[RjkVwPcV]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2010121204208

This guy is getting really ridiculous. If it weren't for the US, Karzai would be dead right now and certainly not president of Afghanistan. As much as I hate to say it, let's just pack up and leave and let him handle things on his own. Oh wait he'll probably just let the Taliban take over again...and then he'll probably be killed eventually after that.

[Yartonbler]

It's tough to say here. Either he genuinely believes the problem of terrorism is not going to be discovered within the Afghanistan borders (which would make his actions somewhat legitimate), or he knows it's there and would rather distract the US forces with the Pakistan border (and probably inciting Pakistan along with it). Hard to know for sure what to make of this one.

[Licacivelip]

It's tough to say here. Either he genuinely believes the problem of terrorism is not going to be discovered within the Afghanistan borders (which would make his actions somewhat legitimate), or he knows it's there and would rather distract the US forces with the Pakistan border (and probably inciting Pakistan along with it). Hard to know for sure what to make of this one.

The fact is the Afghan government is corrupt, moreso than the Iraq government ever was or is since 2003. His brother is a damn drug dealer/trafficker for goodness sake. He just wants to look strong in front of his people and the others but for him to allegedly say something like his three enemies include the US - well then someone, Petraeus, Obama whoever, should say "Fine we'll just take our troops and tell NATO countries to take theirs and we'll leave you to your business." Especially since bin Laden is in Pakistan and we're never (legally) getting in there any time soon.

It's just ridiculous because honestly if not for us, he'd probably be dead right now. If he thinks the Taliban would accept him as president if he we did just leave, he's gotta be the dumbest person in the world. They'll take him down and regain control of the country like they did before 2001.

[Ervins Dervish]

The fact is the Afghan government is corrupt, moreso than the Iraq government ever was or is since 2003. His brother is a damn drug dealer/trafficker for goodness sake. He just wants to look strong in front of his people and the others but for him to allegedly say something like his three enemies include the US - well then someone, Petraeus, Obama whoever, should say "Fine we'll just take our troops and tell NATO countries to take theirs and we'll leave you to your business." Especially since bin Laden is in Pakistan and we're never (legally) getting in there any time soon.

It's just ridiculous because honestly if not for us, he'd probably be dead right now. If he thinks the Taliban would accept him as president if he we did just leave, he's gotta be the dumbest person in the world. They'll take him down and regain control of the country like they did before 2001.

That may be (and very probably is) the case. I can't help myself but to play a bit of "devil's advocate" once in a while and wonder if they may be at least a little bit justified for their actions from their standpoint. Especially since it's very easy to leap to the conclusion that our end is doing all the right things for the right reasons and the other guy (who comes from a different culture and a different way of thinking) is just another one of the terrorists. We'd like to think we individually know better but I find that's not always the case.

[G8whlTAe]

That may be (and very probably is) the case. I can't help myself but to play a bit of "devil's advocate" once in a while and wonder if they may be at least a little bit justified for their actions from their standpoint. Especially since it's very easy to leap to the conclusion that our end is doing all the right things for the right reasons and the other guy (who comes from a different culture and a different way of thinking) is just another one of the terrorists. We'd like to think we individually know better but I find that's not always the case.

I know we're not perfect and I just had this talk that people should sometimes see from the viewpoint of our enemies. I watched the CNN special on the Taliban on Sunday with the reporter who embedded himself with them. I realize most of them believe their causes is just - the lower level Taliban that is. The mid to higher level...no they are just as corrupt as any politician. They know how to use information against us and that's why they're winning.

Who is justified? The Taliban? I don't believe at all that the high level leaders, such as Mullah Omar, are "justified" at all. I guarantee you most women don't agree with their standpoint.

[fereupfer]

I know we're not perfect and I just had this talk that people should sometimes see from the viewpoint of our enemies. I watched the CNN special on the Taliban on Sunday with the reporter who embedded himself with them. I realize most of them believe their causes is just - the lower level Taliban that is. The mid to higher level...no they are just as corrupt as any politician. They know how to use information against us and that's why they're winning.

Who is justified? The Taliban? I don't believe at all that the high level leaders, such as Mullah Omar, are "justified" at all. I guarantee you most women don't agree with their standpoint.

In this context I refer to Karzai, who would have a legitimate reason to be frustrated if he truly believed in his heart that the threat of terrorist activities is no longer within the Afghanistan borders. Hypothetically, if this were the case then his actions taken at face value would be very much justified from his perspective. I can't say that I have a lot of insider's knowledge of whether this is the case, so intelligent speculation demands an analysis of all possibilities, however unlikely they may seem. Chances are, there probably are some elements of corruption involved. Corruption is everywhere there are politics, it seems silly to assume this would be an exception, but to what extent and where it leads are unknowns.

It's easy for us to fall into the misconception that we can point at a person in a position of leadership and say "corrupt" or "not corrupt" as if the term was binary by nature and there were never "shades of gray". The trouble is, corruption by its very nature is not a steep slope that someone is either born into or suddenly wakes up one morning and becomes. The reality is that corruption is a gradual decline involving rationalizations made regarding small but controversial decisions made daily by leaders, frequently with the best of intentions at heart. When a history develops of cutting corners and other similar motivations the individual becomes desensitized to similar things and allows themself to sink deeper and deeper, sometimes to the point where very difficult decisions would have to be made to completely rid themselves of the taint.

Back on topic, the question is really not regarding Karzai's qualities or flaws as a leader but whether his actions are in concert with the best interests of his people at heart. If he really does believe the problem with terrorism lies at the Pakistani border, then the actions are absolutely rational from that mindset. If the corruption does run so deep that he either actively supports or simply tolerates terrorist activities within his borders, then we know what we're dealing with.