# Afghan Pres. Karzai threatens to "join the Taliban"



## CougarKing (5 Apr 2010)

Afghan Pres. Karzai reportedly threatens to "join the Taliban" because of "too much interference/pressure" from the international community/Western governments.

Associated Press link



> KABUL –* President Hamid Karzai's startling threat to join the Taliban if foreigners don't stop meddling in Afghanistan and his strident criticism of the West's role have worsened relations with Washington at a time when the U.S. military wants closer cooperation ahead of a potentially decisive offensive this summer.
> 
> Karzai has been fuming for months about what he considers Washington's heavy hand.* He's gambling that blaming outsiders for the troubles in a society with a long tradition of resisting occupation will bolster his stature at home — while carrying little risk because the U.S. has no choice but to deal with him.
> 
> ...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (5 Apr 2010)

We should not be surprised by this development.  You can only spank a grown man in public so many times before he gets ornery.  

If COIN is about a narrative of legitimacy, then why have we (the West) spent so much energy doing the enemy's work by always referring to the "corrupt Karzai government"?  

Sometimes you have to hold your nose and support the guy you picked.


----------



## 1feral1 (5 Apr 2010)

We all know the real calibre of this bloke, he's proved that over and over again, hasn't he. Words like cronisim, and corruption come to mind.  I am sure one day sooner than later, he'll be caught up in an IED or in the crosshairs of an enemy sniper.

We as foreigners might find him nothing more than what he is, but many of his own kind want him dead.

Time will tell. Selling out to the TB would not be an easy out or transition for him, that I reckon is guaranteed. Many see lots of TB blood on his hands, and how the TB would take what he is saying, well who knows.

Meanwhile I tend to wonder what spin the Obama admistration will put on this.

OWDU

EDITed for clarity and spelling


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Apr 2010)

Karzai is about par for the course throughout most of the _third world_, a goodly part of the _second world_ and bits of the _first world_, too. Corruption, cronyism, ineptitude and nepotism and, and, and ... have rarely disqualified thugs and worse from high political office.

Sadly there is no quick fix. We began working at "a government of law, not of men" about 2,000 years before John Adams coined that phrase (in Massachusetts in 1780); the principle exists in Chinese law as well as English law, and the Chinese worked at it long before most others. But, despite millennia of trial and error, we rarely get it right. Sophisticated, _legalistic_ democracies are not very common - most of the UN's nearly 200 members states fail even the most basic tests of democracy and the rule of law.

As PPCLI Guy said, we put him there; we do not appear to have any better candidates; maybe it's time we tried to help him in his nearly impossible task rather than whipping him in public.


----------



## SevenSixTwo (6 Apr 2010)

Middle Eastern Democracy is a joke.

"Oh im President for 50 years because my people LOOOOOVE me. I am clearly a Messiah! Damn those who oppose me!"


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Apr 2010)

My sense of things is that most people, throughout most of the world - I certainly haven't seen it all - want some sort of democracy; they want to have some say in how they are governed. But the _rule of law_ based democracy we enjoy is the product of a couple of thousand years of Romano-British, Northern European and Anglo-American history and socio-cultural _mores_. The sort of rule based democracy they have in e.g. Japan, Taiwan and Singapore is based on a couple of thousand years of East Asian, Confucian, Doaist/Taoist and Shinto history and socio-cultural _mores_. The former produced a series of *liberal democracies* and the latter a series of *conservative democracies*; there exist, also, many countries with *illiberal democracies*.

Countries lacking in (religiously) _reformed_ (and counter-reformed) and _enlightened_ histories are unlikely to see much value in _ongoing_ democracy. Sometimes, as in e.g. Algeria a few years ago, we see that many people will seek, through free and fair elections, a *theocracy* or some other form of _stable_ (safe) government that reflects their social-cultural _mores_.

There appears to be some correlation between education/literacy and respect for the rule of law and democracy, but while better education + respect for the rule of law ≈ democracy, better education (by itself) ≠ democracy; the _missing link_ is 'respect for the rule of law' which is a cultural value. The cultural values likely follow Maslow's hierarchy of needs and they appear only after the physiological, safety, social and esteem needs have been met - thus the apparent link between prosperity and democracy. Maybe only those who are safe, secure and prosperous have the time and _social_ resources to devote to 'democracy.'

It may be, also, that Islam offers a compelling socio-political alternative to many people.


----------



## SeanNewman (6 Apr 2010)

We in the West have created the word "Taliban" to be quite a bad thing in order to easily identify an enemy, but the reality in southern A'Stan is that the average person really isn't that different from them.

It's not like WW2 when you could go into a France town and ask "Where are the Germans? (in French), because they look and act very different.

What's perhaps the funniest is that Karzai's government (or any one that A'Stan would forward) and the Taliban probably have closer idiologies than the Conservatives and NDP.

One thing I like about what he said was drawing a line between the outsider Al Quaida types and the Taliban (which literally means "student").

The Canadian public unfortunately also lumps in Taliban with "terrorist", so this just makes Canadians want to stop the Afghan effort even more (as witnessed by the amount of posters on the CBC website who are now demanding to leave immidiately)


----------



## munchies (9 Apr 2010)

who cares what the stupid Afghanistan press thinks or the Afghanistan people. we go there to do a job and we do it regardless of what people think so just do your thing... they are the country of the enemy anyways


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Apr 2010)

munchies said:
			
		

> who cares what the stupid Afghanistan press thinks or the Afghanistan people. we go there to do a job and we do it regardless of what people think so just do your thing... they are the country of the enemy anyways



Wow....just effin'...wow.  You're aware it's their country that our troops are in, right?


----------



## TcDohl (9 Apr 2010)

munchies said:
			
		

> who cares what the stupid Afghanistan press thinks or the Afghanistan people. we go there to do a job and we do it regardless of what people think so just do your thing... they are the country of the enemy anyways


And this is why you fail.


----------



## VinceW (9 Apr 2010)




----------



## Nauticus (9 Apr 2010)

munchies said:
			
		

> who cares what the stupid Afghanistan press thinks or the Afghanistan people. we go there to do a job and we do it regardless of what people think so just do your thing... they are the country of the enemy anyways


Okay, you can like or dislike the Afghanistan government (whom we put in power), but to suggest that we have a job to do *irregardless of the Afghanistan people* is definitely the wrong mindset.


----------



## munchies (9 Apr 2010)

well we are going to do what we have to do regardless of what the Iraqis have to say. sure if the government said something that would be different. But if the iraqi press wants to be an emotional bitch it shouldn't matter... If there are going to be people killing or becoming a threat becauwe the iraqi press tells stupid stories than maybe its good that they do somthing and our army does somehitng about them


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Apr 2010)

Shhh, that's enough, grownups are talking.


----------



## munchies (9 Apr 2010)

that's a great argument you present


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Apr 2010)

I wasn't trying to present an argument, as I thought was plainly obvious.


----------



## munchies (9 Apr 2010)

sarcasm, because what you said was obviously  nothing important... sarcasm


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Apr 2010)

Right back atcha.


----------



## GAP (10 Apr 2010)

.


----------



## the 48th regulator (10 Apr 2010)

munchies said:
			
		

> sarcasm, because what you said was obviously  nothing important... sarcasm




I think Kat meant this jingles;

dileas

tess


----------



## 1feral1 (10 Apr 2010)

munchies said:
			
		

> well we are going to do what we have to do regardless of what the Iraqis have to say. sure if the government said something that would be different. But if the iraqi press wants to be an emotional bitch it shouldn't matter... If there are going to be people killing or becoming a threat becauwe the iraqi press tells stupid stories than maybe its good that they do somthing and our army does somehitng about them


Epic fail.

Since when does Iraq come into this thread?

Man, I thought your first post in this thread was stupid  

OWDU


----------



## Greymatters (10 Apr 2010)

munchies said:
			
		

> who cares what the stupid Afghanistan press thinks or the Afghanistan people. we go there to do a job and we do it regardless of what people think so just do your thing... they are the country of the enemy anyways



This is the kind of thinking that most military members are to trying to show isnt  representative of most military members, thank you...


----------



## 1feral1 (10 Apr 2010)

Munchies profile says 'Rank:Not yet', so by the sounds of things, he is yet to spend a day in uniform.


Regards,

OWDU


----------



## SeanNewman (11 Apr 2010)

Steering this back to Karzai, has anyone seen anything yet confirming that he actually said this?

The last I saw, his press secretary had denied him ever saying it at all, but it makes you wonder why if Karzai did not say it why he wouldn't come out in the open to stress that he never said it, especially with so many world leaders condemning the statement (if he said it).


----------



## Greymatters (12 Apr 2010)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I think Kat meant this jingles;



Tess, that is hilarious.  We should have a Milnet version. 

Back to Karzai, the sources appear to be several reputable papers and provide a sound level of detail - his press secretary is doing some damage control - but at least a couple of western articles wrote that he said it as hyperbole which would make more sense...


----------



## Silverfire (12 Apr 2010)

By no means am I an expert on this subject so I was just curious what would be the result of Karzai actually siding with the Taliban.  As far as I'm aware Afghanistan mostly just tribes with no real centralized government.  If Karzai bands with the Taliban, is that just him by his lonesome or would the ANA have to follow suit?  By siding with the Taliban would it really just be increased financial support?  Couldn't the coalition forces merely get rid of him much like Saddam?


----------

