Karzai is correct. But no one in Washington is going to face the reality of why the U.S. military misadventure failed. It failed because it was wrongly conceived, with no understanding of the importance of Sharia for the majority of Afghans, and of the significance of their attachment to it. So the Bush administration that Afghanistan could be turned relatively easily into a Western-style democracy, with full equality of rights for women and religious minorities. The Taliban were able to counter this by presenting themselves as the defenders of Islam as well as of the invaded nation, so the U.S. presence doubly aided the Taliban even as the group was temporarily driven from power. No one among Biden’s handlers will face up to any of this, because this analysis conflicts with the comforting fictions they still tell themselves about Islam, and as such, they would consider such analysis “Islamophobic.”
“Afghanistan’s first post-invasion president angrily blasts US, Britain, Australia and allies for bringing 20 years of war to his country only to leave in defeat with the murderous Taliban poised to retake control,” MailOnline, June 21, 2021 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
Former Afghani president Hamid Karzai has blasted the US, Britain, Australia and their allies for tearing up his country over 20 years for nothing.
He said the coalition came to his country to fight extremism and bring stability to his war-tortured nation and is leaving having failed at both.
Just weeks before the last US and NATO troops leave Afghanistan, ending their ‘forever war,’ Mr Karzai said extremism was at its ‘highest point’ and the departing troops were leaving behind a disaster.
‘The international community came here 20 years ago with this clear objective of fighting extremism and bringing stability… but extremism is at the highest point today. So they have failed,’ he said.
Mr Karzai said departing Western forces leave a legacy of a war-ravaged nation in ‘total disgrace and disaster’.
‘We recognize as Afghans all our failures, but what about the bigger forces and powers who came here for exactly that purpose?’ he said.
‘Where are they leaving us now?’ he asked and answered: ‘In total disgrace and disaster.’…
‘We will be better off without their military presence. I think we should defend our own country and look after our own lives,’ he said.
‘Their presence [has given us] what we have now… We don’t want to continue with this misery and indignity that we are facing. It is better for Afghanistan that they leave.’
Mr Karzai’s rule followed the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001 by a US-led coalition that invaded to hunt down and destroy the al-Qaida network and its leader, Osama bin Laden, blamed for the 9/11 attack.
During his presidency, women re-emerged, girls again attended school, a vibrant, young civil society emerged, new high-rise towers went up in the capital Kabul, and roads and infrastructure were built.
But it was also characterised by allegations of widespread corruption, a flourishing drug trade, and in its final years, relentless quarrels with Washington that continue even until today.
‘The [US and NATO military] campaign was not against extremism or terrorism, the campaign was more against Afghan villages and hopes; putting Afghan people in prisons, creating prisons in our own country… and bombing all villages. That was very wrong,’ he said.
In April, when President Joe Biden announced the final withdrawal of the remaining 2,500-3,500 troops, he said America was leaving having achieved its goals….
Rarely says
It’s much like Dubya’s ill conceived Iraq adventure — accomplishing nothing more than further destabilizing the region with disastrous consequences (to say nothing of the loss of U.S. prestige and huge waste of U.S. treasure).
The best of intentions? Of course, but we all know what road those intentions pave.
Wellington says
Essentially I agree with you, Rarely, but I think Bush 43 had to take out Saddam Hussein because he was a megalomaniac out of control and every major intelligence agency on the planet thought he was hiding WMDs. Moreover, SH was violating the 1991 truce which terminated the Gulf War on virtually a daily basis, an example being firing on British and American jets patrolling the two no-fly zones In Iraq. And though an enemy of Islamic terrorist groups, SH was temporarily aligned with them out of hatred for America and the West (much as Sunni and Shiite terrorist groups are often temporarily aligned against the West though you know damn well they despise each other).
Where Bush 43 erred, and erred grievously, was in believing that he could construct a democracy in Iraq after SH was gone. As I have long argued, after SH and his sons were history, Bush 43 should have found someone from the Iraqi military to run Iraq in an authoritarian but not truly brutal manner. A few American Special Forces could have been kept in Iraq to take out from time to time the true detritus residing there but the nation-building that Bush 43 engaged in was a fool’s errand—and very, very costly.
Rarely says
Sometimes it’s “Better the devil you know”.
I don’t believe that “all the major intelligence agencies” were convinced Iraq had WMDs. I’m not even sure that U.S. Intel were convinced.
Wellington says
I know of no major intelligence agency that asserted at the time that SH did not still have WMDs. Mossad asserted that such WMDs were carried out of Iraq at the last moment into Lebanon (or Syria). George Tenet, then Director of the CIA, told Bush 43 that it was a “slam dunk” that SH was still hiding WMDs in Iraq. Even Russian intelligence did not deny that SH was playing “footsie” with pathetic UN investigators.
Your turn if you care.
James Lincoln says
Wellington,
With everything that I have read and heard from reliable sources, I believe that you are correct.
Saddam Hussein *purposely* wanted to keep the rest of the world guessing.
Why?
If Saddam Hussein had come totally “clean” with the weapons inspectors, and nothing of any significance were found, he would have been perceived (in the islamic world) as a *very* weak leader – caving in to the demands of the “Western international community”.
Can’t have that if you want to remain a dictator in the islamic world…
Rarely says
Wellington.
What you say may very well be correct (I seem to recall that SH purposely gave the impression that he had WMDs as well).
In any event, the invasion was still ill-advised and, in retrospect, very stupid.
Mobuyis says
WMD was a red herring the search for them, a bone tossed to the left to get them to shut up. Bush was removing SH come hell or high water. No one with any intelligence actually believed that Iraq had these weapons. Well maybe Sadam did, his generals kept telling him they had them.
Wellington says
Karzai is an ingrate but compared to John Kerry he is an admirable figure—and the photo above rather says it all (N.B., so many a photo that accompanies a JW article is right on point in visual form and itself quite telling).
As for Biden and Obama, I have expected nothing from them and to date have gotten nothing from them. They’re both very deficient and destructive and those who can’t see this are blind (N.B., way too many blind people out there and that’s a damn shame for America, for the West, for freedom).
But with Bush 43 I expected better but this didn’t happen. Bush 43 (Bush 41 too) turned out to be a major disappointment and the man still refuses to learn what Islam is really about. A great many American military personnel gave their lives or at least their limbs because Bush 43 refused, for whatever indefensible reason or reasons, to educate himself about Islam. Compounding this massive error on Bush 43’s part is, by his own admission, voting for Condoleezza Rice for President in the 2020 election even though Trump got us into no new wars, decimated ISIS and knew instinctively that Islam is rotten to the core and as revealed by Trump’s March 2016 comment, i.e., “I think Islam hates us.” In any case, so done with all the Bushes.
Yes, it could be argued that even Trump didn’t do enough to extricate America from the putridity and dysfunctionality which is the Islamic world but he did a hell of a lot better than Bush 43 did (including making us energy independent), let alone those two miserable excuses for Presidents, Obama and Biden. I regret my two votes for Bush 43, though the alternatives were even worse, but at the time when I voted for him in 2000 and 2004 I had a high opinion of the man. I no longer do. I still have a very high opinion of Trump for whom I also voted twice for President. I hope either he or DeSantis will be the Republican nominee for President in 2024. Eager to vote for either.
Infidel says
The ingrate part of it is what I noted. Karzai would have been dead had it not been for US troops: he was rescued in a military operation and made the US nominee for an independent Afghan government a few days after another prospective leader, Abdul Haq, was captured and executed by the Taliban. If the Taliban capture Karzai after we leave and execute him for corruption – which he was guilty of, he’d be getting his just desserts
Our attack of Afghanistan was undeniably justified: the only congresswoman who denied it was Barbara Lee, although today Bernie Sanders looks at her as a visionary. But we succeeded by December when we captured both Kabul and Kandahar, and that’s when we should have pulled out. Also, the biggest stupid mistake of the Bushes was trusting Pakistan: 2011 taught us how stupid that was. That, as well as considering Saudi Arabia an ally and protecting it from any liability for the attacks. It wasn’t until King Salman and MbS came to power that they changed, while Pakistan today at least has a government too stupid to know how to lie to us (which is probably why even the world’s ‘liberals’ condemn Imran Khan)
But yeah, we should let whatever happens in Afghanistan happen, but be prepared to obliterate any country from which any jihad attack originates – be it Afghanistan, Pakistan, Qatar, Turkey, Iran, et al
gravenimage says
I was going to mention Karzai’s ingratitude, as well.
And this is not the first time he has done this:
“Afghanistan’s Karzai: “To the U.S. government, give them my anger, my extreme anger””
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/03/afghanistans-karzai-to-the-u-s-government-give-them-my-anger-my-extreme-anger
This is from 2014. And here he is from the previous year:
“Afghanistan: Taliban poised to retake power, Karzai says ‘the entire Nato exercise was one that caused Afghanistan a lot of suffering’”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/10/afghanistan-taliban-poised-to-retake-power-karzai-says-the-entire-nato-exercise-was-one-that-caused
Walter Sieruk says
Any “peace” agreement with Taliban is a “Deal with devil “ in other words a “fools deal.” The very idea of having actual, real, genuine productive “peace talks” with those brutal ,cruel misogynistic Taliban characters is an absurd and fool idea of folly.
One thing is for sure, even if even attempting to engage on “peace talks” with Taliban it would be best not to be naive about them and take at face value anything that they might say or promise. To just “give trust away” to those Islamic characters who compose the Taliban would be foolishness and folly.
For when trying to have genuine negotiations with the them ,it need to be kept in mind that there is an Islamic doctrine called TAQIYYA This is the Muslim dogma the lying and deception are good things to do, if and as long as the lies and deceit are done for the advancement of Islam.
For the deceptive and disingenuous Taliban have proven many times over, by their own actions, that they are a ruthless, brutal vicious gang of thugs with no honor. So in any kind of “dialogue” the Taliban will most likely speak the truth only when it happened to suite them. The rest of the time they will be speaking half-truths and also be outright lying. Likewise, the Taliban will keep their word in anything that they may happen to promise only and long as in fits into their agenda and no longer.
So before engaging of the foolishness of attempting to have genuine “talks for a peace alliance” with Taliban, the officials of the current government would do well to heed the wisdom of Sun Tzu found in THE ART OF WAR. For it instructs “We cannot enter into an alliance neighboring’s princes, until we are acquainted with their designs.” To put this in a more updated and current way, it may be said that “We cannot enter into a peace alliance with the Taliban until we know the actual intentions and real schemes.”
Furthermore, if attempting to engage in “peace talks” with Taliban it would be very naive to take at face value anything that the Taliban might promise. For example, the Taliban might say that they will respect the rights of women and girls, for they ,many times, employ the Islamic doctrine of Taqiyya In those so called “negotiations” with officials of the West .Taaqyia ids the Islamic teaching that lying and deceit
So it may be nothing but foolishness and folly to even try to have worthwhile constructive peace discussions with lying brutal cruel men who make up the Taliban . For having a genuine practical peace compromise with Taliban might be impossible.
As the former US President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, had well-spoken when he said “There has never been – there never can be – successful compromise between good and evil.”
gravenimage says
So true.
James Lincoln says
Walter,
Negotiating with the Taliban, using Western points of reference, should be undertaken as if trying to negotiate with MS-13 gang leaders…
gravenimage says
Afghanistan: Former president says US presence ‘failed,’ as ‘extremism is at the highest point today’
…………
Not recognizing that “extremism” is orthodox Islam was the main problem.