This is the old tribal warJun 15th, 2008 - 12:15:12

Karzai's background is that of a Pashtun warlord, and this whole thing seems in part about old rivalries. Just as Afghanistan has always been separated into tribes, Iraq has been divided along religious/sectarian lines.

Here's some history dating back to 2002 insofar as to how Karzai got where he is - and years later, nothing substantial has been done to pacify Afghanistan, or to end Taliban influence. They cannot even give a straight count of the prison escapees.

Note particularly the final paragraph pasted below (morw in the source link)

www.greenleft.org.au/2002/498/28003

The much-hyped loya jirga or grand assembly was supposed to be post-Taliban Afghanistan's first step towards the creation of a representative democratic government. However, even before the delegates had begun to gather in Kabul for the meeting's scheduled start on June 10, it was obvious that the loya jirga would be neither democratic nor representative.

It did not take long for delegates to realise that the main purpose of the stage-managed extravaganza was to formalise and legitimise the cynical ruling coalition between Afghanistan's most powerful warlords and the US-backed central regime of Hamid Karzai all with Washington's blessing.

As far as the US rulers and the Karzai regime were concerned, the loya jirga would be a mere formality. The May 25 New York Times reported: Karzai is expected to win an easy victory and lead the new government, Afghan officials and Western diplomats said? He is being strongly backed by the former king, Mohammad Zahir Shah and he has solidified his ties with several powerful former leaders of the Northern Alliance [NA]. The king has kept his promise not to push for the restoration of the monarchy

Karzai's strength reflects the enormous influence of the country that is backing him the United States. From warlords on the country's fringes to ministers jockeying for position in Kabul, many leaders see American money and military clout as the ultimate source of power here.?

Warlords return
Washington has acquiesced in the return of the warlords on the proviso that they pledge allegiance to Karzai's interim administration and cooperate militarily with US forces.

Post-Taliban Afghanistan is divided into three major cantons. the west is dominated by the forces of Ismail Khan, a Farsi-speaking Tajik warlord with strong ties to Iran; the north is mainly controlled by General Abdul Rashid Dostum, the ethnic Uzbek leader of Junbish-i-Milli; and central Afghanistan, including the capital Kabul, is the turf of the mainly ethnic Tajik Jamiat-i-Islami commanders from the Panjshir Valley, the most prominent being defence minister Mohammad Fahim.

The Panjshiri faction, Washington's main military ally in the toppling of the Taliban regime, was given a central role in the interim administration that was cobbled together in Bonn six months ago, being given the key ministries of defence, the interior (which runs the police) and foreign affairs.

However, in Afghanistan's south and east, no single warlord is paramount. The Pashtun ethnic majority in these areas now politically marginalised because it was a base for the Taliban is hostile to the NA-dominated Karzai government and is increasingly wary of the US. Even though Karzai is a Pashtun, many southern and eastern Pashtun tribal leaders consider him an agent of the Panjshiris. Pashtun civilians continue to bear the brunt of US military massacres.

In the Pashtun majority areas there are continuing stand-offs between a number of weak governors appointed by Karzai and local contenders for power the best-known being Bacha (sometimes referred to as Padsha Zadran) Khan Zardran who have strong military forces and support from Pashtun tribal chiefs.

While the US maintains an opportunistic military relationship with Pacha Khan and other anti-Karzai Pashtun warlords, Washington clearly fears that they may politically challenge Karzai's tenuous claim to be the representative of the Pashtun people.

Report this comment

Robert ChapmanJun 15th, 2008 - 16:35:28

Afghani President Karzai is off his rocker if he thinks anyone will be willing to offer support to his government if he invades Pakistan.

Instead of continually looking for new places to expand the war, why don't they concentrate on securing their own countries and winning it?

The successful attack by Taliban forces on a gov't prison in Kabul demonstrates that Karzai's problems are far greater than the tribal incursions from Pakistan.

Report this comment

lanceJun 15th, 2008 - 17:16:43

If the U.S. had focused on Afghanistan, which is a legitimate target of a war on terror, then the world would be a much different place. Unfortunately, many in the U.S. mistook terrorism for islam. For example Rice and Bush, to mention a few. Now, the U.S. administration is involved in most/all of the M.E. islamic nations and is incredibly overextended and with no clear focus on anything. Never elect a president whose base is fundamental christian evangelicals, they think everyone else is going to hell and don't give a damn about denigrating people of other beliefs and destroying their culture because:

'He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.' John 3:36

They are saving the unbelievers of jesus from the wrath of god.

Report this comment

SP4:(Unbal)lance(ed)Jun 15th, 2008 - 17:33:13

If the U.S. had focused on Afghanistan, which is a legitimate target of a war on terror, then the world would be a much different place.

sp4 - We invaded Afghanistan, deposed the Taliban and allowed them to install a moe moderate regieme. Give credit where credit is due.

Unfortunately, many in the U.S. mistook terrorism for islam.

sp4 - perhaps, but one only has to look around to see the connection.

For example Rice and Bush, to mention a few.

sp4 - Again, go find me one single fundimentalist Islamic state that is NOT involved in enabling terror.

Now, the U.S. administration is involved in most/all of the M.E. islamic nations and is incredibly overextended and with no clear focus on anything.

sp4 - we are winning in Iraq, have secured most of Afghanistan

Never elect a president whose base is fundamental christian evangelicals, they think everyone else is going to hell and don't give a damn about denigrating people of other beliefs and destroying their culture because:

sp4: now who's the religous bigot?


'He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.' John 3:36

sp4 - If you actually READ that passage, you will see it leaves any punishment to god, in the afterlife. That has nothing to do with GW Bush

They are saving the unbelievers of jesus from the wrath of god.

SP4: no, christians are supposed to leave punishment to God.

Lance - go inform yourself.

Report this comment

guadalcanal diaryJun 15th, 2008 - 18:21:21

Hey SP4, we figured out Lances' real name is Muhammed, Ahmed or Khaleed. He's terrified of any Muslims being exposed to Christianity. Like most Muslims, he probably believes in the death sentence for anyone who turns away from following 'the pedofile'.

Report this comment

lanceJun 15th, 2008 - 18:51:07

'sp4 - If you actually READ that passage, you will see it leaves any punishment to god, in the afterlife. That has nothing to do with GW Bush'

It states that those that do not believe and obey in jesus will have no [after]life, 'will not see life', that is the wrath of god.

What it means is this:

According to jesus and christians, muslim children shall never see their grandma and grandpa in the eternal afterlife. Jesus denies them hope. It also means that in order to have life, muslim children must sacrifice their own heritage and confess that their grandpa and grandma are nothing more than dirt, with no soul.

Does that not sound very alarmingly condescending and cruel? Why deny muslims hope and eternal bliss?

May everyone, no matter who they are, have eternal life and bliss; regardless of what they believe! I say: goodwill to both muslim and christian; and to muslims: You do not need to convert to be eternally treated with respect and kindness.

Report this comment

Kabul KarzaiJun 15th, 2008 - 20:35:41

To invade Pakistan, he will first have to get out of fortress Kabul and dodge the bombers. His masters in DC must be pulling strings to put pressure on Pakistan. Just think for a moment he can't even keep prisoners inside prisons, how will he invade Pakistan?

Report this comment

jokerJun 15th, 2008 - 20:42:05

Karzai is a joke- ha ha ha ha ha. One hour after U.S pullout, he'll be sucide bombed into 1000 pieces. Karzai is just another U.S puppet.

Report this comment

shuddup lanceJun 15th, 2008 - 21:36:22

'They are saving the unbelievers of jesus from the wrath of god.'

This refers to the afterlife, in the unlikely event that there is one. Every day muslims murder the infidel in THIS life. These wars are not about converting muslims to Christianity. They are about protecting ourselves from islamist aggression.

Put simply, if muslims could learn to live with the rest of civilization without trying to subjugate it then there would be no troops in Afghanistan. Then again, according to the Koran, if muslims learned to live with the rest of civilization without trying to subjugate it they wouldn't be very good muslims.

Report this comment

Just one more instance of PB being wrong.Jun 15th, 2008 - 21:46:51

'This is the old tribal war'

This is a war of civilization and humanity against barbarism and savagery. One that some idiots haven't decided who they want to support.

'www.greenleft.org.au'

Is not a legitimate source of information. It is a propaganda outlet, used by fundamentally immature, arrested adolescent, 'you're not the boss of me' types who just do not want to be bothered by such inconvenient facts like Afghanistan now has a democratic process that was not there before and that is due to the intervention of the USA. Indeed, a famine that would have killed tens of thousands has been averted and the talaban have been thrown out.

Of course you can't mentally allow for there being any improvement in anything if the USA is behind the effort. Such is your mental problem.

Report this comment