need around 40,000 armed policemen or troops...oh wait, I see where this is going... :roll:
Or we do what we used to do ... if one bunch start getting out of order we pay another to mallet them. Repeat as necessary. If it was good enough for the British Empire ...
In fact, better still we tip the nod to India that they can do what they like as long as they don't start a nuclear war with Pakistan and let them get on with it.
True, but in order to do that we always made sure we had a big enough garrison elsewhere ready to knock ten bells out of any tribe who got too big and tried it on with us.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top