Afghanistan's can of worms

[germanos]

Interesting interview with president Karzai:

SPIEGEL: During the Taliban times there were no checkpoints at all.

Karzai: That was the best aspect of the Taliban. They did a lot wrong, but they also did a few things right. I wish I had the Taliban as my soldiers. I wish they were serving me and not people in Pakistan or others.

SPIEGEL: Dirty deals are still necessary for the stability of Afghanistan?

Karzai: Absolutely necessary, because we lack the power to solve these problems in other ways. What do you want? War? Let me give you an example. We wanted to arrest a really terrible warlord, but we couldn't do it because he is being protected by a particular country. We found out that he was being paid $30,000 a month to stay on his good side. They even used his soldiers as guards …

SPIEGEL: You meet regularly for negotiations with representatives of the Taliban -- like Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the Taliban's former foreign minister, or Mullah Saif, the Taliban's former ambassador to Pakistan -- but so far without any results. And yet we still see new suicide attacks almost every day.

Karzai: Negotiations aren't moving forward the way we would like them too. But we will continue. Taliban who are part of al-Qaida should in no way be permitted to return. But those who have joined the Taliban out of fear or because they were needy are Afghanistan's native sons and they are more than welcome back in their country.

more: http://www.spiegel.de/international/...557188,00.html

[Wezil]

Don't worry Germanos. Full speed ahead with the war on the afghanis.

[Wezil]

*bump* for supporters of the "good war"

[germanos]

Note: I didn't post this with any particular intention in mind, other then sharing Karzai's views on the matters at hand.
It did seem newsworthy enough.

But dissapointingly, McCain's (or Obama's) haemeroids will get much more attention .

[Wezil]

I think the reality of what is going on in Afghanistan is becoming clearer. Rational people are having a more difficult time defending it and would rather just avoid the issue.

[Arrian]

What are we expecting as an outcome in Afganistan? With my admittedly minor knowledge of its history, it seems to me that expecting an overnight flowering of liberal democracy is a tad naive.

Afganistan was invaded in response to 9/11. The realistic objectives were: a) revenge (no one will admit it, but come on now); and b) the removal of a regime that was clearly happy to support our enemy.

That second part is the thing we're still wrestling with. I think that the consequences of our inattention following the Soviet withdrawl make the mission worthwhile. YMMV.

-Arrian

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Arrian
That second part is the thing we're still wrestling with. I think that the consequences of our inattention following the Soviet withdrawl make the mission worthwhile. YMMV.

-Arrian

White Rich man's guilt?

j/k

[Arrian]

No, it's not about guilt for me. It's about consequences.

Iraq... more guilt involved there.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

What is so crazy about what he said? How does that change anything?

[DinoDoc]

I'm with Pat. What's so crazy about what Karzai said?

[germanos]

Originally posted by Patroklos
What is so crazy about what he said? How does that change anything?

There's nothing crazy about what he said. Does it need to be?


What I found interesting that he holds apparently a different view on the Taliban, at least different to what the politicians in the Netherlands (and from what I gather the larger 'coalition' as well) tell me.

It's also quite a dissent view to the 'we don't speak with terrorist' attitude that I hear very often, again from our (local) politicians. Not crazy at all IMO.

[BeBMan]

It's all about the checkpoints.

[Patroklos]

There's nothing crazy about what he said. Does it need to be?

The fact that some here suggested this changed something.

What I found interesting that he holds apparently a different view on the Taliban, at least different to what the politicians in the Netherlands (and from what I gather the larger 'coalition' as well) tell me.

His opinion is the same as the coalition. The Americans at least have always had a program if integrating non-hostile/non-high profile former Talibain elements back into Afghan society.

Like debathification if you were a known criminal or a high ranking official you are out of luck, but for the rank and file efforts for integration into the Afghan state have always been underway.

Now Karzi is a little more open to talking to those high ranking officials, but the gist is the same.

It's also quite a dissent view to the 'we don't speak with terrorist' attitude that I hear very often, again from our (local) politicians. Not crazy at all IMO.

It is no different that the US talking to Sunni militias. And it doesn't seem like Karzi is talking about integrating the Talibain into his state, but rather letting them disavow their former masters and reenter society. We will always let you surrender

[BeBMan]

A real prob is the warlord thing he mentions. Because to have finally a really stabilized country sooner or later the warlord guys have to be either be fully integrated into the political process (so stop really being warlords, just bribing them into "silence" isn't enough in the long run) or they have to be taken out. Both options bring certain....hm...say...difficulties.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Patroklos


The fact that some here suggested this changed something.

I don't see it, but that could just be me.

His opinion is the same as the coalition. The Americans at least have always had a program if integrating non-hostile/non-high profile former Talibain elements back into Afghan society.

I don't think so. I have yet to see any western politician to say the Taliban did something good. Moreover, any armed opposition/ resistance is lumped into the Taliban-camp in a way that suggests they're über-evil. Karzai's comments are a departure from that.

It is no different that the US talking to Sunni militias. And it doesn't seem like Karzi is talking about integrating the Talibain into his state, but rather letting them disavow their former masters and reenter society. We will always let you surrender

The sunni-example playes not that well. I get the impression the reward they get for siding with the Iraqi Government is exactly that they WILL be integrated into the state, armed and all.
Indeed I get the idea from Karzai that the former Taliban will get a little more then just being able to blend into the new afghan society as a means to strengthen his control.

It's not a crazy aproach though. But only recently Carter got a lot of flak for talking to Hamas and Hezbollah, so I don't really get the idea that Karzai's policy is some sort of standard US modus operandi.

Karzai's words don't hint at 'surrender', and i'm pretty sure that to get the sunni's in line with al Maliki's gevernment required anything similar. (But let's keep Iraq out of this, the two get mixed much to often)