Our Afghan 'friends' Part I: A delusional nut
Never advisable, America's reliance on Afghan President Hamid Karzai's corrupt, weak regime as an ally in the war on terrorism looks downright idiotic now that he's welcomed new Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel by absurdly accusing U.S. and Taliban forces of colluding.
Just after Taliban suicide bombs outside the Afghan Ministry of Defense in Kabul and in Khost province killed 19 total, Mr. Karzai claimed in a speech “that the U.S. is holding peace talks with the radical Islamists and the bombs were in the ‘service of America,'” Bloomberg News reports.
Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, who must work with Karzai as NATO's newly installed top military officer in Afghanistan, called Karzai's claims “categorically false” while noting he faces increasing domestic pressure as Afghans assume more responsibility for their country's fate ahead of U.S. withdrawal next year.
Retired Army Col. David Maxwell of Georgetown University's Center for Security Studies said “Karzai has gone way off the reservation” and is “an apparently delusional leader,” but America has no “other good options” besides working with him.
That's a regrettable situation that America shouldn't find itself in — yet one largely of its own making.
An Afghan president who accuses America of colluding with the Taliban is no U.S. ally. Washington long ago should have revoked ally status for Karzai and his regime — which it never should have granted in the first place.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.