Karzai Says...

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
10,724
Location
CONUS
...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
 

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
SOF Support
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
15,915
Location
Not Afghanistan
Guys like his dad and Massoud are rolling in their graves every time this muppet opens his mouth.
 

DA SWO

SOWT
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
9,676
Location
San Antonio Texas
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.
 

JohnnyBoyUSMC

Click, click, boom.
Verified Military
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
659
Location
the bat cave
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

Strike first, strike hard, no mercy!
Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
5,110
Location
New Zealand
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

Stitch Bitch
Verified Military
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
1,597
Location
Christchurch
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.
 

Mac_NZ

Stitch Bitch
Verified Military
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
1,597
Location
Christchurch
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

Strike first, strike hard, no mercy!
Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
5,110
Location
New Zealand
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.
 

SpitfireV

Strike first, strike hard, no mercy!
Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
5,110
Location
New Zealand
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.
 

Mac_NZ

Stitch Bitch
Verified Military
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
1,597
Location
Christchurch
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

Formerly Known as Freefalling
SOF Support
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
15,915
Location
Not Afghanistan
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

Intel Enabler
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
10,724
Location
CONUS
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

Intel Enabler
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
10,724
Location
CONUS

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 should 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]
 
Top