The Obama Administration remains desperate to secure the signature of somebody on the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) which will keep them in Afghanistan beyond 2024. They’re getting less and less picky about who that somebody is.
In comments today, Secretary of State John Kerry noted that Afghan President Hamid Karzai is still refusing to sign, and suggested that the US could ask Defense Minister Bismullah Khan Mohammadi to sign instead, or failing him, somebody else in the Afghan government might be asked.
The US seems confident it “could” do any of these things, but the legality of the BSA as an “Executive Agreement” circumventing the US Senate, which is obliged to be consulted on treaties, is already shaky enough with Karzai on board.
Can the Obama Administration really try to shove through an “Executive Agreement” without the chief executive of the other government a willing participant? It is difficult to see how this could be made to resemble legality in even the broadest sense, and Kerry’s suggestion that absent Mohammadi’s imprimatur they could ask just some random “somebody” in the Afghan government to rubber stamp is completely absurd.
The comments may well be the latest in a series of attempts to bluff Karzai into signing off on the pact, but if they are not merely a bluff suggest the administration is willing to stay in Afghanistan by hook or by crook, and mostly crook.
I presume CNN is missing the self-parody quality of USg in this situation.
That's the "democracy" the US promotes. Just get what you want and ignore the guy who you helped rig the elections to win. Meanwhile at home, we get zero democracy as these people claim our legislatures don't even get to vote on this important treaty.
These people belong in prison. They sure as heck are anti-American, as they obviously oppose and hate everything America is supposed to stand for.
Sadly, a faction in the US Congress – and those who fund them in an attempt to push radical beliefs on the rest of America – is and has been redefining what it means to be American. It has been going on for years, though 9/11 took off the training wheels and opened the floodgates. It no longer means what it used to to be called a Patriot, or a Hero. These qualities have been redefined by those who prefer to stir nationalistic fervor and jingoism to further an agenda based on fear and control. They believe that their vision of America is better than all others – more Patriotic, more godly. Statements such as, to paraphrase generally, "The Democratic members of Congress are anti-American" or "The US was created as a Christian nation." Anyone who has read (and understood) the history of the founding of this country KNOW that isn't the case. But they continue to blather on, constantly, and as a result, the press doesn't bother to correct those making statements like those. I could go on about the American people and how they've laid down and accepted crap like this…
So it's correct to assume the Empire foresees the demise of 'terrorists' in 2024?
No. Sometime "beyond" 2024 — like eternity.
Kerry's bullying approach seems to be the new USG norm in dealing with everyone and everything in the US and beyond.
It is also the approach of Stan McCoy and his coterie of USTR stormtroopers herding lesser nations into the TPP and TTIP and of the intelligence community to mass surveillance amongst other things .
It is, of course, a continuation of the "my way or the highway" and "if you are not with us, you are with the terrorists" doctrines imported from the previous administration and backed by US military, security and economic might and hubris.
To paraphrase: " you go on with the occupation with any signature you can get, not the signature you might want or wish to have at a later time…"
Would the signature of a janitor in the Afghan Parliament building suffice? This is beyond absurd, demonstrating only the lack of anything even vaguely resembling integrity and principles in our "leaders."
First of all, Karzais's signature would not have meant much. Do you think a sheet of paper would mean that the Taliban would stop what they are doing? They were giving grief when there were 130,000 Americans and friends. They would definitely be still in the field with on 13,000 around.
More pertinent, but never brought up is they should not have been too surprised about Karzai's intransigence. As things stand, Karzai would be cast as a clever opportunist who got to play king on the American dime. Not necessarily a negative entry in history.
Signing a pact of what would essentially be permanent vassal-hood, however, would have been a bridge too far, even for Karzai. Pashtuns have relatively short historical memory. Most of their heroes are people who went up against huge odds, and stood fast. For example, Ahmad Shah Durrani, founder of the present state of Afghanistan went against 300,000 Indians in the field of Panipat with 40,000 men, and won.
The villains, whose name is mud, are those who sold out Afghan soveriegnity for an hollow throne. Shah Shuja is the foremost archetype of this. Nobody wants to be Shah Shuja… not even Karzai.
Now, if the president was one of the non-Pashtun Persian-speaking northerners, there would have been no problem with getting the signature. But, the Taliban problem would have become much bigger much sooner.
This whole set up is a joke. Karzai is a puppet, we put him in charge. Our government funds the Taliban. They want to keep soldiers in there to protect the LARGE poppy fields. Remember, our government traffics guns, drugs, prostitution, pornography and are pedophiles.