# Karzai Says...



## Marauder06 (Apr 17, 2012)

...that the latest battle in Kabul is "NATO's fault."

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_new...-slams-nato-over-18-hour-kabul-gunbattle?lite




> Afghan President Hamid Karzai said Monday that the massive Taliban offensive in Kabul and three other provinces showed a "failure" by the intelligence services, and especially by NATO.
> In his first statement regarding the 18-hour siege of diplomatic and government enclaves, Karzai also said that Afghan security forces proved themselves capable of defending their country and providing security, Reuters reported


----------



## Boon (Apr 17, 2012)

LOL, enjoy defending your country (and your self) after we peace out.


----------



## RackMaster (Apr 17, 2012)

He's so "wishy washy" that it's predictable now.  This dude must not have any credibility at the table any more.


----------



## AWP (Apr 17, 2012)

Guys like his dad and Massoud are rolling in their graves every time this muppet opens his mouth.


----------



## x SF med (Apr 17, 2012)

the title made me think of this song ....  which is actually appropriate...


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 17, 2012)

He's giving us the statement BO and MR need to justify the pullout.
Keep flapping your lips dude, I'll laugh when you start living in Pakistan.


----------



## TH15 (Apr 17, 2012)

SOWT said:


> I'll laugh when you start living in Pakistan.


I would rather see him killed..


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Apr 17, 2012)

this isn't a guy who seems to be under the realization that his being in power, AND his personal security, AND his future running of the country all rest on the people he's shit talking. if only Massoud had lived....


----------



## SpitfireV (Apr 18, 2012)

If Massoud had lived there would have been a massive civil war, far more than what's been going on the last ten years. He wouldn't have been the magic bullet people think he would have been.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Apr 18, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> If Massoud had lived there would have been a massive civil war, far more than what's been going on the last ten years. He wouldn't have been the magic bullet people think he would have been.



Yep but at least we would have had an ally with a back bone.


----------



## SpitfireV (Apr 18, 2012)

Mac_NZ said:


> Yep but at least we would have had an ally with a back bone.


 
You can't know that. It's Afghan politics, he could have turned the Presidency over to anyone.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Apr 18, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> You can't know that. It's Afghan politics, he could have turned the Presidency over to anyone.


 
And he would have turned the Presidency over which in this callsigns opinion is why he was exactly the man for the job.

Spit I think you really need to go back and look at your research notes on Massoud.  The man wasn't a puppet for the Pakis like Karzai is, he wanted a free Afghanistan and was prepared to work with others for it.


----------



## SpitfireV (Apr 18, 2012)

Mac_NZ said:


> And he would have turned the Presidency over which in this callsigns opinion is why he was exactly the man for the job.
> 
> Spit I think you really need to go back and look at your research notes on Massoud. The man wasn't a puppet for the Pakis like Karzai is, he wanted a free Afghanistan and was prepared to work with others for it.


 
He would have had no support from the Pashtuns and ergo the Pakistanis. He was after all "just" a Tajik remember. The war would have been 100x times worse than what it is now IMO.

He was a great military commander but as a politician he was lacking. He couldn't even keep his own commanders under control when he was in Kabul after 92, how could he have united a whole country? He never even wanted to *be* President or even for the NA to control power. If offered it, he would have declined.

At the end of the day, he's dead and pining after him as some kind of magic solution is purely academic.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Apr 18, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> as a politician he was lacking


 
Shura-e Nazar, heard of it?

We have a Pashtun running the show now and things are going really well.


----------



## SpitfireV (Apr 18, 2012)

Mac_NZ said:


> Shura-e Nazar, heard of it?
> 
> We have a Pashtun running the show now and things are going really well.


 
Yeah I have heard of it. Thanks though. You didn't address my point properly, however. It's easy to cobble a coalition together when you have an outside enemy to focus on; it was during the civil war that his failings started to show, which is much more relevant to a discussion about what he would have been like today.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 18, 2012)

Mac_NZ said:


> Shura-e Nazar, heard of it?
> 
> ...


 
I had never heard of it before,  <Google>, very interesting reading.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Apr 18, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> Yeah I have heard of it. Thanks though. You didn't address my point properly, however. It's easy to cobble a coalition together when you have an outside enemy to focus on; it was during the civil war that his failings started to show, which is much more relevant to a discussion about what he would have been like today.


 
So you don't consider the Taliban/Pakistan to be a credible enemy for that focus?

I can't think of many other Afghanis who tried to rise above the petty tribalism and sect rivalry that plagues the country.  I sure as hell don't see Karzai doing it.

The man was a war hero and whilst that doesn't carry much weight in western political circles to the average Afghani it does.  The fact that he managed to unite the tribes he did to fight together in the first place is a small miracle.  Given the resourcing that has been poured into the place and backed by ISAF muscle I think we would have seen a very different result than what happened during the civil war.  He knew what was going to happen in Kabul and tried like hell to avoid going in in the first place.  Numerous sources cite his outrage and the crimes that were committed and his attempts to bring the commanders of it to justice.

Hypothetically a lot of Pastuns would have to have been put to the sword for him to rule.  I don't know how bad I would really feel if that had happened.


----------



## AWP (Apr 18, 2012)

I think Massoud would have worked.

He couldn't hold together a gov't in 92 in part to tribal politics, but also because he was vastly underfunded when compared to his rivals. In the grand scheme of things he did well with what he had, but ultimately with multiple Muj factions opposing him a draw was the best he could hope for. Charisma can only take you so far over here, you're going to need guns, lots of them, to have any hope of success. The lawless civil war created the conditions which allowed the Taliban to rise.

Once the TB rose to power, it was more or less them vs. Massoud's clan. It speaks volumes to his leadership and his followers that the Panjshir was never taken. We could argue that it was only a matter of time before he capitulated, but I think that would have taken years and countless TB lives. The people here were tired of the TB by 2000/2001 because they saw the TB for who they are, but by then they weren't unlike the Ba'ath party in that you're either "Taliban" or you starve/ take a bullet.

Massoud couldn't mount an effective anti-TB campaign because again, going back to the Soviet era, he was poorly funded and equipped. He attempted to make up his shortfalls by selling opium and now that he's a "narcoterrorist" the US couldn't dare associate itself with him.

Was Massoud a long-term solution for Afghanistan? I don't know. If you look at Karzai, a relative unknown save for his father, and how the country rallied around him I think Massoud would have had much better short-term success than Karzai. At the very worst, Massoud is elected once and then punted in 2009. The Pashtuns wouldn't have rejected him out-of-hand because he wasn't Pashtun, but he'd have had a longer row to hoe with them than the other ethnic groups. In a country where there was the TB and the only opposition to them was Massoud, he'd have had some political capital and clout for a few years.

His failures from 92-96 were more external than internal: 7 factions fighting for control, a lack of funds and weapons, and less manpower. Those odds suck in Risk, much less in the real world.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 18, 2012)

I don't know how Massoud would have fared had he lived.  He might have been a great ally, he might have been indicted for war crimes, lol.

I do know that AQ saw him as a big enough threat that they whacked him two days before 9/11.  I don't think the timing was accidental.  Also, anyone whose list of enemies includes AQ, the Taliban, and the ISI is usually OK in my book.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 18, 2012)

It's from Wikipedia, but it's pretty interesting if it's true:



> In spring 2001, Ahmad Shah Massoud addressed the European Parliament in Brussels stating that* behind the situation in Afghanistan there was the regime in Pakistan*.[51] He also stated his conviction that without the support of Pakistan, Osama Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia, the Taliban would not be able to sustain their military campaign for up to a year, also because the Afghan population was ready to rise against them.[51] Addressing the United States specifically he issued the warning that s*hould the U.S. not work for peace in Afghanistan and put pressure on Pakistan to cease their support to the Taliban, the problems of Afghanistan would soon become the problems of the U.S. and the world.*[51][80]
> Declassified Defense Intelligence Agency documents from November 2001 show that *Massoud had gained "limited knowledge... regarding the intentions of [al-Qaeda] to perform a terrorist act against the US on a scale larger than the 1998 bombing of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania*."[58] They also point out that he warned about such attacks.[58]


----------



## Grey (Apr 19, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> It's from Wikipedia, but it's pretty interesting if it's true:


 
When I saw the talk of Massoud here I also went and read that page. After reading it all the only thing I have to say is seriously, fuck Pakistan. Again if it is all true. Massoud would have been a great ally, atleast if you compare him to P'Stan IMO.


----------



## AWP (Apr 19, 2012)

I saw where that shitbird president (Karzai) was slamming the US photos of dead bodies...and typically ignored the Afghans in the photos.

Horrible puppet. Bad service. F++. Would not buy again.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Apr 19, 2012)

Massoud was a outstanding and capable military commander. As a politician it's negligable. He was receiving up to the day he was assassinated support from Russia and Iran, so you could see that as a win or loss had he became president. He might have been able to placate both countries to his side and maybe reduce animosity towards US forces there with their cooperation, or he might have sold out and asked them to be his allies and not the US. He was a man of honor and integrity, and hated the Taliban and Pakistan. Those two alone put him high in my book. At the very least he would have had the balls to basically say fuck you to Pakistan instead of getting on his knees like Karzai is doing. Doesn't matter anyhow, we're peace out of there before too long, long term we'll see what happens. Short of oil being discovered there the place will likely be like it was in the 90's in the international scale, "afghanistan? is that still going on?" to quote George H.W. Bush.


----------



## SpitfireV (Apr 19, 2012)

I'm going to concede this one, mostly because while I still hold my opinion I don't think I can frankly be arsed finding good sources


----------

