• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Afghan leader backs away from Taliban talks


Trump Grump Whisperer
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Mar 11, 2006
Reaction score
SE Virginia
Political Leaning

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Afghanistan's president said Wednesday he will not pursue peace talks with the Taliban unless the United States steps out of the negotiations, while also insisting the militant group stop its violent attacks on the ground after it claimed responsibility for a rocket attack that killed four Americans.

Karzai also suspended talks with on a new U.S.-Afghan security deal that would allow some American troops to remain in the country after the international combat mission ends in 2014 to protest the fact that his government was being left out of the initial process.

So how is our new Sec State John Kerry doing?
I think that ANY SoS should realize that Afghanastan is a lost cause and get us the hell out of there as fast as we can. Screw them.

Russia already figured this out.

View attachment 67149104
News from The Associated Press

So how is our new Sec State John Kerry doing?

This is just another example of the sophomoric behavior that has made Karzai an erratic and ineffectual leader. His unreliable conduct predates Secretary of State Kerry's tenure. Former Ambassador Eikenberry was spot on when he declared that Karzai "is not an adequate strategic partner," a warning that the U.S. ignored in its strategic decision to maintain a Karzai-centric approach to Afghanistan.

Had he been even a reasonably effective leader, Afghanistan likely would not be locked in a continuing conflict, as his regime would have had the capacity to exercise jurisdiction and would have nurtured broad-based legitimacy among Afghanistan's people and tribes. The U.S. could and should have had a better outcome than what is now likely. Mr. Karzai is a big reason why the outcome is far less favorable than it could or should have been. He is a big reason insurgency continues and a near-military stalemate persists.

Unfortunately, despite his immature outbursts or worse, the U.S. has not been firm with Karzai. The U.S. should have made abundantly clear that the Karzai government is not and never has been irreplaceable. Indeed, it made a strategic blunder in its 2009 strategic review in not throwing its support behind an approach where the tribal leaders, not Karzai, would have had the largest share of governance responsibility via U.S. foreign aid flows, security collaboration, etc. That approach would also have had the benefit of being far more consistent with Afghanistan's societal structure, institutional framework and history.

At this point in time, the U.S. should make it clear to Karzai that it reserves the option to hold him wholly responsible for all the duties of his office (diplomatic and security). In that context, it should indicate that any reintroduction of its offer of a long-term troop presence will depend on a dramatic and sustained improvement in Karzai's conduct. It should also note that future foreign aid amounts and disbursements will also be based on Afghanistan's performance vis-à-vis U.S. interests and that future unreliable conduct could lead to significant reductions in such aid.

Strategically, the U.S. has the capacity to reduce the risk of Afghanistan's becoming a terrorist safe haven without sustaining the Karzai government. It should use that alternative as leverage.
Unfortunately, it appears that the U.S. once more yielded to Karzai's latest tantrum when a policy of firmness would have been better. From The New York Times:

Mr. Karzai again showed his willingness to halt American initiatives unilaterally when his allies displeased him, as he did earlier this year in forcing them to hand over detention operations and banning American Special Operations forces from a strategic district.

However, the American response was much faster and complied unambiguously with Mr. Karzai’s demands this time...


So long as Karzai's tantrums produce results, he will throw more of them. In the meantime, Afghanistan's quality of governance will continue to suffer and the environment will remain ripe for insurgency.
Karzai is a corrupt asshole. He IS the problem in Afghanistan. We should take our money and get the hell out of there immediately.
Top Bottom