Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What follows Karzai?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
spindrifter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 08:56 PM
Original message
What follows Karzai?
Afghans killed in attack on US convoy

Monday 26 June 2006, 13:04 Makka Time, 10:04 GMT

A bomber has blown himself up in a vehicle near a coalition convoy outside the main US base in Afghanistan, amid reports that the Afghan president is losing support among Afghans and some foreign governments.

<snip>

The latest incident comes as The Washington Post newspaper reports that Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, is losing support as a Taliban-led insurgency escalates and his government fails to stem endemic corruption.

"The president had a window of opportunity to lead and make difficult decisions, but that window is closing fast," the newspaper cited an unidentified foreign military official as saying.

On Thursday, Karzai complained about what he called a lack of full co-operation from his foreign allies, saying US-led forces had adopted the wrong approach in Afghanistan and urged Western powers to provide more help in training and equipping the Afghan army and police.

<snip>

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/57833F11-0887-4522-8C92-3F641A3E54B7.htm

++++++++++++++++

The article goes on to intimate that part of the problem is Karzai's "short-term" decision-making--trying to make things work in the present, rather than concentrating on "nation building." And, of course, there is the lack of "rule of law," as anyone with access to any news is aware. But who is out there, if Karzai leaves?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. a taliban takeover cuz bush DID NOT FINISH THE JOB before
starting his personal vendetta against sadaam, using the entire US military in the process and murdering tens of thousands of people including thousands of US troops.

and he calls himself a christian. I think Jesus would vomit if he knew.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. The window of opportunity was when our soldiers
were there before they were yanked out to go to Iraq.....
this was the pivotal moment of history.....this among other tactical errors has led to the current situation.....Afghanastan and Iraq may be be lost because of this administration....we don't hear a lot about this on the news do we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spindrifter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. No--gee, I wonder why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
4. The deluge?
I think the analysis by another poster is quite right: Short attention span Chimpy pulled the troops out of Afghanistan before the job was finished, started in on Iraq, and didn't have the manpower (without a draft) to sustain both occupations.

And so the right wing talking point from election 2000 comes true: The military is depleted, but it's not Clinton's fault. It's all George W. Bush, who didn't reckon the cost before he made war on his neighbor. What sort of Christian elects to go to war not once, but twice? And then fails to count the cost (Luke 14)? Hard to reconcile that with Bush's public persona of being a good Christian man in my estimation . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spindrifter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Afghanistan was a
disaster for the British and later a disaster for the Russians. Chimpy went in for the short-term, knowing tha it would be nigh impossible to do any sort of solution for Afghanistan as a country because of the incredible diversity of leadership--everything from totally westernized, highly educated people to illiterate tribal chieftains. His administration probably were closer to understanding what they faced there than they were in Iraq. But Iraq beckoned with possibilities of oil and a border on Iran--with even more oil.
This is one of the problems that comes from having a prezidnut who knew so little about foreign policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC