US & AF reach “partnership agreement”
The New York Times reports that a long term “partnership agreement” has been reached between US and Afghanistan negotiators.
“The document finalized today provides a strong foundation for the security of Afghanistan, the region and the world, and is a document for the development of the region,” said Rangin Dadfar Spanta, the Afghan national security adviser, in a statement released by President Hamid Karzai’s office.
The United States ambassador, Ryan C. Crocker, speaking on Sunday to Afghanistan’s national security council, said the agreement meant that the United States was committed to helping Afghanistan as “a unified, democratic, stable and secure state,” the statement said.
Funny thing, though, there were no details released on the agreement. It seems to me that if this agreement is so good, both sides would rush the details out to the rest of us so we can agree that it’s “a strong foundation” or something.
Not releasing the details of this agreement tells me that it’s not as good for the US as everyone wants us to think. First they release the news that there’s an agreement, and then the details leak out slowly in dribs and drabs while everyone is still intoxicated that an agreement was reached, and no one is paying attention any more.
“The Iranians don’t like it because it shows the U.S. is going to be here for a long time,” said a European diplomat here, who noted that the Taliban would not like it for the same reason. “This is important because they cannot tell their soldiers now just to sit it out and wait for 2014,” the diplomat said.
Yeah, because the Taliban have been waiting for the US to leave for almost eleven years now and they can’t stick it out for another 18 months. If Islam is anything it’s patient.
Of course, the Taliban issued a statement condemning the agreement. if the agreement announced that we’d pulling out tomorrow, the Taliban would complain that we didn’t leave yesterday.
The Times also reports that we’ll be putting $2.7 billion or more every year into Karzai’s retirement fund, and we’re begging other NATO countries for contributions to that figure. Yeah, I can just sense that we can depend on our NATO allies to help Karzai weather his twilight years.
The Associated Press reports;
White House National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said President Obama expects to sign the document before a NATO summit in Chicago next month, meeting the deadline set by the two sides.
So we probably won’t be hearing any details on the agreement until after next month so no one can try to influence him to not sign it with actual facts. But then he has to get advice and consent from the Senate.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Terror War
2.8 billion a year. Well, there went MY retirement fund…
Probably the only thing we’ll hear is that the agreement kicks the can down the road, and requires Obama to be POTUS.
@1 – That was going to be a forgone conclusion no matter what, unfortunately. The Karzai regime is wholly unable to fund their own security.
Well, Congress can always shut off the money spigot. There’s precedent for that, after all. It’s what they did to South Vietnam.
Hopefully, the Senate will refuse to ratify it.
Fuck them all. I hope Karsai gets beheaded and his body dragged through the streets, and the rest of that nation just kills themselves off. It’s a cancer on the rest of the planet anyway.
I have trouble taking a “spokesman” for the “White House National Security Council” seriously, when he’s named Tommy. What is he, 12 years old?
In other news the VA and military’s budget will be cut by 2.billion…
At least that is probably what “all the leading analysists” are telling obama to do.
From above “Not releasing the details of this agreement tells me that it’s not as good for the US as everyone wants us to think.” thinking the same thing Jonn. From above “The Times also reports that we’ll be putting $2.7 billion or more every year into Karzai’s retirement fund…” pittance. We give some of our other allies far more in subsidies then this and here we have an ally in an actual war. Every recent government that has ruled that nation has always had somekind of outside sponsor, without one no internal faction has the resources to dominate the others. That will deny a sanctuary to Al Qaeda and give us an avenue of access if nessary. I have no objection to this in principle. Below the Times Article. 1)”Many Afghans, including some who are ambivalent about the American presence, believe that the country’s survival is tied to having such an agreement with Washington.” The Afghans are right, that they like the Taliban *cough* *cough* Pakistan need an outside sponsor to at least be able to contest the enemy for the future. They do not have the abilty to do this unaided. 2)”They say it will make clear to the Taliban and to regional powers that the Americans will not walk away the way they did in the 1990s after the Soviets were pushed out of the country.” First, the US did not abandon them, we are not guilty of any such transgression because it was never our objective. Our goal was to defeat the Soviets by aiding the Mujahideen as a third party. This we did, how the victors chose to govern/rule themselves was not our perogative. It only became so on 9/11 when Al Qaeda used Afghanistan as a jump off point to attack us. Second, the Soviets pulled out in 89′ but they continued to give equipment and monetary assistance until the collapse of the USSR in 91′. The communists held on until the dissolution of their patron. 3)”A loya jirga, or traditional council, convened by President Hamid Karzai last fall strongly urged the government to… Read more »