Monday May 28, 2012

Afghan leader complains U.S., NATO aren't succeeding

World ( 17 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Back to top

Order by Time Order by Popularity

17 Comments

Login to comment

  • 0

    rjd_jr

    Aren't succeeding? Well that's the bloody understatement of the decade, if not the century. Guess all them indiscriminate air strikes and a "little" distraction called the iraq war sure helped things a lot in Afghanistan ay?

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    While he's right, the president is starting to sound more and more like a baby pandering to all sides. If he's so upset that no one else is making life better why doesn't he, as president, do his job and make life better HIMSELF?!

  • 0

    skipthesong

    what is his definition of success? Didn't the Taliban control something like 90% of the country and now they don't?

    Also, wasn't it the US and NATO that put in power in the first place or did he happen to get a better offer from the Taliban?

  • 0

    USAFdude

    U.S. and NATO troops haven’t made life better.

    How can we? We're stuck in Iraq where we un-needed.

    Rice said that ultimately the Afghans themselves are going to have to defeat the Taliban. “This is not for NATO to do. This is for NATO to do with the Afghan people.”

    And we should have been helping them much more than we did. bush and rice certainly weren't content to let the Iraqis defeat Saddam on their own; textbook example of double standard.

    “In the last seven years there was no attention to this issue,” Karzai said. “And instead they threatened: ‘You should be quiet, keep quiet, keep quiet, and don’t talk about this issue.’”

    Here, Karzai is referring to repeated pleas for the international community to help take out militant bases in Pakistan. Again, we should have listened and done much more much longer ago.

    But the U.S. this year has stepped up attacks on suspected militants in Pakistan. It has staged more than 20 missile strikes on the tribal areas this year, prompting the Pakistani government to protest what it calls the violation of its sovereignty.

    "Better late than never" doesn't apply here; too many lives could have been saved with earlier, more decisive intervention.

    “They have realized the reality now,” Karzai said.

    We sure have. That's why we elected Barack Hussein Obama to be President of the United States of America.

    President-elect Barack Obama has said he will increase America’s focus on Afghanistan.

    And this is one of the many great reasons why we elected Barack Hussein Obama to be President of the United States of America.

  • 0

    Nippon5

    So if the president is right then the statement should be.. Afghanistan was a better place for all people under the Taliban then it is now for all the people under its own goverment.

    If the Goverment of Afghanistan feels the Nato and US forces are not doing the job, then they should use their own military and we can go home...., But its not what he really wants to say, what he is saying is ... Elections are coming up and people dont like a leader who is in the pocket of another country, so he will buck the people who put him in power to get relelected..(and under the table he will tell the US and NATO forces to stay and help)

    So he isnt right. He is dead wrong. The country was horrid to anyone who wasnt a strong male, now it has problems but atleast people have the ability to be people... not just a object to abuse.. So saying he is right is infact saying the Taliban was a better goverment and way of life...

    With all that said, the forces there from Nato and the US have to get a handle on the terrorist group while training the Afghan army to do the job.. It isnt an easy job, and it isnt a pleasent job, but we have to endure and get that country back on track. I am sad that my fellow country men have to have their blood shed for a country's govement that doesnt respect and honor them, but in the military we always do the job without the thanks....

    some thing the civilians just dont understand...

  • 0

    wanderlust

    Just like Vietnam... The ANA (Afghan National Army) are only out in the daylight, but the Taliban move at night. And any resistance to the Taliban is met with beheadings and other brutalities. The US/ UK/ NATO have been trying to train the ANA, but they are just not up to the task. And only they can tell the difference between the T and non-T groups. And the price at the end of the day is another oil pipeline to the West....

  • 0

    Sarge

    I agree with smith. Karzai is starting to piss me off.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    Nippon5,

    You say we have to get that country "back on track". When has it ever been "on track"? I think that the persistence of tribalism in what we call Afghanistan is the very thing that militated against an invasion and against an attempt to create a government.

    I don't think we need to endure indefinitely. We've been there for 7 years now and our results have been mixed to say the least. If someone has a plan to transform Afghanistan into a self-governing country and to quell tribal unrest and religious violence, then bring the plan on and let's try again.

    However, I think we need to be realistic. If it doesn't work, we need to begin to go Dirty Harry on ourselves and realize our limitations. It makes no sense to continue to waste dollars and lives on the unproven assumption that somewhere there is a plan that will work if only we could find it.

  • 0

    Nippon5

    Many times in its thousands of years of history it has been on track, but as you know I was talking about the goverment getting itself up to the task of running its own goverment(getting a train on its track isnt the same as running the train day in and day out).

    ** Not to making it an Eden for people.**

    As far as 7 years, dont you remember all the other countries we are in to help them, some as long as 60 years and recent ones like Kosovo for over a decade now...

    My self I would pull all our troops from foriegn soil right away and let those countries become what they will on their own. But I know that isnt an option.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    Nippon5,

    You said,

    ...as you know I was talking about the goverment getting itself up to the task of running its own goverment....

    Actually, I didn't know that. To continue with your analogy then, I don't think this is the case of putting a train on its tracks. I think this is the case of building the train and then laying tracks to somewhere someone would actually want to go. It has been a long time since Afghanistan had a functioning government that served the needs of all its peoples. Can you think of the last time?

    Yes, we are in a lot of countries. I don't think it's accurate, however, to say that we are there to help them. ("We're the (US) government and we're here to help?") I think we are in most of these countries because we want to help ourselves and we believe that the best way we can do that is to help others do things our way. I think we have done a lot of good. I think, also, that we've been oblivious to the harm we have done.

    I agree with your sentiment about pulling our troops and I agree with your statement that it isn't an option--not a politically practical one, anyway. Since it isn't an option, I think we need to take a more critical look at how we are actually doing and avoid, as much as possible, conflicts which have devolved into folly.

  • 0

    Nippon5

    Tracks have been laid(goverment is formed, military is in place), the engine is running well(they have the resources to be a self governing county), but the goverment doesnt want to drive the train... They fear the results of having to actually take the credit and blame for what happens, and on top of that the president wants to keep his job so he is going to say what he thinks people want to hear..

    Obama screwed up when he made the statement of pulling out of Iraq and staying the course in Afghanistan... It should of been... we are leaving both countries in 16 months, we have trained your military, built your interior structure, helped create your goverments.. Now you must become a country instead of a colony...

    But we know that would of been political suicide...

    Can you think of the last time?

    around the 50's it was doing pretty good for Afghanistan. :)

    Once again SEZwho2 its nice to have a discussion that is just that a discussion.. Thank you.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    Nippon5: "Many times in its thousands of years of history it has been on track, but as you know I was talking about the goverment getting itself up to the task of running its own goverment(getting a train on its track isnt the same as running the train day in and day out)."

    If you were talking about the current government getting on track, you cannot possibly say 'BACK on track' because it would mean the current government has been on track before. Again, tighten up your English, my friend. I know you're not concerned about whether or not your English is correct, but in many of your posts you contradict yourself to the point where it makes no sense or you agree with everyone you pretend to be against.

    As for: "Obama screwed up when he made the statement of pulling out of Iraq and staying the course in Afghanistan"

    I don't think Obama ever said 'staying the course', to use bush's tired old and stupid phrase, he said they will put the focus back on Afghanistan... and that still leaves room for threats of pulling out of there if Karzai doesn't start to reign things in himself.

  • 0

    Everton2

    Regardless of what Karzai says he is not Afghanistan but rather a temporary representative. Th people of this war torn country will continue to exist long after he is gone. However, the international community has a responsibility to do all it can to relieve suffering in that country.

    The Taliban and its treatment of women falls under that category of extreme human suffering. Even without the occurrence of of 9/11 the Taliban would have been a totally unacceptable regime in our modern world, and it would have been only a matter of time before they are confronted in some form or another.

    NATO must continue to wage war against these men in Afghanistan who wants to return to the dark ages in terms of how they perceive the world and women.

  • 0

    Nippon5

    *you cannot possibly say 'BACK on track' *

    I can and I did.. I wasnt talking about this group nor way I talking about 1000 years ago, and I think I was addressing Sez directly. So I can and I did..

    Its an idiom not rocket science..

    They, as in the people of Afghanistan, need to get themselves self back on track, with this group of goverment or another... Dont read it more then was said..

    And Obama said he would stay in Afghanistan until it was stable and that can mean allot of things, unless he told you other wise? And staying the course is a nautical term used everyday for hundred of years, not Bush's private term.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    Nippon5: "I can and I did.. I wasnt talking about this group nor way I talking about 1000 years ago, and I think I was addressing Sez directly. So I can and I did.."

    You know, I'm starting to think your way of speaking is intentionally poor so as to try and confuse people as to what your point is. If you weren't talking about this group, despite saying 'the (Afghan) government', and you weren't talking about 1000 years ago, whom exactly were you talking about??

    "Its an idiom not rocket science.."

    What's not rocket science is the fact that 'back' in back on track means that things were on track before, and in this case with your comment, "...but as you know I was talking about the goverment getting itself up to the task of running its own goverment...", you are talking about the current government (hence the definite article 'the' and not 'a', which would imply any government present or future in comparison with any government of the past). I'm not 'read(ing) it more then was said' at all, I'm quoting you exactly and pointing out your contradictions. And no, you were not referring to 'the people'; you were clearly referring to the government... or do I have to quote you AGAIN?

    "And staying the course is a nautical term used everyday for hundred of years, not Bush's private term."

    So you were using the term in the nautical sense then? Obama is going to sail over there by ship and not veer from the present course on his sextant? Clearly you were using the expression in the modern context for which bush-lovers and bush-critics alike came to know it, which is through bush's foolhardy arrogance in regards to the war in Iraq. Your using it here, as such, is all the more comical.

    As I said before, and most people seemed to mirror, things are 'off track' because they were thrown into worse disarray than under the Taliban, and then the US shifted the focus from Afghanistan to Iraq when they could not find Bin Laden. That led to further instability before anything that was rushed into place (government) could take hold. Karzai is powerless to stop what's going on or order a certain group to do this or that without angering them and forcing tribal warfare again. In other words, his grip on power is tenuous at best, and him whining is just political posturing to make him look like he has a little control, which he does not.

  • 0

    Nippon5

    Typing isnt speaking proffessor.. Its a tad different...

    THE Afghan goverment has been on track as short as 60 years ago, and it was still called THE Afghan Goverment then..The as in THE goverment, not The current goverment nor The present Goverment. The use of the is to make it specific to Goverment not to a goverment of this time or that time. Back On Track **To get or put something back on track means to correct something that was going wrong. **

    I am glad you have the ability to take away the orgin and the meaning of a phrase. It would seem you cant be wrong so you create your own logic and meanings. The meaning is to stay on course and it has been linked to its first use in the 1800s. Also todays Navy uses this phrase all the time and use it to mean to follow ones course, to make sure you do not go askew.. So I am using it in the way I was taught and that is in the Naval use, or the nautical term...

    No one is disagreeing with anyone about the slow deline of the area, but that area is still better off then under Taliban rule.
    Only an idiot would use the term "off track" to say the Taliban was a better situation then the present.. Most say (other then the Taliban) that they are better off now then before..So your clearly explaining who you are..

  • 0

    TooFarGone

    A cynic could argue that Afghanistan, under the Taliban, was one of the purest versions of an Islamic state yet achieved.

    But it will most likely remain a failed state as long as Islam ("submission") remains committed to jihad and to its manichaean division of this world into 'the House of Submission' versus 'the House of War' - those who resist submission to Islam's 7th century barbarism.

    As for errors here, the author of this laughable passage is the one that needs to do a little "brushing up."

    "I don't think Obama ever said 'staying the course', to use bush's [Bush's] tired old and stupid [old, tired and stupid?] phrase,[;] he said they will put the focus back on Afghanistan... and that still leaves room for threats of pulling out of there if Karzai doesn't start to reign [rein] things in himself."

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

More in World

View all

View all