Comments on: Obama, Karzai and an Afghan mirage Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: pakistan Tue, 25 May 2010 22:48:34 +0000 @avid
Perhaps you should try to clarify the so called ‘capability’ which the USA has but was not able to defeat the so called enemy in Korea and Vietnam?
Rex Minor

By: DavidMac1556 Mon, 24 May 2010 07:54:18 +0000 The US has the military capability to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan but not the political will to use that capability. The same thing occurred in Korea and Vietnam. The US certainly had the power to defeat countries like North Korea and North Vietnam, but chose not to do so. Why not?

By: drewbie Thu, 20 May 2010 15:29:59 +0000 “What are you now, a US apologist”

I can assure that whatever else he may be, Bernd is not an apologist for the US.

By: DonaldThomson Tue, 18 May 2010 23:34:20 +0000 Why the nonsense about heroin? Mullah Omar’s government reduced opium production to 80 tons per year, mostly in Russia’s Northern Alliance area. It grew to 7000 tons a year because the USA needed the support of the heroin lords. If you fight the moral majority, you need the support of the immoral minority. Every US soldier in Afghanistan is fighting for freely available heroin. Why do you think narcoNATO refused Russia’s recent request to stop opium growing in Afghanistan? I don’t suppose you would have read a statement by the Australian Army that they would only oppose opium poppies when Afghans could make no money growing it. It’s not as if this is the first time the USA financed a war with drugs – the Nationalist Chinese 20th division after it retreated to Burma, the CIA’s Hmong (Meo as the French called them) “secret” army in Laos, the Nicaraguan Contras with the CIA flying cocaine to Noriega in Panama and dropping off money and guns to the Contras. The CIA plane was even shot down and the pilot captured by the Sandinistas. The pilot was released so that the US media could expose their government if they wanted to report the truth. The Burmese and Laotian Govts have now established sufficient control in their countries to crush the USA drug trade. The same thing will happen in Afghanistan if the Taliban don’t have to worry about a US comeback.

By: Osomec Mon, 17 May 2010 23:02:13 +0000 We all know that America is eventually going to give up on Afghanistan without achieving victory, but only certain politicians are prepared to throw away the lives of young soldiers purely so that the retreat doesn’t happen on their watch. Bush, Obama & Co are personally responsible for these wasted lives.

By: An0nym0us Sun, 16 May 2010 16:17:13 +0000 Afghanistan is a quagmire, just ask the Brits or the Soviets. They want to be left to their own devices, and should be so. Yes, there will be an atrocious Taliban regime established soon after the withdrawal, but if properly isolated, it will keep the atrocities to their own.
Yes, it will be necessary to keep it in check. To that extent, it will be enough to have a sufficient number of pilotless aircraft circling it any time of the day, and a sufficient number of B-52 or like on standby with full bomb load in case something more serious than Hellfire missile is deemed necessary. Will be cheaper than keeping boots on the ground, even if counting only $. The savings in servicemen lives? Priceless.
This is where we could get Russians engaged. The bases in their former Central Asian republics, and possibly even a few of their heavy bombers participating in the blockade – in exchange for trade agreements that are long overdue anyway. Isolating Afghanistan is in their best interest, too – a good portion of Afghan heroin ends up on the streets of Russian cities.

By: HBC Sat, 15 May 2010 10:50:54 +0000 The people who profit from wars and deal drugs as a sideline are not going to allow peace in Afghanistan any time soon. Karzai, Clinton and Obama are three of their puppets. Stanley McChrystal is one of their agents.

Afghanistan was less corrupt before their arrival, and will be better again after their departure. From this earth.

By: paceman Sat, 15 May 2010 03:36:09 +0000 Is there a politcal party out there that would end senseless wars? No there is’nt but there is a perenial presidential candidate who would end the squandering of your taxes on wars, foreign aid,military waste,etc and bring back benevolence. His name is Ron Paul.

By: Benny_Acosta Sat, 15 May 2010 01:43:05 +0000 I find myself wondering exactly WHY we are still in Afghanistan in the first place. Bin Laden hasn’t been a priority for our leadership for years now. Karzai is busy badmouthing the only people who seem to think he deserves his position.

He needs to be left to his own devices. Let him handle his own security. The money spent on this war should be going to help fix the problems we have here at home.

By: myob Fri, 14 May 2010 22:21:55 +0000 The people who lack credibility are:

1. Galbraith, who stole US$100 million from Kurdistan

2. US troops led by McChrystal, who promised to cut night raids, but then tripled them (among other things).

3. You and all other journalists who insist on writing about Afghanistan even though you obviously know nothing about it.

Afghan leaders have rarely, if ever, controlled anything outside Kabul. Karzai is no exception.

Karzai may very well be corrupt. But he’s not as corrupt as the United States contractors running the show over there. This is why Afghanistan ranks so poorly on transparency international’s rankings.

You know this, so why aren’t you reporting it accurately? What are you now, a US apologist, selling US propaganda?

The United States is responsible for its own failure in Afghanistan not because of Karzai. It just can’t handle the fact. Because the US military strategy is totally stuffed up, and the reason that little problem exists has everything to do with the way Washington works, and nothing to do with how Kabul works.

And of course, Washington would never be the way it is were it not for stuffed up columnists like you.