[Dawn] AS the clock winds down on his presidency and the Karzai era, the Afghan president's outbursts are becoming increasingly desperate. To be sure, given the complex role Pakistain has played in Afghanistan over the decades, there is some room for legitimate criticism of Islamabad by the Afghan government. But legitimate criticism has given way to an alarming spiral of allegations and irresponsible behaviour on the part of Mr Karzai. It is helpful to trace the trajectory of the Afghan president's approach towards the Taliban over the past decade. Until the late 2000s, Mr Karzai was an implacable opponent of reconciliation with the Afghan Taliban, treating them as interchangeable with Al Qaeda and unworthy of being seen as a political force. Then, as the insurgency worsened and the US commitment to Afghanistan seemed to ebb, Mr Karzai appeared to change his mind, pushing for reconciliation, though wanting it to flow through his office -- something the Taliban, perennially dismissive of the Karzai-led Afghan government, were not willing to countenance. Now, bizarrely, Mr Karzai has called on the Taliban to fight external enemies -- presumably Pakistain -- instead of destroying their own country.
Erratic as the Afghan president's comments on Pakistain and the US have become in recent times and imminent as his irrelevance may be, there are two important aspects to Mr Karzai's departure that will have to be handled with extreme care. First, the post-presidency future of Mr Karzai, both in terms of his physical security and finding some kind of sinecure or retired statesman role for him to keep him preoccupied. The history of the exit of Afghan leaders can only be disturbing for Mr Karzai and he will need some kind of reassurance about his physical safety while also having a public platform if he chooses to stay back in Afghanistan as he has repeatedly promised he will. It may appear odd that the future of one man, especially one on his way out and seemingly an irritant to all sides, can require so much delicate handling, but given his position and the office he leads, a botched exit plan can have significant negative ramifications.
The second aspect of Mr Karzai's departure that will have to be managed carefully is the reconciliation process with the Afghan Taliban. With the Pak establishment and the US government seemingly converging on what needs to be done next and a critical phase in reconciliation lying ahead in the next year or so, Mr Karzai will need to be counselled to exhibit restraint -- something he has not done in recent months.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/07/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11123 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
There's always the Baltimore restaurant scene...
The FBIs addition of convicted cop-killer Joanne Chesimard, also known as Assata Shakur, to the Most Wanted Terrorists List, is an extraordinary development that reminds us of how the old Soviet client state of Cuba played a significant role in the Soviet-sponsored terrorist networks of the 1970s and 1980s.
Had Dzhokhar Tsarnaev paid attention in history class, he might have learned something useful for any domestic American terrorist: if caught, claim solidarity with the American left.
No American institution is a safe haven for Islamist terrorists. As sympathetic as the hard left might be to the anti-Americanism of bin Ladens disciples, the instinct for self-preservation is powerful enough to mute the embrace, even in the halls of academia. Just ask Ward Churchill.
But declare ones bombs to be small acts of civil disobedience in the furtherance of socialism and anti-imperialism, and one might just find an endowed chair, or at least an adjunct professorship, from which to preach the good word until retirement. Just ask Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.
Ayers, the former Weather Underground co-founder who proudly led his organization in the successful bombings of dozens of American targets, including the U.S. Capitol, Pentagon, and State Department, on Saturday distanced himself from his tactical and ideological cousins, the Tsarnaevs. It was a clumsy deceit, easily disproven.
I get asked about violence when what I did was some destruction of property to issue a scream and cry against an illegal war in which 6,000 people a week are being killed, the Akron Beacon-Journal reported Ayers as saying in response to a reporters question. Six thousand a week being killed and I destroyed some property. Show me the equivalence. You should ask John McCain that question. Im against violence.
#1
It is beginning to look as though this entire sordid and tragic Benghazi mess could be falling at the feet of Hildebeast. A denial of pre-attack reinforcements along with a denial of post-attack formal rescue mission or standard Non-Combatant Evacuation (NEO) now appears quite likely. The Klingons opted for a private contract bird EXFIL of their own people along with a few of the hapless State Department walking wounded.
The above scenario would allow the two [potentially at odds] agencies to pursue individual decision making less damaging exposure, knowledgeability, and direct input from the Champ.
With mileage from her recent congressional testimony screaming fit ["what difference does it make"] now expired, perhaps another fall, dark glasses, and memory problems could be in the future for the now reclusive Hildebeast.
#3
No Raj, my assessment is she has never had much time for authority figures, ie, Secret Service, Military, law enforcement and the like. Not sure where she picked up here distaste, possibly the Arkansas State Police secret dating service... who knows.
In light of the, then upcoming elections, I suspect Champ's trusted senior advisor(s) quickly spirited him away from the blast radius with as much plausible deniability as possible. It appears at that point it may have been.... everyone to the boats, good luck you bastids, you're on your own.
In a post-game strategy session I can easily see the Champ saying: Golly [Dave, Val, John, FLOTUS] you guys were right, she is a nutjob.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/07/2013 7:23 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The hidden plan of this regime has always been to figure out how to get Zero to be president-for-life.
What was this speech about "don't worry about tyranny"?? Why bring it up if you don't want it?
Me thinks the "lady" doth protest too much."
More and more government control anyway anyhow is what this regime wants. Gun control, Obamacare, everything done to control energy through the EPA and executive orders, drones at home, the hit list, etc. all has one goal.
Benghazi and virtually all foreign policy is nothing but an irrelevant side show and needs to be white washed and swept under the rug to mix a metaphor.
#9
SR-71, what you are leaving out is that Tricky Dick didn't have the entire MSM working to bury it. Do you really think that investigative journalism like in the Watergate case could ever happen now to target Zero?
After having sacrificed over $85 billion and more than 50,000 lives in the US war on terror, Pakistan is now finally preparing to get out of Washingtons war.
Political differences apart, both the PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif and his hot contender for the post-May 11 government, PTIs Imran Khan, have made it clear that Pakistan would be driven out of the 12-year-old war on terror.
Both the political leaders, in their separate statements, have unambiguously rejected the policy of use of force and military operations against the local Taliban to check extremism and curb terrorism. Instead, they have openly supported initiating dialogue with the local Taliban.
The two top contestants for the future premiership have conveyed their no to the war on terror.Imran Khan has repeatedly pledged during his ongoing election campaign that if he came into power he would get Pakistan out of war on terror. On the issue of drone attack, Khan took an aggressive stance by announcing that under his rule the drones would be shot down if found violating Pakistans sovereignty.
Seems a lot of the fuel that is dumped on the jihadist flames come from ISI.
Yep, all of those bombs and drive by shootings in Karachi are definitely caused by our presence in Afghanistan.
Pakistanarchy is a wreck and becoming a poster child for Islamic paradise, much as California is a glimpse of liberal paradise in the US.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
05/07/2013 14:50 Comments ||
Top||
#6
> Mullah Omar to be legally allowed to run for President or PM, etc. of Afghanistan.
> Ditto AYMAN ZAWAHIRI for Pakistan - MUSBRO EGYPT???
> WORLD NEWS > [WND.com] US PENTAGON: IRAN MAY TEST ICBM BY 2015.
POST-2014 EVERYTHING TO BE ALL NICE-N-LEGAL LIKE - what GWOT is there for the US or anyone, e.g. Pakistan, to seemingly fight anymore???
In a lackluster economy, there hasn't been much from OPEC members to suggest there was any sort of revival, Graeber writes. But with seven of the 12 members of the cartel experiencing at least some form of upheaval, the cost of doing business suggests members may need more than a little bit of luck to return to glory.
Hearing all of the hand-wringing over Syria, about there being no good options, I think I disagree but it would take a lot of work and it would require some time that I am not completely convinced that we have. It would be challenging, but I think it is possible. We can't choose from existing options, though, but have to enable the Syrians themselves to build a different one from those available now.
What it requires first is a group of respected Syrians who have defected to act as a leadership council and choose an overall leader from among them. This position would be an interim leader and would probably be a military officer. There are many well-respected military officers who have defected from the Assad regime who might be able to play a role in such an organization. The idea would be to build a resistance movement from former regular Syrian army acting as a cadre for a larger force that gets built over time.
The overall philosophy of the organization should be a patriotic one and not sectarian. Its goal should be the creation of a stable, secure Syria where all Syrians can live together and prosper. The longer range goal should be the establishment of a representative government with a legislative organ having real power and an executive with limited powers along with the establishment of a fair judicial system. Goals should be elimination of corruption, institution of fairness, and creation of conditions for economic prosperity. It should further recognize that Syria is populated with people of many different faiths and that it is not the role of the government to act as a medium for any one of those to dominate the others.
Once a leadership council has been formed and a command structure created, the business of working toward realization of the vision can begin. This might even get the support of the Russians but the Iranians and the Islamist Sunni groups probably aren't going to go for it and this group might find itself fighting both the Assad regime and the Islamist militias but it might actually have a chance of gaining the support of the people to a greater extent than either of the others. The people of all sects should be able to support such an effort without fear about what happens should they be victorious.
The effort should be on both military and economic fronts. They should be equipped with weapons they are familiar with, possibly those obtained from Libya or captured from current Syrian forces or brought by other defectors. They should focus on keeping order in areas that they control. Work first in the distant countryside, force the militias out, establish courts, police, maintain order, allow commerce to operate, collect taxes, and establish free market economic stability in zones of control.
They should gradually work toward more populated areas and attempt to establish a reputation of fairness yet firmness in maintaining order. This would require a dose of Syrian nationalism and require finding Syria's "George Washington" to pull it off but it is the only way I can see of making something work. The only choices we have now ARE bad so we have to make one that isn't or suffer yet another steaming pile where a country used to be.
Mr. Ledeen lays out his theme in these opening paragraphs:
[PJMedia] As information about the apparent Israeli strikes on targets inside Syria continues to pour in, it's easy to lose sight of the central fact: the two reported Israeli attacks are part of an ongoing war, the big war against the West. While the attacks were in Syria, the mission was primarily a major strike against Iran and Russia, two key components of the global alliance arrayed against us. Both are desperately trying to shore up the Assad regime in Damascus.
The fall of Assad would be a devastating blow to Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei's tyranny in Tehran, would gravely weaken Russia's strategic position in the Mediterranean and the Middle East, and would threaten the strength (and even the survival) of Hezbollah, the world's most dangerous terrorist organization and the creation of Iran's founding tyrant, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
The attacks apparently did great damage to Iranian missiles, and the vaunted Russian antiaircraft system provided to both Syria and Iran was unable to do anything to prevent them. Both have been humiliated.
Again. Israel did this once before, when they destroyed the nuclear weapons facility North Korea built for Syria, passing invisibly through the brand-new Russian radar system.
I think this bit, from the middle of the essay, raises another critical point (section in bold by the author):
The Israeli actions, assuming they took place more or less as described, were limited to a single battlefield of the big war, and were driven by the knowledge that Iran and its two foreign legions (Quds and Hezbollah) are preparing the destruction of the Jewish state, nukes or no nukes. Weapons move towards Israel from many directions in the region, including Sudan, and are sometimes permitted passage by the likes of Egypt and Turkey. Until and unless we show signs of recognizing the real dimensions of the menace, the weapons will continue to flow.
Posted by: trailing wife ||
05/07/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11122 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
Right. We knew that all along. So why not bomb Iran?
#2
Until and unless we show signs of recognizing the real dimensions of the menace, the weapons will continue to flow.
Always assuming that the govt. sees this as a menace and NOT the action of allies in THEIR greater war. Look at the actions of Zero and his clacque and tell which side of this war he favors.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Dawn] AS the clock winds down on his presidency and the Karzai era, the Afghan president's outbursts are becoming increasingly desperate. To be sure, given the complex role Pakistain has played in Afghanistan over the decades, there is some room for legitimate criticism of Islamabad by the Afghan government. But legitimate criticism has given way to an alarming spiral of allegations and irresponsible behaviour on the part of Mr Karzai. It is helpful to trace the trajectory of the Afghan president's approach towards the Taliban over the past decade. Until the late 2000s, Mr Karzai was an implacable opponent of reconciliation with the Afghan Taliban, treating them as interchangeable with Al Qaeda and unworthy of being seen as a political force. Then, as the insurgency worsened and the US commitment to Afghanistan seemed to ebb, Mr Karzai appeared to change his mind, pushing for reconciliation, though wanting it to flow through his office -- something the Taliban, perennially dismissive of the Karzai-led Afghan government, were not willing to countenance. Now, bizarrely, Mr Karzai has called on the Taliban to fight external enemies -- presumably Pakistain -- instead of destroying their own country.
Hearing all of the hand-wringing over Syria, about there being no good options, I think I disagree but it would take a lot of work and it would require some time that I am not completely convinced that we have. It would be challenging, but I think it is possible. We can't choose from existing options, though, but have to enable the Syrians themselves to build a different one from those available now.
