I like President Karzai and admire his contribution to Afghanistan for the past seven years, however, he sounds a bit scared no different than Musharraf. His perspective may have been sculpted out of the negligence of the Bush/Cheney administration and his necessity to balance the Taliban's interest to maintain a stable government in Kabul.
I believe it will take a new President with a relationship with a new American General to 'begin again.' The Central Government in Kabul cannot be another 'Baghdad' where a 'figure head authority' debates the global affairs of the country while the country is allowed to breed extremism.
What concerns me is the close proixmity of a Taliban Headquarters so very close to Kabul and no concern raised about that at all. How is the Capital of Afghanistan EVER going to be a secure city with an oppressive regime having a hostile facility nearby? There is a lot of power the Taliban have enjoyed in Pakistan under Musharraf and they have become accustomed to being 'catered to' by President Karzai due to the abandonment by the USA.
He raises a legitimate question in that Afghanistan is betweeen a rock and hard place when it comes to USA commitment. It is that commitment that will determine the path of Afghanistan. The USA moving to Iraq was NOT a good idea, it compromised the Karzai administration in Afghanistan, hence, the national security of the USA.
So.
While I am more than concerned about President's Karzai's openly connected alliance to the Taliban within Afganistan, it is the commitment of NATO and the USA to 'succeed' in Afghanistan that will determine the outcome of the defeat of al Qaeda and the defeat of the oppression of the Afghan people by the Taliban. It may be that if the USA and NATO return to 'Bushesque' strategies it would return the outcome that President Karzai came to realize and enforce it.'
I believe at the real core to the interview with President Karzai on GPS is the issue of money and more of it. He'll accept more troops so long as it comes with financial assistance, but, the troops on all levels will be impuned from defeating any Taliban stronghold, which, in my opinion is a hideous circumstance. I don't see the current status of the Taliban lasting at all.
Abdullah supports troop increase, but within a broader plan (click title to entry - thank you)
By John Amick and T. Rees Shapiro
FOX NEWS SUNDAY - Abdullah: Afghans must have faith in runoff
Afghan opposition candidate Abdullah Abdullah said he would not fully support the Nov. 7 runoff vote against incumbent president Hamid Karzai if reforms did not take place to improve transparency and reduce fraudulent ballot numbers in the electoral process.
Abdullah also ruled out the possibility of a power-sharing agreement with Karzai, and said he believed his constituents did not have faith in Karzai's ability to clean out the country's corrupt government and reduce the threat of extremist violence....
Given this view by Foreign Prime Minister Abdullah Abdullah it is clear he in no way supports the current Karzai government and could not participate even after the election. I think Afghanistan has a real crisis in leadership due its abandonment by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. The question is can General McCrystal work within any parameters that include the Karzai priorities. And. I believe he has already answered that.
