News & Analysis
Is Karzai a Nut?
First, a recap: In February, Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai (left) responded to widely believed allegations that he stole last year's election. His answer: he would personally appoint a committee to investigate the charges. The solution failed to impress U.S. officials, who had pressed for a complete and transparent investigation of the election. The Americans responded by reneging on an expected invitation to Karzai (Hon.'05) to visit the White House. That in turn displeased Karzai, who chose to invite Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Kabul, where, predictably, Ahmadeinejad ranted about America's evil intentions throughout the world. Karzai's move confused many people and annoyed President Obama, who flew to Kabul, visited with U.S. troops, and sat down to a surprise dinner with the Afghani president. Just a few days later, Karzai warned in a speech to the Afghani people that "there is a thin curtain between invasion and cooperation-assistance." What could possibly happen next? In what looks increasingly like the script of a political farce, it's hard to say. For insight, BU Today turned to Nick Mills, an associate professor of journalism in the College of Communication and author of Karzai: The Failing American Intervention and the Struggle for Afghanistan (2007). – BU Today
Dominant Social Theme: Insights, please. We're puzzled that the war is not going better.
Free-Market Analysis: This interview with Professor Nick Mills of Boston University is interesting because he apparently knows Hamid Karzai first-hand and has written a book about him. Thus the interview contained in this interview has not been sanitized so far as we can tell by the US military or the Pentagon itself.
The rest of this article will deal with the information contained in the interview. We won't deal, then, directly with Karzai's mental state, but readers can come to their own conclusions as to whether Karzai is unbalanced or has been justified in airing recent and well publicized complaints about his Western "allies" in the war against the Taliban. Karzai apparently believes that the US and its allies ought to negotiate now with the Taliban versus later, and that war itself should be wound down as soon as possible. Here's some more from this intriguing interview:
Q: Should we dump [Karzai]?
A: We can't do that. Afghanistan has a constitution now. We made Afghanistan create a parliamentary democracy. Who are we to say that's now out the window? ...
Q: Obama ordered a troop surge in December, promising to begin withdrawals mid-2011. You were skeptical, but might he prove skeptics wrong, as the Iraq surge did?
A: There's a different set of circumstances in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think there's ever going to be a military solution to this – and Obama didn't say the rate of withdrawals. It could be one soldier a day for all anyone knows. That causes everyone to hedge their bets.
Q: What would you advise Obama to do now?
A: Begin the withdrawals and match that with a corresponding increase on the civilian side in aid to education and health and infrastructure. Find a way to better the lives of the Afghanis.
Q: Are we doing that now?
A: Yes, but it's increasing the peril by increasing the troop levels. They're now seen as an occupying army, like the Soviets.
Q: Do we need at least a minimal troop force to ensure that Afghanistan doesn't re-emerge as a terrorist haven?
A: That we can ensure pretty well from a distance. You have good intelligence on the ground and in the air. There's no reason for al-Qaeda to go back into Afghanistan. They can go anywhere; they just need a cave in the mountains. In the Iraq surge, we bought off the Sunni sheiks. In Afghanistan, the people we'd have to buy off are the Taliban. A lot of the Taliban are not hard-core ideologues. Karzai, to his credit, has wanted all along to negotiate with them.
We wanted to quote this part of the interview because in only a few short answers (in no particular order) Mills makes some astonishing points. In several hundred words, this American journalist asserts that the US is increasingly seen as an "occupying army," that the Iraq surge worked because the US "bought off the Sunni sheiks." And finally, the US "made Afghanistan create a parliamentary democracy."
This is not in-line with the wider American story line either about Iraq or Afghanistan – not that the American military or the US political establishment has bothered with a congruent explanation of the war. But if someone were to try to explain the American messaging it would include the idea that the Afghan people "wanted" a parliamentary democracy, that the Iraq surge worked because of the military strategy and no one was "paid off," and finally that the American military is in the midst of winning the "hearts and minds" of the average Afghan.
In fact, we don't believe the Afghans – especially the tribal Pashtuns, some 40 million strong – had any desire for either a Parliament or Western style regulatory democracy. We think, from everything we've read in the non-mainstream press, that the surge did absolutely nothing (or very little) to secure a victory in Iraq – but that reported truckbeds full of American money that rolled into Sunni strongholds (and continue to this day, apparently) did a great deal to purchase Iraqi peace for the moment.
As far as winning "hearts and minds" go, as we were involved in this modest composition, there came reports that the Taliban had shot and killed the deputy mayor of Kandahar. Meanwhile, the US military apparently shot four children that it mistook for Taliban infiltrators. The US, at this writing, continues to deny that the apparent children were something other than terrorists.
Yes, the violence continues, and there is no guarantee of its surcease, short of US and allied withdrawal from Afghanistan. While US president Barack Obama has indicated a US withdrawal will indeed take place, the immediate reality is actually a troop build up in anticipation of further campaigns. What is strange about this strategy is that much of the progress announced in both Afghanistan and Iraq seems aimed at propagandizing home audiences rather than describing the reality of the war.
Allied forces can announce another victory once they invade and "secure" the upcoming target of Kandahar, but the "victory" will likely prove as ephemeral as previous victories in Afghanistan. Over the past century, there have been many such, secured at the cost of Western (and Russian) blood and treasure. They haven't lasted. The Kandahar victory, once it arrives, will not be any longer-lasting, we would judge, if history is a guide.
Conclusion: It's been the Bell's contention that the West (especially the Anglo-American axis) has fought an additional two wars over a ten-year period in the Middle East to generally extend its influence via the imposition of "democracy" and the construction of vast military bases. Ultimately, the nation-building in which the axis is involved may come to naught. But it only serves as a justification for the underlying intention, which was to project yet more military power into this bleeding and wretched part of the world. The military bases will likely remain even after a withdrawal of most of the troops. These bases will be the most tangible result of a decade's-worth of military conflict. Both Afghanistan and the West, especially Britain and America, will have paid a grievous price for their construction, especially if the war continues and escalates once again. Does Karzai, perhaps, have a point?
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by Zanaid on 04/28/10 11:02 PM
"The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time."
-Fred Hoyle 1982
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thanks. They call it "fossil fuel" for a reason ... A promotion?
|
Posted by Finninsweden on 04/22/10 10:34 AM
"Yes, but since oil is a naturally reoccurring substance (abiotic).... "What makes you think oil is abiotic? Can you direct me to some good research i should read about? I am a regular listener to Jim Puplavas radio show,and he is a supporter of the peak oil theory, and I think he almost ridiculed the abiotic oil idea,so this should be interesting...
Reply from The Daily Bell
Here, just from the first page we Googled ...
Abiotic Oil ...
There is some speculation that oil is abiotic in origin -- generally asserting that oil is formed from magma instead of an organic origin. ...
Click to view link - Cached - Similar
The 'Abiotic Oil Controversy | Energy Bulletin
6 Oct 2004 ... The situation is actually the reverse of the one Kenny implies: most geologists assume that the Russian abiotic oil hypothesis, ...
Click to view link - Cached - Similar
Abiotic Oil: Science or Politics?
4 Oct 2004 ... According to some versions of the abiotic oil theory, oil is continuously ... Normally, the discussion of abiotic oil oscillates between the ...
Click to view link - Cached - Similar
Abiotic Oil -- Reserves Replenished by Process in Earth's Mantle?
Addressing the theory in circulation that oil is not solely of organic origin, but that there may be another mode of origin as well from deeper in the crust ...
Click to view link - Cached
Abiotic Oil and Gas: A Theory That Refuses To Vanish - Vinod Dar ...
3 Feb 2010 ... The Russians, being a communist based society and not capitalists would want to find the proof of abiotic oil to provide for everyone in the ...
Click to view link vanish - Cached
The Environmental Literacy Council - Abiotic Theory
2 Apr 2008 ... The abyssal, abiotic theory of oil formation continues to receive attention due to the work of retired Cornell astronomy professor Thomas ...
Click to view link - Cached - Similar
Abiotic Oil
Enter abiotic oil, also called "inorganic oil," the theory that oil is not from dead dinosaurs but from chemical reactions in the Earth's mantle. ...
Click to view link - Cached - Similar
Directory:Abiotic Oil - PESWiki
"Fossil" Fuel and Abiotic Oil - Who came up with the theory/concept/idea that petroleum-based products came from the dead remains of dinosaurs (dino-juice)? ...
Click to view link - Cached
Abiotic Oil Theory: The Bane of Enviro-Marxists by: admin ...
8 Feb 2008 ... What would happen if it were proven that 'fossil fuels weren't the result of decaying plant and animal matter, were actually created within ...
Click to view link enviro-marxists/ - Cached - Similar
|
Posted by Bill Ross on 04/22/10 08:57 AM
"But oil companies don't want to dig domestically or locally..."The US intends to be the last industrial / military power standing, once resources from the Rest Of the Planet (ROP) have been consumed / controlled. ROP is planned to be serfs and vassals (or dead) as is the bulk of US "surplus", non elite useful population...
Reply from The Daily Bell
Yes, but since oil is a naturally reoccurring substance (abiotic) and because there is so much of it around, absent regulatory control, and because there are so many energy alternatives available, the US may have to wait a long time to be the "last one standing ..."
|
Posted by S.A.Williams on 04/21/10 11:17 PM
Bottom Line: Pashtun tribalism is stronger than a western-imposed constitution. As much as the West hates to admit it, the real decisions are taken in the Jurga (the tribal council of Afghanistan's ethnicities). The talking heads of the Afghan government are well aware that the survival of Afghanistan depends on the matrix of tribalism and loyalty. Karzai's deals with "the warlords" is both shrewd and pragmatic. In the end, the western-imposed constitution will be NATO's epitaph. (Right now, German troops are demanding a meeting with Angela Merkel to explain why they should be there).
Reply from The Daily Bell
Wonder what she'll say.
|
Posted by Paul on 04/21/10 06:42 PM
"We have done an interview with the author."
Thanks for the link, it was great! You guys are so far ahead of everything, it's amazing! Do you perhaps have the winning lottery numbers for tomorrow? LOL
Reply from The Daily Bell
Glad you enjoyed it.
|
Posted by SP on 04/21/10 05:35 PM
When the US sponsored government in Afghanistan starts to to act independent shouldn't that be considered a success? The US are in the region for many reasons, the forces there are now highly trained in dessert gorilla warfare, this might come in handy during the invasion of Iran.
As a military leader Obama is as disappointing as we expected. He was voted in on the platform of "bring home the troops" not to run a military machine to fight and win wars. I can't help but feel badly for the men and women giving their lives for a undefined reason. They can't have much faith in their leader.
The retort is how to get out, not how to win. Vietnam comes to mind a lot lately. Its hard to fight when you don't have a defined goal. Occupation is what invading Armies do, why is this not plain to see. Even though Obama made a stand through is impromptu visit it doesn't appear to have intimidated anyone. The USA's cynics are loving this show of the big guy falling all over himself.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Good points.
|
Posted by Duane Bass on 04/21/10 04:44 PM
It is all about squandering money on countries that are backwards in ideology and education. . .
|
Posted by Clayton on 04/21/10 02:32 PM
What unites Oil, Opium, Israel, the CIA, the Mossad, MI6?Control!
Only a complete simpleton would believe that this so-called War on Terror is about the bearded man (men) in a cave.These bases are like the stents used in Chemotherapy. They are their to inject poison into the societies in which they are placed so as to kill off any locally grown reaction to the domination of the global Power Click to view link took a World War to implant one in the center of Europe.
These have actually not been that expensive. They have been subsidized by our trading partners, as one can see in our ever present trade deficits.The long Cold War helped considerably. That is why we did our best to keep the Soviet Union going. From providing the original Bolsheviks seed money during World War I, to providing them essentially free grain during the 1970's and 80's, it was a project of that poisoned pairing of the intelligence services, the banks, and the Military Industrial Complex.
It worked.The platform-based economic model that the Chinese Communists have adopted has neutralized them.The continual destabilization of the Indian sub-continent is ongoing and doing what it is intended to do, marginalize New Delhi in global Click to view linkssia has been reduced to a declining backwash, whose only path to recovery is a partnership with Germany (as I have discussed with you before).
By using the inherent contradictions in the EU project to keep Germany off balance, the likelihood of such a partnership, however beneficial to the two parties involved, has been effectively blocked.Logic would have it that the Islamic World is next.Knowing the Strategy, what are the best and most probable tactics to be employed?
For those of us old enough to remember the 1960's and 70's, think back to how the government in DC dealt with the issue of racial conflict in the US. Increased welfare availability (the so-called Great Society), racial preferences in hiring and university admissions, and most importantly the bringing into the bureaucratic matrix of all those in the black leadership who could be bought off with a combination of cash and a chance to "make a difference."
It worked, too!
All this costs a lot of money, and it is money we don't have. Here's the rub that makes calamity of the successful fulfillment of such a scheme. The thought that as it appeared to be reaching its completion, its marginal costs would begin to increase exponentially and on approaching this asymptotic event would collapse do to its unsustainability.After all, who benefits from this evil scheme but the misfits, parasites, hanger ons, sociopaths, self-deceivers and bullies of the world. There is not and will never be enough production on this planet to satisfy their lust, vanity and avarice.So, on that rests my hopes. They may be a long time coming.
|
Posted by Imhotep on 04/21/10 12:45 PM
"War is a racket"! Major General Smedley Butler!
Quote:A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?
Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few " the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
And what is this bill?
This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations."
Does this excerpt from Mr Butler appears ring a bell?
Less than 3 percent of the US population control a large portion of the country wealth while the "middle Class" is being destroyed by inflation, taxation and unemployment. We have been at war against the "Muslim terrorists" for now almost 10 years on a permanent basis if one ignore the Iran/Irak conflict of the 80s and the Saddam, Somali and Sudan obsession of the 90s!
Wars are succeeding each others without a moment of respite for either the American people who are called to duty ( Like the popular video game) every other year to fight against some mysterious enemy " who hates us for our wealth and prosperity"!
Lies, all lies!
Let's not forget that the Afghani-Pakistani corridor is also a major international narcotic route and that Karzai younger brother was been accused of being " the most powerful drug czar of all Afghanistan."
So much for the "constitutional democracy!!"
These people are not worth Americans or any other civilians life. These people do not care about God; whether they are Talibans or Americans! It is greed masqueraded behind patriotism and democracy that is perpetuating the death of hundred of thousands if not millions in that region of the world. Rather than invading countries to bring about our " god anointed model of democracy ( no body talks about Republic anymore), we should rather trade with the Afghanis and exchange our technologies with their oil, gaz and even drugs ( provided that all drugs are legalized). War is a racket, has always been and will always be!
|
Posted by Bowman on 04/21/10 11:42 AM
In 2001 I was a believer and a supporter of the effort to overthrow Sadam Hussein, mostly because of the overwhelming testimonials given by the U.S.,British and allied inteligencia, regarding WMD's.
And the fact that Iraq had invaded Kuwait and also killed thousands of fellow Iraqi's gave strenghtened my beliefs.
I long ago came to a different conclusion as to "What are doing there, what is the real reason", I now believe it was to establish a diversion that would permit unprecedented growth of the Federal government and of the British government.
It would also establish a base of operations in the middle east, making possible a swift and tremendous military strike in any direction in the middle east, if Iran should continue to pursue nuclear weapons and more aggresive in it's destablization efforts,not only in the middle east but in south america and elsewhere.
If Iran should be attacked,militarily by the Israelis, the U.S. or both, there will be a need for a strong military presence in the region.
|
Posted by Paul on 04/21/10 11:29 AM
"Are you recommending we read it? Perhaps we have".
I have a pretty strong feeling you have. I'm recommending EVERYONE on the planet read it! It's the most eye opening book I've ever read. With it, everything falls into place and makes sense of this crazy, power-hungry, money-hungry world.
Reply from The Daily Bell
The Bell has done an interview with the author.
See here:
Click to view link
|
Posted by Donald E. Sexauer on 04/21/10 11:14 AM
I remember feeling that Ron Paul had it all wrong when he ran for president. I now feel that I was all wrong and he was right.I think Krazai does have a point and faces a reality that the pols do not seem to see.
Perhaps because it gives them a chance to cash in on the corruption that is taking place with the taxpayers money.So, no, I do not think Karzai is crazy, per se, but he is crazy to show his hand. He is not an ally, he is an opportunist. We should stop risking our soldiers' lives for fools' gold. Bring them home and stop foreign aid so we can fix our deficit. And tell the enviromaniacs to give us back our own oil resources.
|
Posted by John Perfetti on 04/21/10 10:47 AM
This is perspective left wanting, If the ignorant Americans would open the concerned "aftermarket" dialog.
|
Posted by Paul on 04/21/10 10:46 AM
I just read the greatest book explaining the whole "war/money" thing better than anything else:
"The Creature form Jekyll Island" by G.Edward Griffin.
After reading this you'll know EXACTLY where this is all going.......
Reply from The Daily Bell
You are recommending we read it? Perhaps we have.
|
Posted by Gilles on 04/21/10 10:38 AM
Why would the USA expect or demand transparency or any type of honesty from other country? They don't even know the definition or meaning of these words never mind applying them to their own leadership.
Talk about ill arrogeance, if their were such international award for lies, deceptions and insanity the USA would no doubt win it year after year. The world is learning fast not to trust anything coming out of americans and their leadership. I hope the Almighty God takes care of them soon! Btw I am not refurring to the same God as they are mine is Holy.
|
Posted by Dave Redick on 04/21/10 10:07 AM
PS; Please add to my prior comment that of course our sabre-rattling (for the last 4 yrs) at Iran is about invading to get their oil and gas, and for defense of Israel. Ugh! The nuke bomb stuff is a big lie. Israel is the secret holder of nukes that needs to disclose what they have.Dave
|
Posted by Dave Redick on 04/21/10 09:53 AM
Neither Bell nor Mills used the words 'oil' or 'Israel' in your mutterings. We invaded Iraq to grab their oil, land for bases (we were kicked-out of Saudi A.) and for defense of Israel (the non-PC reason).
Afghan was to build a pipeline from Turkmenistan to near Karachi to drain gas and oil from the E of caspian region.
All to get these resources before Russia, India and China did.
YOU MISSED THESE POINTS!!!
Maybe bell needs to get more cynical of gov't methods and lies. Karzai was put in as a classic puppet (a former employee of Chevron) but may have reverted to defending his own people once he saw our treachery and murder there.
See Part 8C1 in the left margin of my site
www.Forward-USA-org.
Heck , read the whole site! Nobody talks about these lies, so the sheeple believe the Bush-Obama lies!!
Yuk Google 'Afghan, Unocal' and 'escobar, pipelineistan' for an eyeful.
Also Click to view link
Yes the USA wants hegemony (power for it's own sake and vanity of the 'leaders'), but needs oil to operate
Comments?
Reply from The Daily Bell
There is plenty of oil in the Americas and in the US. But oil companies don't want to dig domestically or locally and regulations likely make it difficult to drill in the US anyway. The wars are not about oil, in our estimation, nor about Israel. The Anglo-American wars are about control and predate Israel considerably. The Brits were in Afghanistan in the 1800s and were behind dividing up Pakistan and India (divide and conquer).
|
Posted by Terry Haney on 04/21/10 09:02 AM
I don't know if Karzai is nuts or not. I have always felt that the reason for the USA presence in the region was to be a firewall against China using the Silk Road into the oil rich middle Click to view link many sound a bit paranoid, but as China's enery needs go up and supply goes down, they will go after it by the most direct route. The US military presence would present a problem for them. Afganistan may not be oil rich, but it is in the way if China heads that direction. So it could be all about Oil after all.
|
Posted by John on 04/21/10 08:48 AM
I don't know if this question has been answered or posed.In that for all the "superiority" of the American government system is interfered by our elites by U.S. meddling abroad, isn't it strange that the U.S. model of government is never imposed in the nation building model? The governments the U.S. imposes tend to look much more like the European model than the U.S.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Interesting point.
|
Posted by Bill Ross on 04/21/10 08:19 AM
"Is Karzai a Nut?"
Hard to say. Without full, factual information regarding the REAL environment that Karzai occupies (the real constraints of his choices), it is impossible to evaluate whether Karzai is dealing with reality or not (most basic definition of insanity).
A corollary is: That by misrepresenting the reality of situations (environments), ANYONE can be demonized and made to APPEAR insane:
http://www.cli.gs/IntelligentChoice
Reply from The Daily Bell
Good point.
|
|
