Hamid Karzai is not an idiot

[somebozo]

A puppet gets a deal from his master ruling a country whose refugees still beg to live in Iran and Pakistan camps...very funny!

Afghanistan will have a viable future if it can bring all its neighbors especially China, Russia, Pakistan and CAR to the table for mutual security and rehabilitation pact. But Afghanistan seems to find its allies in countries which share no border and cultural ties with it ie: India and USA...and even funnier is the fact that US needs Pakistan to get supplies into Afghanistan....so dear Afghanis..dont ask Pakistan & Iran to twist your arm because both of them pack enough punch to render you arm-less for life...

Afghanistan are responsible for their situation today because they always rode on the shoulders of foreign powers to work against their immediate neighborliness and these historical follies are still being touted as strategic success by some Afghan leaders...

And no word on Afghani citizens taking part in terrorist activities inside Pakistan..we could launch a surgical strike inside Afghanistan for our own safety but then Karzai would get all emotional about Afghan gairat!

 

[Pukhtoon]

Loled at ally .. Why they even signed to prove that you (Afghan) are USA ally. ? Coz they can you use the whole Afghanistan (i mean 28%) for their wishes ... for army basses for puppy or what ever it is and for keeping an eye on Iran/China/Russia/or Pakistan etc..

Why they are making you an ally ? lol your army will go and fight with them against Iran ? or China ? like NATO ?

For Karzai if i am not wrong he is setting there and enjoying the presidency just bcoz of ISI.. it was ISI who make him won in the elections.

Pakistan is not more an Ally wowww thats great Guys be happy if it is true..

But why they are crying the supply route ?

 

[iajj]

pakistan and its friends won't be surprised by this diplomatic coup by karzai and the americans if they look into the essence of anglo-american diplomacy

americans have long decided that, although the war is fought in afghanistan, pakistani effort is far more important to the war than afghan effort (first because pakistan is a much bigger nation with much bigger population and economy and thus has lots more to lose from a failed mission and second because pakistan is a more cohesive nation whose populace still deeply cares about their nation's destiny and sovereignty and security whereas to the north we have only a bunch of tribals and ethnics who don't give a damn about the long term survivability of a unified state and don't invest in it). given that pakistan is the one "ally" who is expected to do all the heavylifting despite the american origin of the war and violence, americans did what brits and americans always did to their most important allies - they backstab them. all other lesser, marginal allies (poles, aussies, latvians, even bonzi, and even afgahsn themselves) brits and american would reward lavishly and try to bribe them for symbolic support, but with the one war partner who must actually do all the fighting the anglo-americans always punish and threaten with a big stick (like what americans are doing to pakistan and what brits once did to habsburg in the napoleonic wars): don't believe in the trash the brits and americans feed to their public about how they were singularly brave and determined in fighting the world's evil (napoleon or taliban); it is always someone else - austrians, pakistans, or russians in ww ii - who do the real fighting. and precisely because the latter are making monumental sacrifices, anglo-american diplomacy dictates that there is no possible and no adequate compensation for the fighting they commit their "allies" to. so they perversely do the very opposite: to humiliate, to punish, to squeeze the one "ally" who would do the actual fighting. this is cunning diplomatic calculation - and most shameless and ruthless. those partners whom anglo-americans are asking for the most difficult sacrifices in human lives and resources the anglo-americans will never buy off - too costly to reward these partners justly, americans will take a knife to the former and stab them viciously.

this cardinal principle of anglo-american diplomacy alone accounts for why americans are still rewarding the inept karzai and half-hearted afghans and at the same time withhold the most measly funds to pakistanis and their valiant soldiers who actually shed blood for americans in this war and endured irreparable damage to their nation's economy, infrastructure and basic social fabric. for americans have known from the start that while afhgan obedience can be cheaply bought, pakistan cooperation must be secured with bald-faced threats, shameless blackmails, and cold-blooded backstabs.

 

[saiyan0321]

how is that a advantage america can come and make bases and as long as america is their peace wont be their the pashtun population hate america even if some hate the taliban they hate america more and why not after all that has happened but never the less this agreement is nothing more then a hallway pass for america to make more bases. we were their major non nato ally and we were treated like garbage heck worse then garbage. i am glad that now we are finally heading towards freedom where we are no longer slave to american wars if afghanistan wants to be then they can but be sure to have some sacrifices and then thrown away bcz that is what America does. its not a "diplomatic victory" its a "long term failure". diplomatic victory would have been is to convince america to start evacuating troops and to get not AID but long term investments. yeah great going the most corrupt leader just made agreements for AID money and sold his country very cunningP:

 

[Aslan]

Actually Taliban seeded the idea of promoting Poppy Cultivation.
US was no saint, they did not occupy Afgan to give it back to the Afganis, they came to kill the scumbags responsible for 9/11. and yes that was not their duty to carpet bomb the poppy fields.

Right on the first part, very very far off the track on the second. IF u think US gave 2 hoots abt anything. Their presence in Afghanistan is of completely different reason. And so is their puppets signing of the contracts of all sorts, including the strategic one with them. And if ya want to know the reason, just pull up a map and see where Afghanistan is, the only issue is the lack of a sea port, and that they are pushing for through Pakistan, well not just pushing but bullying for, and if it comes down to it, they will not hesitate for a single sec in calling for Balochistans secession from Pakistan, and for which they are already active inthe background. So no they are not there to avenge 9/11.

 

[Rig Vedic]

A puppet gets a deal from his master ruling a country whose refugees still beg to live in Iran and Pakistan camps...very funny!

Aren't you about to reopen NATO routes?

An Afghan might think, why be a slave of slaves? Why not deal directly with NATO.

 

[Awesome]

THE much-underrated and maligned Hamid Karzai is after all not such a dunce. On May 1, the Afghan president pulled off a major diplomatic deal to give Afghanistan an edge it had never enjoyed over Pakistan. Nominated at Bonn more than a decade ago as Afghan chief and ‘elected’ twice in ballot exercises of doubtful validity, Mr Karzai must now be scoffing at Pakistan to his heart’s delight.

The 10-year Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA), signed by President Barack Obama and Mr Karzai a day before the first anniversary of the SEALs’ Abbottabad raid, has brought about a radical shift in the regional balance of power, with Afghanistan emerging in a stronger position vis-à-vis Pakistan in terms of security guarantees from America.

Because Islamabad failed to satisfy the US that it was acting in a way commensurate with Pakistan’s status as a ‘major non-Nato’ ally, Washington has had the pleasure of twisting Islamabad’s arm by deciding to give the same status now to Afghanistan. As the SPA’s sub-clause 3 of article III says, America will designate Afghanistan a major non-Nato ally to “help provide a long-term framework for mutual security and defence cooperation”. In short, while Pakistan is no more America’s ally, Afghanistan is. The agreement expires in 2024, a long time, and has enviable room for Mr Karzai’s friends in New Delhi.

Another clause — 9 of article III — has immense and frightful implications for Pakistan: it recognises that Afghanistan’s stability contributes to the development and stability of South-Central Asia, and therefore the United States affirms that “it shall regard with grave concern any external aggression against Afghanistan. Were this to occur”, America and Afghanistan will “hold consultations on an urgent basis” to develop “an appropriate response, including … political, diplomatic, economic, or military measures …”

Who is suspected of having committed or who may commit “external aggression” against Afghanistan? Most certainly no other neighbour save the one on the east of the Durand Line. The agreement by implications is Pakistan-specific, and to expect any Kabul government not to use this agreement to its maximum advantage against Pakistan is to be naïve. Pakistan’s newly developed foreign policy mechanism is ponderous — ponderous not because it is inherently so, but because it is new, untested and is in the process of evolution. The parliamentary committee’s recommendations and its adoption by parliament took five months. In these five crucial months we stood motionless while Mr Karzai had the common sense to move with speed. While he clinched a deal with the superpower, we continued to lament Salala and expected the world to shed tears with us. Nobody bothered to.

The gravity of a crisis that perpetuated itself in various forms — Raymond Davis, Abbottabad and Salala — had required a quick response acceptable to both Pakistan and the US. Instead, if there was any activity that was visible, it was the ‘religious’ mobocracy whose howls and shrieks occupied centre stage. The brains behind this street demagogy did not realise that at stake was the future of Pakistan’s relations not just with the superpower but with 49 other nations, including EU countries, Canada, Australia, Japan and many others.

Pakistan’s non-Nato ally status had a potential — but a potential which Islamabad never had the wisdom to exploit. Mr Karzai exploited our stupidity with remarkable success and may now adopt a stance much tougher than he ever has towards Pakistan.

All said and done, Mr Karzai is not an idiot.

Source: Hamid Karzai is not an idiot | DAWN.COM

It is such a tragedy that of all people the Afghans no longer think we are their khair khwah (well wishers), we wish them well although we highly doubt with doing the same thing that we failed at, you would have it any better.

You can't do a wrong thing better or more efficiently and expect great results. Ghulami is wrong and will always be. We still wish Afghanistan a better outcome than what we got.

 

[Rod of God]

thank god we are not ally of USA.

Pakistans support of Bin Laden proved that.

we have just one last wish please USA close its consulates and break diplomatic ties with pakistan so we can have full peace in country and our 70% problems solved .

I wish !! And then we could throw the Paks out of New York at the U.N. and their embassies in the U.S. GREAT !!! I don't know why we ever hooked up with the back-stabbers in the first place. India would make a MUCH BETTER partner.

congs to afghans for new pact they have nothing to lost .but one thing is clear they day 2014 taliban start bombing mortars shells on kabul karzai will must remember Mohammad Najibullah"s death andkarzai will must call pakistan for save his life.

I agree with you on this one. When NATO (U.S.) leaves, Karzai gets skinned alive by the Talibs. Unless he runs to Iran first.

 

[iajj]

I agree with you on this one. When NATO (U.S.) leaves, Karzai gets skinned alive by the Talibs. Unless he runs to Iran first.

i think you are right indians make better allies to US than pakistan, both in terms of the innate indian servility and in terms of a common foe in china. for its own benefit, US should cut pakistan loose (not that many pakistanis would give a ****), but the odious political system in the US means it can never make the right choice: there is simply not much indians can help americans in afghanistan, no matter how hard indians would want to prove their usefulness to their american overlords; the key to some resemblance of success of the american war against islam is in pakistan's hands (again, not that pakistan should give a damn to america's domestically-driven agenda in central asia; most of pakistan clearly don't at this point). americans can cut a few billions in economic aid in retaliation, but the loss of the money wouldn't sway pakistanis' opinion on zardari if he runs for reelection, whereas any sitting president in US dreads of not showing accomplishments in afghanistan.

to put it simply, in terms of national security, afghanistan is far more important to pakistan than to US (why the hell are the americans still there? even china has more at stake in central asia, honestly), although the two's strategic objectives in afghanistan are light years apart (and US has already made india its sole ally in the region, if we speak of this alliance not of combining forces and capabilities but of sharing the common goal of backstabbing pakistan in afghanistan). in terms of electoral politics, however, US depends more on pakistan than the other way around.

ten years from now when we look back, we will condemn american domestic politics for how it screwed up its adventure in afghanistan (and screwed up afghanistan as well, but from a chinese perspective, the more momentous and more lasting legacy of the war would be americans screwing up themselves; screwing up afghanistan would be a tiny footnote to americans' own perception of history, trust me: this is also how they reminisce vietnam). given its vast power, given the lack of any fundamental interest and therefore the abundant choices, this war would have been totally winnable (the american position is so advantageous that it could be winning even when it is losing the war), so in the end demagoguery in the united states doomed americans (and afghans) to this fate.

 

[Vassnti]

The simple proof is Karzai is still there and still alive, trying to manage some sort of stable goverment in Afghanistan is about as easy as jugling plates while tap dancing in a mine field it may not be pretty it may not be stable long term but things are sort of holding together which is more than many expected of him.

 

[53fd]

Karzai's actions are further dividing & splitting Afghan society, while he aims to benefit personally; serving as a proxy/puppet to foreign forces against his own people.

 

[Loy Afghanistan]

Afghans are not against the return of Taliban! they want them to lay down their guns and stop working on 'others' directions and join their brothers! Taliban in this government will bring significant changes to the system, the major problem with the current government is not giving justice to locals and Taliban can give justice to them; by justice I mean the whole thing that's going wrong in Afghanistan today, from bribe to social violence! the rest is almost OK with this government.

Both India and Pakistan can contribute to a better future of Afghanistan and today if anyone who blames us for signing this pact should first look into what they did to Afghans and Afghanistan than blame themselves.

Malang Jan, I thoroughly enjoy your posts, thanks bro.

 

[airmarshal]

This article - 9 of article III - was most hilarious to read.

The aggressor warning of external aggression. America's policies are abundant with hypocrisies and contradictions.

 

[xyxmt]

Amreeka and their strategic partnership, dont we know it brother!!