Nytimes: Karzai Is Said to Doubt West Can Prevail Against Taliban

ModerateRepZero

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2006
1,572
5
81
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/world/asia/12karzai.html?hp

KABUL, Afghanistan — Two senior Afghan officials were showing President Hamid Karzai the evidence of the spectacular rocket attack on a nationwide peace conference earlier this month when Mr. Karzai told them that he believed the Taliban were not responsible.

Afghanistan’s former intelligence chief, Amrullah Saleh, in Kabul on Wednesday. He also resigned his position.

“The president did not show any interest in the evidence — none — he treated it like a piece of dirt,” said Amrullah Saleh, then the director of the Afghan intelligence service.

Mr. Saleh declined to discuss Mr. Karzai’s reasoning in more detail. But a prominent Afghan with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that Mr. Karzai suggested in the meeting that it might have been the Americans who carried it out.

Minutes after the exchange, Mr. Saleh and the interior minister, Hanif Atmar, resigned — the most dramatic defection from Mr. Karzai’s government since he came to power nine years ago. Mr. Saleh and Mr. Atmar said they quit because Mr. Karzai made clear that he no longer considered them loyal.

But underlying the tensions, according to Mr. Saleh and Afghan and Western officials, was something more profound: That Mr. Karzai had lost faith in the Americans and NATO to prevail in Afghanistan.

For that reason, Mr. Saleh and other officials said, Mr. Karzai has been pressing to strike his own deal with the Taliban and the country’s archrival, Pakistan, the Taliban’s longtime supporter. According to a former senior Afghan official, Mr. Karzai’s maneuverings involve secret negotiations with the Taliban outside the purview of American and NATO officials.

“The president has lost his confidence in the capability of either the coalition or his own government to protect this country,” Mr. Saleh said in an interview at his home. “President Karzai has never announced that NATO will lose, but the way that he does not proudly own the campaign shows that he doesn’t trust it is working.”

People close to the president say he began to lose confidence in the Americans last summer, after national elections in which independent monitors determined that nearly one million ballots had been stolen on Mr. Karzai’s behalf. The rift worsened in December, when President Obama announced that he intended to begin reducing the number of American troops by the summer of 2011.

“Karzai told me that he can’t trust the Americans to fix the situation here,” said a Western diplomat in Kabul, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “He believes they stole his legitimacy during the elections last year. And then they said publicly that they were going to leave.”

Mr. Karzai could not be reached for comment Friday.

If Mr. Karzai’s resolve to work closely with the United States and use his own army to fight the Taliban is weakening, that could present a problem for Mr. Obama. The American war strategy rests largely on clearing ground held by the Taliban so that Mr. Karzai’s army and government can move in, allowing the Americans to scale back their involvement in an increasingly unpopular and costly war.

Relations with Mr. Karzai have been rocky for some time, and international officials have expressed concern in the past that his decision making can be erratic. Last winter, Mr. Karzai accused NATO in a speech of ferrying Taliban fighters around northern Afghanistan in helicopters. Earlier this year, following criticism by the Obama administration, Mr. Karzai told a group of supporters that he might join the Taliban.

American officials tried to patch up their relationship with Mr. Karzai during his visit to the White House last month. Indeed, on many issues, like initiating contact with some Taliban leaders and persuading its fighters to change sides, Mr. Karzai and the Americans are on the same page.

But their motivations appear to differ starkly. The Americans and their NATO partners are pouring tens of thousands of additional troops into the country to weaken hard-core Taliban and force the group to the bargaining table. Mr. Karzai appears to believe that the American-led offensive cannot work.


At a news conference at the Presidential Palace this week, Mr. Karzai was asked about the Taliban’s role in the June 4 attack on the loya jirga and his faith in NATO. He declined to address either one.

“Who did it?” Mr. Karzai said of the attack. “It’s a question that our security organization can bring and prepare the answer.”

Asked if he had confidence in NATO, Mr. Karzai said he was grateful for the help and said the partnership was “working very, very well.” But he did not answer the question.

“We are continuing to work on improvements all around,” Mr. Karzai said, speaking in English and appearing next to David Cameron, the British prime minister.

A senior NATO official said the resignations of Mr. Atmar and Mr. Saleh, who had strong support from the NATO allies, were “extremely disruptive.”

The official said of Mr. Karzai, “My concern is, is he capable of being a wartime leader?”

The NATO official said that American commanders had given Mr. Karzai a dossier showing overwhelming evidence that the attack on the peace conference had been carried out by fighters loyal to Jalalhuddin Haqqani, one of the main leaders fighting under the Taliban’s umbrella.

“There was no doubt,” the official said.

The resignations of Mr. Saleh and Mr. Atmar revealed a deep fissure among Afghan leaders as to the best way to deal with the Taliban and with their patrons in Pakistan.

Mr. Saleh is a former aide to the late Ahmed Shah Massoud, the legendary commander who fought the Soviet Union and the Taliban. Many of Mr. Massoud’s former lieutenants, mostly ethnic Tajiks and now important leaders in northern Afghanistan, sat out the peace conference. Like Mr. Saleh, they favor a tough approach to negotiating with the Taliban and Pakistan.

Mr. Karzai, like the overwhelming majority of the Taliban, is an ethnic Pashtun. He appears now to favor a more conciliatory approach.

At the end of the loya jirga, Mr. Karzai announced the formation of a commission that would review the case of every Taliban fighter held in custody and release those who were not considered extremely dangerous. The commission, which would be led by several senior members of Mr. Karzai’s government, excluded the National Directorate of Security, the intelligence agency run by Mr. Saleh.

In the interview, Mr. Saleh said he took offense at the exclusion. His primary job is to understand the Taliban, he said; leaving his agency off the commission made him worry that Mr. Karzai might intend to release hardened Taliban fighters.

“His conclusion is — a lot of Taliban have been wrongly detained, they should be released,” Mr. Saleh said. “We are 10 years into the collapse of the Taliban — it means we don’t know who the enemy is. We wrongly detain people.”

Mr. Saleh also criticized the loya jirga. “Here is the meaning of the jirga,” Mr. Saleh said. “I don’t want to fight you. I even open the door to you. It was my mistake to push you into the mountains. The jirga was not a victory for the Afghan state, it was a victory for the Taliban.”

Mr. Karzai has been seeking to build bridges to the Taliban for months. Earlier this year, the president’s brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, held secret meetings with Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Taliban’s deputy commander, according to a former senior Afghan official.

According to Gen. Hilaluddin Hilal, the deputy interior minister in an earlier Karzai government, Ahmed Wali Karzai and Mr. Baradar met twice in January near Spin Boldak, a town on the border with Pakistan. The meeting was brokered by Mullah Essa Khakrezwal, the Taliban’s shadow governor of Kandahar Province, and Hafez Majid, a senior Taliban intelligence official, General Hilal said.

A Western analyst in Kabul confirmed General Hilal’s account. The senior NATO official said he was unaware of the meeting, as did Mr. Saleh. Ahmed Wali Karzai did not respond to e-mail queries on the meeting.

The resolution of that meeting was not clear, General Hilal said. Mr. Baradar was arrested in late January in a joint Pakistani-American raid in Karachi, Pakistan. But Mr. Karzai’s attempts to negotiate with the Taliban have continued, he said.

“He doesn’t think the Americans can afford to stay,” General Hilal said.

Mr. Saleh said that Mr. Karzai’s strategy also involved a more conciliatory line toward Pakistan. If true, this would amount to a sea change for Mr. Karzai, who has spent his nine years in office regularly accusing the Pakistanis of supporting the Taliban insurgency.

Mr. Saleh says he fears that Afghanistan will be forced into accepting what he called an “undignified deal” with Pakistan that will leave his country in a weakened state.

He said he considered Mr. Karzai a patriot. But he said the president was making a mistake if he planned to rely on Pakistani support. (Pakistani leaders have for years pressed Mr. Karzai to remove Mr. Saleh, whom they see as a hard-liner).

“They are weakening him under the disguise of respecting him. They will embrace a weak Afghan leader, but they will never respect him,” Mr. Saleh said.

Even though both the US and Karzai want to bring the Taliban to the bargaining table, it bothers me that Karzai not only has lost faith in the US/NATO forces, but he also believes that he's in a position to defend his power/authority against them without outside help. At least the US/NATO forces are a force to be reckoned with militarily; Karzai's relying on being able to bribe the Taliban, or that he can weather their repeated attacks.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I don't think it's that Karzai thinks he can weather the Taliban's attacks by himself so much as a realization that since we have announced that we are leaving next year, the Taliban have already won. All they have to do is launch the occasional attack and persist until we leave, at which time they will step up attacks and then take credit for driving us out of Afghanistan. (And they will be correct; war is more a contest of will than of strength.) Since we have already conceded the victory to the Taliban, his only hope of survival, let alone maintaining any power, is to cross over to the Taliban side before we exit. This is not at all uncommon in Afghan society and by itself won't cause him any problems, but he'll need some "justification" to avoid losing face and therefore facing the Taliban in a position of weakness.

As a corollary, we should have begun to rapidly pull out as soon as we announced our pullout. It makes absolutely no moral sense to continue sacrificing men and treasure once you have conceded defeat, although granted it may provide Obama some political cover.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Actually two questions are being asked or implied here.

1. Is Karzai a proper leader for Afghanistan at this time or a prior time? And IMHO, that is a big no.

2. Is Karzai correct in saying Nato cannot prevail in Afghanistan? And in this case, barring a almost 100% shift in Nato thinking and commitment, its my considered opinion that Karzai is going to be prove to be correct in that prediction, regardless if Nato fires or retains Karzai.

If anyone wants to know why I hold those opinions, they can read my back posts on the subject, because I am not going to pull an all nighter to explain them now.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
Since we have already conceded the victory to the Taliban, his only hope of survival, let alone maintaining any power, is to cross over to the Taliban side before we exit. This is not at all uncommon in Afghan society

Bingo.

Karzai, along with every other member of Afghan government, has no interest in anything but money. As soon as we are not there to give them millions of dollars, they will either leave the country or have to find another way to keep power. Any Afghan that dares show a shred of integrity is either killed by the government, or transferred somewhere as to not make trouble. It is the way of that country, and the State Department isn't doing a damn thing about it because that would be "meddling" in another country's politics.

The ONLY difference between a corrupt Afghan and a straight Afghan is opportunity.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
The only reason he's the president is because he wasn't a significant enough warlord to be killed during the initial power struggles.

He's playing us, he's a crook, like most of the government. He has a mansion in Dubai paid for by public money.

The minute he said he thought of joining the Taliban, we should have flipped him the bird and started packing it in. We'd see him getting beheaded on the internet in less than a month.

This country is worthless. Literally, there is nothing of value here. It's ungovernable, unprofitable and uncivilized. Once we leave, the people who managed to steal all of the money we pumped into this country will leave too. And all that will be left are Afghans being Afghans, living in the dirt and eking out an existence.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Yep- the Bushistas screwed the pooch in Afghanistan, propped up the corrupt Karzai govt, allowed the situation to fester, because they'd moved on to what they considered the real prize- Iraq.

The notion that Afghanistan could be subdued with 40K troops while ignoring the needs and desires of the rural population was intentional folly. The Bush Admin never intended victory, although it might have been achievable early on. That, or they were stupider and more ignorant than even I would allege.

It's starting to play out kinda like Vietnam- we're just looking for a way to save face, exit w/o taking lead in our backsides. Thanks, Dubya, Dickie, Donnie and all your friends in the PNAC. Too bad you won't be there when they put your stooge, Karzai, up against the wall...

But, of course, it'll be Obama's fault, right?
 

ModerateRepZero

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2006
1,572
5
81
Bingo.

Karzai, along with every other member of Afghan government, has no interest in anything but money. As soon as we are not there to give them millions of dollars, they will either leave the country or have to find another way to keep power. Any Afghan that dares show a shred of integrity is either killed by the government, or transferred somewhere as to not make trouble. It is the way of that country, and the State Department isn't doing a damn thing about it because that would be "meddling" in another country's politics.

The ONLY difference between a corrupt Afghan and a straight Afghan is opportunity.

Opportunity and courage =\ I think Afghanistan has already become like Mexico, where to be a capable AND honest individual is to be either exiled or a target by corrupt officials and/or criminals.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
This notion that Karzai is only in for the money strikes me as a very dangerous over simplification of a far larger hidden truth. Believe that and we cannot find realistic ways for Nato to win.

But propaganda does become a weapon of war for both Nato and the Taliban. But propaganda becomes a very dangerous two edged sword, when the entity inventing the propaganda becomes so delusional as to believe their own bullshit.

But for the ignoble prize of stinking thinking has to go to Nebor in saying, "This country is worthless. Literally, there is nothing of value here. It's ungovernable, unprofitable and uncivilized. Once we leave, the people who managed to steal all of the money we pumped into this country will leave too. And all that will be left are Afghans being Afghans, living in the dirt and eking out an existence."

Maybe its time to ask Nebor if:

1. He ever noticed why we are in Afghanistan, could it somehow have something to do with 911 and denying Al-Quida a whole country to call their own?

2. Even if there are no good military Targets in Afghanistan, and its a bloody football to squabble about among various sources, its always been and maybe always will be the #1 world source of opium poppies.

3. Even if Afghanistan and now the tribal regions of Pakistan are somewhat isolated and mired in Alexander the great technology, its right next door to Pakistan, Iran, and India. And a source of great instability for the entire region.

4. If the USA just finally proclaims some peace with honor, says whoopee we won, and sails home with their tail between their legs in shame, leaving Afghanistan far worse off then when we came, do you think the international community will do anything but totally reject US foreign policy?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
I'm really with LL on this. The situation isn't completely hopeless, but it's rendered much more difficult by years of stupidity and neglect.

One of the things about the Taliban that's not widely understood is that they were *not* corrupt. They walked the walk, did what they said, and actually managed to govern in their own primitive way in their own primitive society. Criminals were dealt with, disputes of various kinds solved according to traditional Afghan methods. They were consistent and honest, if totally unenlightened. Afghans could live with that, and respect it.

The Karzai govt has none of those attributes. Sometimes I think we'd be better off to deal with them the way that the Soviets dealt with Hafizullah Amin- just shoot the bastards, plug in new leadership. Which won't happen, of course.

Like I said- thanks a lot, arrogant Ziocon assholes. You really did us proud.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
The West has already prevailed against the Taliban. We just cannot sustain it with out completely taking over the country. The Afghans are responsible now. We have trained a new Afghan army. It is up to the population to resist the Taliban... but sadly it is a remote country and the people are going to be loyal to whoever offers the most protection... even if it means growing a beard and not flying kites.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,605
9,882
136
The West has already prevailed against the Taliban.

If prevailed means running back home in fear for our lives with our tails between our legs... then yes, The West has "prevailed". Now let's not EVER do that again. :mad:
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
This notion that Karzai is only in for the money strikes me as a very dangerous over simplification of a far larger hidden truth. Believe that and we cannot find realistic ways for Nato to win.

But propaganda does become a weapon of war for both Nato and the Taliban. But propaganda becomes a very dangerous two edged sword, when the entity inventing the propaganda becomes so delusional as to believe their own bullshit.

But for the ignoble prize of stinking thinking has to go to Nebor in saying, "This country is worthless. Literally, there is nothing of value here. It's ungovernable, unprofitable and uncivilized. Once we leave, the people who managed to steal all of the money we pumped into this country will leave too. And all that will be left are Afghans being Afghans, living in the dirt and eking out an existence."

Maybe its time to ask Nebor if:

1. He ever noticed why we are in Afghanistan, could it somehow have something to do with 911 and denying Al-Quida a whole country to call their own?

2. Even if there are no good military Targets in Afghanistan, and its a bloody football to squabble about among various sources, its always been and maybe always will be the #1 world source of opium poppies.

3. Even if Afghanistan and now the tribal regions of Pakistan are somewhat isolated and mired in Alexander the great technology, its right next door to Pakistan, Iran, and India. And a source of great instability for the entire region.

4. If the USA just finally proclaims some peace with honor, says whoopee we won, and sails home with their tail between their legs in shame, leaving Afghanistan far worse off then when we came, do you think the international community will do anything but totally reject US foreign policy?

As more and more ISAF nations bail on Afghanistan with every report published about the gross incompetence, inefficiency and insufficiency of the ANA and ANP, they're sending a message: This mission isn't worth our money or lives.

I work in a high HQ related to the development of the Afghan Army and Afghan police, and let me tell you, the revelations that come out at our bitch sessions are not pretty. Most of the time the response is, "Fuck... well at least we won't be here for that (because we'll have rotated back to the states and some other schmucks will have taken our place. )"
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Well - we tried to save the Afghan nation and people whilst insuring our own freedom from attack. The next time we are attacked by an entity sheltered by Afghanistan we can utterly destroy the nation in good conscience.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Well - we tried to save the Afghan nation and people whilst insuring our own freedom from attack. The next time we are attacked by an entity sheltered by Afghanistan we can utterly destroy the nation in good conscience.
We already destroyed Afghanistan.

The mountains shelter our enemies, not our puppet government.

As for not prevailing against the Taliban...no shit Sherlock. The Russians could have told us that before we invaded.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
The greatest threat to any military occupation is the anarchy that they bring with them.

Nato was unwilling to have a plan to fight that anarchy and instead tried to find a way to live with that anarchy. As a result Nato can't sell their turd of a Karzai government to the
the people that matter, Namely the Afghan people.

But military occupations on the total cheap never work, war colleges in every nation have known that for centuries, but somehow Rumsfeld convinced himself, GWB, and the neocons that they could do it now.

And now we find out military occupations on the cheap don't work. Who would ever a thought the genius of GWB could fail.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
A turd cannot be polished and institutionalized murderers replacing it aren't a good option.

Sorry boys, but this is a no win situation.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Allow a 3 month long scorched-earth campaign against all perceived enemy forces.

War will end in the wests favor and we can leave.

Bonus: with no one left to farm the opium, supplies will fall worldwide dramatically.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
A turd cannot be polished and institutionalized murderers replacing it aren't a good option.

Sorry boys, but this is a no win situation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Haybusa Rider, I can not share your total pessimism and despair, even at this late date and all the Nato fuck ups, I remain optimistic that its possible to salvage something from even Afghanistan.

More shattering to me is that realization that our own stupidity has left us in second place in a beauty contest with the Taliban. Maybe you Hayabusa are willing to accept that final verdict
as a win some lose some excuse, but I damn sure ask why did we lose to those rat finks and how could we possibly come in uglier than the Taliban??????????????

Of course I have been posting on this very subject for five years, advocating where Nato need to change, and as a reward I am reviled and called an unpatriotic nut. And if I am especially lucky I get called a twat.

Now effort failed, calling the Taliban ugly did not win Nato first place in the beauty contest, some are willing to throw in the towel rather than gasp understanding we need to change Nato tactics to start winning.