View source for Karzai Background Discussion

[[Karzai]]

11/11/09

'''Brother of Afghan Leader Is on C.I.A. Payroll'''

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1256707230/3#3

There's no way the US can fix Afghanistan. The Karzai government is as corrupt as General Diem was in South Vietnam. It's unsustainable. Democracy is Afghanistan is a charade, and everybody knows it.

It's a problem too. Next door, Pakistan is a nuclear power, and without a strong military, could easily be led in the direction of an extremist Islamic movement like the Mujahadeen or the Taliban.

The problem with democracy (if you could call it that) is that people sometimes vote in governments you don't like. I'm sure Machiavelli would concur.

It's a pity America isolated Iran for so long, because it seems that it's only credible power left in the middle east.

Bush's simplified foreign policy pronouncements (the Axis of evil, with us or against us, the war against terror, no dealing with terrorist regimes, et al) has left the middle east in a state of flux. Afghanistan is becoming the world's major opium producer, and this will bring its own problems.

If you've ever read about the politics of heroin in South East Asia, the links between Karzai, the CIA and the heroin trade should come as no surprise 40 years on.

The US will do business with whoever is there - it stuck with Sadam for 20 years. Unfortunately, there is no other way you CAN do business. You can't create your own leaders. The CIA will only back what's there.

This is why the CIA sunk funds into the National party in Australia during the Whitlam years. The Nats were hardly opium growing warlords, but they were closer to the Nixon administration's idea of a "centrist" party than (back then) Labor.

In Afghanistan, however, what's the alternative? Let the Taliban move back into Kabul and spread out from there?

Of course, the US could change strategies. A policy shift to tolerating and containing the Taliban will look terrible after 8 years in Afghanistan, but what's the choice? It's a complete mess, but it has always been a complete mess.

The only non-messy messes are when the media don't get wind of what's going on, and this is becoming increasingly likely, given the spread of celebrity tidbits and the watering down of hard news.

The US drastically need to change course. If they can't do this under Obama, how can they ever do it?

----

----

16/2/10

'''Opium fight a huge waste of money, US envoy admits'''

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1237761353/3#3

A fascinating article, Mantra. I believe some of it to be true.

Other stuff...

I'd be interested to see the link between Armitage and Haliburton (via Brown and Root), and real proof that the invasion of Afghanistan was driven by the Oil Pipeline scheme. It makes perfect sense, but sometimes the bleeding obvious is a ruse.

I'd like to see the facts.

Fascinating that the CIA led the invasion into Afghanistan. No wonder Tenant was eventually brought down - the scheming among Hawks like Rumsfeld and "outsiders" like Powell must have played a huge part, but Tennant was ultimately let loose because of the lack of WMD's in Iraq - just like powell.

They were cut down because of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and ultimately Bush's failings.

I also doubt that the US INTENTIONALLY created a narco-state to facilitate the pipeline scheme - no doubt to counter Russia in the region. I could be incredibly naive, but I believe that this was an unintentional result of US policy.

The idea that Karzai was a CIA operative - sure, it's likely. But the CIA gets information from many people in many regions. It doesn't necessarily connect the US to the drug trade.

The idea that the US are flying opium out of Afghanistan in coffins is silly.

Alfred McCoy is respectable when it comes to US involvement in the drug trade. He first wrote the Politics of Heroin in South East Asia about the Vietnam war. Some of the other sources...

Still, I'd love to know more. 

----

Actually, the move of heroin production from South East Asia to Central Asia probably happened in the mid 1990s, following the fall of the Soviets.

Previously, opium was grown there, but exported to be manufactured somewhere else. Europe was the primary market.

The fall of the Burmese warlord, Kun Sha, ended large scale export opium production in South East Asia. Once, this opium went to Hong Kong to be turned into heroin there. In Australia, we were still getting South East Asian heroin in Cabramatta in the early 2000s.

Pakistani heroin is largely brown, but I think they now produce some good export-grade white stuff. It was trickling through India in the mid 1990s.

In America, much of the heroin comes from Mexico.

The 90% figure from Afghanistan/Pakistan sounds very high. I doubt the Golden Triangle produces much heroin (for export) anymore, but Mexican production must be fairly high now.

We've always been "spoilt" with high-grade white heroin in Australia, but the prices were consistently high.

Europeans (and now Americans) are used to brown heroin (or "brown sugar"), which is not as good.

Mind you, they always stepped on the white with lactose, so it didn't make much difference in the end. 

----

You're so right. You should read that book Mr Nice, about how the IRA used to smuggle hash into the UK in their weapons crates. It's hilarious.

And I believe the Iran-Contra affair in the 1980s involved cocaine smuggling too, so it's no suprise coke was turning up in Germany.

It's impossible to find out how high up the chain these things go. Those on the bottom always take the rap if exposed.

I wonder if its even possible for corruption to occur within the CIA at the lower operative levels. With the sort of recruitment and training processes involved, you'd think intelligence officers would be pretty influenced from the top-down, but again - I could be naive. 

----

----

9/4/10

'''Karzai threatens to join Taliban'''

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1270724010/2#2

Sounds like a remark made out of frustration. Karzai is the US's puppet president. He's come under increasing international scruitiny (read US) to reform Afghanistan's corrupt electoral process.

Karzai would be subsumed by the Taliban - his power would not last long if he defected. The Taliban are - again - the number one power in Afghanistan. The US generals are now conceeding their ineffectiveness against the Taliban's growing power.

It's now eight years of US occupation, and things are returning to pre-2001 - same-same but different. The urban elite have a different agenda to the rural sector. The warlords have never reached a stable consensus. The Taliban appear united.

I believe the US will slowly come around to dealing with the Taliban. If the Taliban can show that they aren't a real threat to the oil and gas flows, I'm sure the US would be prepared to do business with them.

After all, they're prepared to deal with the warlords who produce the world's greatest supply of illegal opium. Why not deal with a slightly modified and renewed Taliban?

It will come to this, I think. 

----

----

13/4/10

'''Karzai 'threatens to join Taliban''''

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1271039240/8#8

"Our lands?" And how would you define "our lands?" Could you define "Christian lands" in the same way, or would this read as colonialism?

This platform is straight out of Al Qaeda. How do you define who the pirates and despots are?

The Taliban aren't despots?

How could the US possibly sign a "treaty" with Al Qaeda? There's no territorial sovereignty to begin with.

This reads as undiluted fundamentalist Kool Aid to me. I understand the need to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan - I understand the need to stop meddling. I can fully understand the need to solve the Palestinian problem.

But the reality is that US hegemony will continue, and the struggle for remaining oil reserves will go on. The only virtue of groups like the Taliban is their potential longitivity. Looking to the future, they have the potential to be around longer than the US's hold on global power - and certainly the US's hold on the Afghani government.

I understand the frustration and anger, but I don't get the selectively applied notion of Muslim brotherhood - more fundamentalist Kool Aid. The world of Arab and Islamic politics is more labrinthine than the colonial alliances prior to WWI.

All Muslims are equal, but some are more equal than others.

There will be no unconditional treaties with the US - we all know this. If this is the best the "Muslim" world can come up with, we're all doomed.

The best groups like the Taliban can hope for is quiet assimilation with US development interests in the region. This is the way Musharraf played it in Pakistan. If the Taliban could put up with quiet, backroom meetings with US colonels, nod their heads politely, and actually attempt to distribute the aid that's available, they'd prosper.

But can they? It seems to me that the problems facing us lie with rhetoric, not objectives. Groups like Al Qaeda prosper through popular appeal to Muslim anger - but countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan will not develop through continual war. Real lives are at stake.

I think Muslims should question how their own antithetical stance to the West hinders their own living standards. Once again, I can understand it, but I can't see how such a heightened state of continual warfare is going to solve anything.

I actually think that much of this "Muslim solidarity" call comes from privaleged Muslims in the West - Muslims whose growing affluence brings about middle class guilt. Their own sense of "affluenza" brings about a shift in their own cultural identity - a shift against consumerism - but this shift becomes usurped by a call to jihad against the West.

I aknowledge that it's our problem too: we do discriminate against Muslims in many Western countries - just look at many of the arguments on this board. But its Muslims themselves that must tackle their own alienated discourses - discourses of violent jihad, etc - discourses that, in their extreme, foster suicide and mass murder.

I agree that the US should leave its puppet leaders in the middle east despite the consequences, real or imagined. The US has been against democracy in the middle east since WWII.

But we know that Al Qaeda and the Taliban will not bring democracy either. The US's stooges (like Saddam) are hardly a benign dictators, but what exactly is the Taliban? 

----


This is a very good point. I must admit, I've always wondered what faith is.

I say forget faith, and go for experience. The problem with religion is that it often solely teaches faith, when it should teach techniques to master yourself.

Faith, however, is faking it until you make it. You need to believe you're on the right path just to practice. Self development takes a whole life.

To me, it makes no difference what path you practice: Christian, Muslim, Jew. The proof is in the pudding.

The tree with the most fruit bows the lowest. The more spiritual you are, the more humble. We don't get this in the West. We think you have to be full of yourself to get anywhere, and we think getting anywhere is what it's all about.

What I like about Islam is its focus on humility. Sure, there are a few nutcases out there, but Islam itself teaches people to be gentle.

It's the politics that get in the way - always the politics. If Muslims are prepared to go against their religion and practice violence, they've lost it.

----

Jordan, I issue you with a challenge: go and meet an educated Muslim and discuss this question with them. It wouldn't be too hard - just start up a friendly chat. I'm sure they'll talk with you.

If they disagree, I'll eat my words and become a global Islamo-conspiracist. I'll join in on every anti-Muslim rant/joke of the day on this board, and generally spread as much fear and panic as I can.

In my experience, based on my travels and on meeting people from all over the world (as I'm sure you have), I have found Muslims to be very accomodating, generous and humble. It is taught in Islam to treat guests well - no matter who they are, and I imagine this teaching must have imparted something over the years.

If you really think you'll be killed for disagreeing, lock the door and stay inside. They're out there, you know.

Otherwise, go out and engage with the world. Life's too short to live in hate.

----

It certainly DOES come from their books: read Psalms if you don't read anything else.

The very meaning of Islam is submission to God, which is the practice of humility. I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, but if you're going to judge without first knowing, you're making a very big mistake.

Your judgements should at least come from your experience - not some third-hand social/political dogma.

It's very easy to say what others should do - much harder to do it yourself. Before we even talk about a value like humility we should practice it. People learn from our actions, not our words.

Likewise, Mozzoak, the same goes with "understanding" and "accommodating" others - we need to practice this before we send in the dogs and the waterboarding, because THIS is the crisis of modernity we've seen since Sept 11 - the US's decline into a state that legitimises torture, rendition, false arrest and imprisonment without trial.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap - I'm not advocating more violence, just the apparent laws of nature.

I understand your stance, Jordan. I was once a card-carrying athiest. My own experiences taught me that there is something other than materialism that drives this world, and sure, I read lots of books - some dogma, some not.

But blind, tribal hatred is ignorance. If others don't have the ability to understand this, we have laws in place to deal with it. We don't need a constant state of war to deal with life - it only makes things worse.

After all, we live in Australia for Christ's sake. I can't think of a more peaceful place or a more stable economy. If you've got issues with the local Leb boys or whatever, there are people to deal with it. This is hardly Palestine.

To be honest, I've never understood why white Australians would have such huge problems with Muslims - hardly any of us know any. But that's how it works - the less you see of the enemy, the better it is to those who manufacture consent. In 1984, the enemy was just a rumour.

Hatred is not productive, it will only cause more hatred. If others live in this cycle, it's easy, especially in Australia: just stay away from them.

----

The KKK is a single-interest group with paid-up members. Islam is a set of beliefs and religious practices, often differing widely in whatever region you find yourself in. Can we say the ideology of Alcoholics Anonomous is "evil"?

I must say, for an athiest (or agnostic) you've conceptualized the ethical domain of "evil" rather incongruently - but I'm sure religious fundamentalists would concur. Perhaps you can rest assured that Muslims will all go to hell.

----

Yes, I know - if you go out to the Auburn Oval on Saturday, you'll see them all throwing stones at each other. Bloodshed! Primative! Brutal!

I aknowledge that religious discourses can fall prey to religious zeal, and to the practices Freediver describes. I can't defend stoning, and I can't defend suicide/mass homicide. I can't defend the practice and beliefs of many Muslims.

But I don't think Muslims all submit to a political ideology. This is like saying Christians are all flat-earthists and climate skeptics.

And you don't see orthadox Jews stoning each other in Bondi Junction either. Take this one for J_h_va!

The religious CAN fall into to zealotry - as can Zionists, as can Baptists and Hindus. Islam has a range of schools and ideas, including reformist elements. My argument is that you become just as fundamentalist if you paint a large section of the world as evil without knowing WHAT they stand for.

This isn't knowledge, it's witch-hunting.

----

My brother, adulterers are not innocent people. They have sinned in the eyes of God. 

----

My dear one, severing of the body parts cannot occur until it is proven that the evil-one has sinned. They must prove they are blameless, God willing, and an unstained witness must state that they saw the shame occur. If the criminal's family wishes to pay for retribution, the sinner will not be mutilated, so there is much cause to rectify one's sinful actions within the process of mercy.

God wills all things, my friend, and we are all shameful in God's eyes.

----

You have just sinned by saying this. I should not even have quoted you, may Allah have mercy on my soul. I shall be forgiven for being pure of heart, insh'alla. Allah Akbar.

You will burn in hell for all eternity, evil one. Your skin will be restored so that it may burn again. You will have no respite from this agony, and the angels shall rejoice at your torment.

Your grave shall be urinated upon by jackals. People will remember you and curse. Your name will be used in vein and slurred. Everyone shall know the name of Jordan484 and spit at its mention, Allah be praised.

----

Effende, I am aware you are not Jordan, God be praised. You are Jordan484. May your name be sung by the angels in heaven for all to hear.

----

----

19/4/10

'''Karzai threatens to join Taliban'''

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1271658987

It will be a new relationship if he does. I don't know why it's a "threat." I wouldn't "threaten" to join the Royal Automobile Club, for example, I'd just join.

If I could.