Thursday, October 29, 2009

Karzai Kapers

Here was Tuesday's little explosion in the N.Y. Times:

"KABUL, AfghanistanAhmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in the country’s booming illegal opium trade, gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, and has for much of the past eight years, according to current and former American officials."

Translation: SNAFU

The brother of the Afghan president is both a major drug dealer and a paid CIA informant.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regularly refers to the embattled country as a "narco-state."

The Taliban is happily blowing up everything and everybody it can in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I don't know what we or anyone else is doing there.

I also don't know how we can sit back and watch the region collapse.

I'm stymied. This is a full-blown disaster and no one has shown me that they are less confused than I am.


Jeff Taylor said...

I believe that the US largely went into Iraq, and Afghanistan as a desperate response to US soil being attacked during 9/11. They panicked. There's also no doubt in my mind that control of the region and it's oil to a lesser degree was a part of it as well.
I've always thought that if the Russian Army couldn't win in Afghanistan, how in the world would the US backed up with Canada, France, etc ? No disrespect to our young men in Canada's military.
I also believe that for decades and decades, the US has backed Gov't's and various groups, that are for the most part bad boys and girls but do so for a bigger picture and plan, and bigger fish.

The fact that indirectly the US Gov't is paying a drug dealer doesn't shock or surprise me in the least.
What really concerns me is that the Afghan President's bother is a drug dealer. I'd say that pretty much writes off any chance of the actual people of that country ever getting out of the mess they've been in for decades.

Anonymous said...

It seems to be a matter of who is doing the killing in these countries. Who is the greater problem? The Taliban or foreign troops? Is there a solution? The only one who seems to have settled the Afghan problem was perhaps Alexander the Great. And the country has gone downhill since. Time to bring the troops home.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, Jeff Taylor, but I think your views on the response to 9/11 are naive. The US were planning to invade Iraq AND Afghanistand before 9/11. Iraq was the first thing on the agenda at Bush's first NSC meeting according to Paul O'Neil. Also, the Bush administration was negotiating with The Taliban in Afghanistan regarding transit fees for a proposed pipeline to be built that would traverse the entire country. Talks broke down and the plan for a coup was put on Bush's desk in early Sept. '01.

I'm not yet willing to say that 9/11 was "an inside job" or "allowed to happen" but all I'll say is that it allowed the entire Bush/Cheney agenda to take place. A very, very big conincidence....

Anonymous said...

One other thing, the Russians might have prevailed in Afghanistan, at least in the short term, had not the US and Saudi Arabia been funding the mujahadin to the tune of millions of dollars in weapons, including anti-tank Stinger missiles which turned the tide of the war more than any other single factor.

Anonymous said...

David, there are many interesting theories as to why were involved in this war. Stop terrorism. Bring democracy. Stop drugs. 911. Human rights.
All very noble notions. All very good.

131 dead Canadians. What a f-----g waste. Lets get the hell out of this area of the world. They kill and die as a way of life. 200 years from now , God willing , these people will still be killing one another. I hope the history books report that 131 brave Canadians wasted their lives before the Harper government ended Canadian involvement in this area forever.

Jeff Taylor said...

Dear Anonymous (whom ever you are), I think if you read my orginal comments on David's blog, you'll find that if you read in between my lines, I actually left the possibility open that the US isn't always in 'things' for the good of others, but more their own interests. IE: your comments about the US supplying weapons and money for the fight against Russia is a good one AND is a perfect example of what I was saying about 'bigger fish' - remember the little problem of US and Russian relations way back when ?
I believe that some of my comments might border on me being some-what naive, but facts and truths often come out sooner or later and let's face it, 9/11 was a number of years ago now. Another point that was lightly touched on in the very early days of Iraq was that George Jr. and his family was still angry for the attempt on Bush Sr.'s life by Iraq. Obviously the attempt failed and that seems far fetched for a reason to invade a country years later, BUT nothing (as I think you're trying to point out) can be discounted.

As for the 9/11 theories, I never say never, HOWEVER, I was watching a film on the event and the best point that I've heard made was that for the US Gov't to have been 'in' on 9/11 in any way, EVERYONE involved would have had to have been able and 'willing' to keep the BIG secret. That's a HUGE secret to keep inside, away from every single person in one's life. Highly unlikely if you ask me.