Thread: Karsai proves American deaths in Afghanistan a waste

Political posturing B.S. by Karsai is what that was.

"Kabul would not allow any nation, including the U.S., to dictate its policies."

sure... how'd you get into office again Mr. Karsai?


Read more: Karzai Says Afghanistan Would Back Pakistan If U.S. Attacks | Fox News

Karzai has to latch on to the strongest horse in the region.

Under Obama, that isn't us.

Originally Posted by Commodore

Karzai has to latch on to the strongest horse in the region.

Under Obama, that isn't us.

Yeah, I am sure Karzai has to think about AFTER the US leaves. Silly of him to do that.

Originally Posted by chassisman

Isn't this a peach? I suppose US politicians will never learn that nation building isn't worth the American lives it costs. Rodney King is famed for his "can't we all just get along?", I wish someone of note would coin the catchphrase "can't we just stay home and take care of our own?".

Karzai Says Afghanistan Would Back Pakistan If U.S. Attacks | Fox News

It would have been simpler to just bomb the piss out of the Taliban and terrorists. Wait a few years ... go back and bomb the piss out of them again (repeat this every few years until they get the message). More economical, less lives lost, instead of spending billions to hug them.

Originally Posted by Commodore

Karzai has to latch on to the strongest horse in the region.

Why?

Originally Posted by soot

Why?

Because the one he's riding is lame and suffers from multiple personality disorder.

More proof that regardless of how people get into power, they will serve their self-interest first and foremost.

When it comes to "creating allies" nation building has always been a complete and utter failure.

Karzai, the "Mayor of Kabul", isn't the reason that we're in "Afghanistan". We're in Afghan because the Taliban wouldn't cough up Osama bin Laden & Al Queda. A decade later, we've killed bin Laden & we're still shooting up Al Queda wherever we find them.

If we ever turn on "Pakistan", it'll be because we're done in Afghan; & don't need/care what becomes of Pakistan (for the 3rd time running, in recent memory).

Karzai is an also-ran, the stalking horse of convenience that we propped up because we needed one. He knew the risks when he signed up.

Power politics in Afghan takes a strong stomach & more faces than we know how to feign - my opinion, Karzai is entitled to whatever "joy" he may (momentarily) find there.

Karzai's rubber stamp on our KIA & WIA means precisely nothing. We're there for our purposes, Karzai is window dressing. He likely knows that, which goes a long way to explaining his erratic behavior. If he ever has the misfortune to actually choose whether to stand with Pakistan against the US - well, he likely will make the wrong decision. That's pretty much his track record to date ... & ours, for picking a weak reed to "lead" & then not imposing our will upon him to steer Afghan in the direction we wanted.

(An interesting comparison would be to the hapless regimes we backed in Vietnam, & for precisely the same reasons ... )

What this really proves is the one lesson that the US government continually failes to learn. Karsai is just the iteration of the day when it comes to why you should not trust nor expect loyalty really from a government leader we help get into power. There is some real truth to those that have already stated in this thread that the ultimate goal is to server one's own interests above all.

Why so many American policy makers, through the decades since WWII keep making the same mistake of assuming that foreign leaders we prop up will show undying gratitude and loyalty to the US, I'll never know.

All this does is put the leader in an extremely difficult position and foster hatred towards the US in many of these regions.

Originally Posted by ArmyCowboy

More proof that regardless of how people get into power, they will serve their self-interest first and foremost.

When it comes to "creating allies" nation building has always been a complete and utter failure.

It's not his interests he is serving; it's Afghanistan's.

Unless you can figure out a way to reshape the globe, Afghanistan and Pakistan will share a border long after the United States leaves and will need to work together in order to trade, fight terrorism, etc. Swearing allegiance to the United States might appease silly Americans who will likely never even step foot on the continent the nation is on but promoting a relationship with Pakistan and acknowledging that they have been instrumental in relinquishing Taliban control of Afghanistan is clearly a smarter choice. It's not like the United States is ever going to invade Pakistan anyway.

I hate to derail my own thread (somewhat), but do any of you really feel like we are fighting a war on terror in Afghanistan?
Is that where our enemies base themselves? I think not.

The WOT was always a chimera, my opinion. But W had to do something, & when Taliban refused to play ball with us, the cross hairs settled on "Afghanistan". A decade later, we may finally shift enough resources & manpower back in-theater to stabilize the "country," while we in-gather & pack up to return home.

"Pakistan" - itself a rump state carved out of India, & only half of the rump @ that - see Bangladesh - has been so ineptly governed that they've managed to lose - what? 3? 4? wars to India. & Pakistan is quite obsessed with losing the next war to India, too. The sooner we pack up & leave, the better. The Paki military & their quasi-independent country, the ISI, is deadset on drowning their country in blood yet again, in another futile effort to show the World the superiority of the Islamic Way - whatever that may turn out to be. & no, they're not fussy about whose blood they spill - either way, they think the West - & especially the US - is too soft to relish a good blood-letting. They should ask the Japanese Imperial military survivors of WWII how "soft" we are, push comes to shove.