Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A U.S. Stumbling Block in Kandahar: Karzai's Brother

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 09:18 AM
Original message
A U.S. Stumbling Block in Kandahar: Karzai's Brother
Source:Time

General Stanley McChrystal's plan to reconquer the key Afghan city of Kandahar this summer could fail, influential diplomats, Afghan experts and tribal elders are warning, because of deep resentment against the local face of the Afghan government — President Hamid Karzai's troublesome half brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai.

General McChrystal's plan is to restore NATO control through a steady buildup of forces in and around the city of 500,000, recognizing its symbolic importance to the Taliban. The movement was formed in Kandahar in 1994 and Mullah Omar made the city his seat of power even after the Taliban had taken control of Kabul. More recently, say many locals and foreign observers, the city has been slipping back into the Taliban's grasp because of poor governance by the Western-backed Wali Karzai. In a series of interviews with TIME, Afghan politicians, international analysts, diplomats, military officers and some tribal elders blame much of the chaos in Kandahar on pervasive influence-peddling by President Karzai's half brother.

As a former NATO official with years of experience in Kandahar puts it, "You have essentially a criminal enterprise in the guise of government, using us as its enforcing arm." As a result, says this official who asked not to identified, "the people are turning to the Taliban as the only means of protection and outlet for their anger."

In a telephone interview from his Kandahar home, Ahmed Wali Karzai dismissed the allegations against him, telling TIME, "I'm only a tribal elder. It's my job to help people who come knocking on my door. That's all." But international experts versed in Kandahar's politics say that Wali Karzai has influence stretching way beyond his role as an elder of the Popalzai tribe and chief of the provincial council. His detractors allege that Wali Karzai has the power to settle land disputes; they say he decides who gets plum international development contracts, who stays in jail and which tribes get humanitarian aid. A top international diplomat says one former Kandahar governor complained to him that he couldn't make any appointments inside his own office without a "green light from Ahmed Wali."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1973240,00.html#ixzz0idFpqhgR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
1. gooood morrrninggg Vietnammmm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
2. The effort to remove Karzai continues.
I should've put money on all this stuff two months ago. :D

FWIW, it's a good thing. There are several people in and out of his cabinet who would do a better, even less corrupt job at president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Of course its a good thing to lose Karzai.
He wasn't legitimately elected, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. I know you know that
...I wanted to make clear what I thought about it, though. It appears Obama agrees with us, as well, which is good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
5. Bad puppet! Bad puppet! Spank puppet!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unhappycamper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
6. ..
A few profit – and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.

The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation – it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted – to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

Let the workers in these plants get the same wages – all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers –

yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders – everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!

Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.


Why shouldn't they?

They aren't running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren't sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren't hungry. The soldiers are!

Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket – that and nothing else.

Maybe I am a little too optimistic. Capital still has some say. So capital won't permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people – those who do the suffering and still pay the price – make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers.

Another step necessary in this fight to smash the war racket is the limited plebiscite to determine whether a war should be declared. A plebiscite not of all the voters but merely of those who would be called upon to do the fighting and dying. There wouldn't be very much sense in having a 76-year-old president of a munitions factory or the flat-footed head of an international banking firm or the cross-eyed manager of a uniform manufacturing plant – all of whom see visions of tremendous profits in the event of war – voting on whether the nation should go to war or not. They never would be called upon to shoulder arms – to sleep in a trench and to be shot. Only those who would be called upon to risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of voting to determine whether the nation should go to war.

There is ample precedent for restricting the voting to those affected. Many of our states have restrictions on those permitted to vote. In most, it is necessary to be able to read and write before you may vote. In some, you must own property. It would be a simple matter each year for the men coming of military age to register in their communities as they did in the draft during the World War and be examined physically. Those who could pass and who would therefore be called upon to bear arms in the event of war would be eligible to vote in a limited plebiscite. They should be the ones to have the power to decide – and not a Congress few of whose members are within the age limit and fewer still of whom are in physical condition to bear arms. Only those who must suffer should have the right to vote.

A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.

At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.

Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.

The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.

The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can't go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.

To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket.

We must take the profit out of war.

We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war.

We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes.




http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC