The December 31 ultimatum demanding Afghan President Hamid Karzai authorize an open-ended occupation or lose all US military support at the end of 2014 didn’t work, so now officials are trying a different tack.
“My judgment is no troops, no aid,” warned US Ambassador James Dobbins, who insisted that political support for humanitarian aid was entirely tied to the presence of occupation forces, and that if Karzai doesn’t sign off, the Afghan government will lose billions in aid.
US officials are playing up what a “disaster” the loss of aid would be for Afghanistan, while insisting that the everyday lives of Afghans is dramatically improved because of US largesse.
That claim seems unwarranted, and the Afghans are likely to see it the same way. While many in the Karzai government got rich off the corrupt contractor deals, Afghanistan is still a wreck 12+ years into the occupation, and most of the aid has notoriously gone into building projects Afghans didn’t need or want.
Oh darn, Afghanistan won't be getting aid from the US. Simply a terrible shame, no matter how you slice it. But wait! All isn't lost for the Afghans, because right next door are the Russians and Iranians, and down the street are the Chinese, and it doesn't take a huge leap of logic to think that one or more of those nations might be more than willing to step in and fill the void in exchange for a few choice agreements and some real estate.
So Ceaser-Saladin are you suggesting that if we don't intervene the Afghans will want another country to intervene? Implying that the U.S. has no alternative? Please clarify.
Ewww, veiled threats. C'mon Hamid buddy, do it. Or don't do it. Don't sign that death warrant and call Dobbins' bluff. The US will pack up all their toys and pull out of the Afghaniscam. Hmmm, that's not a bad thing.
Gee. How did Afghanistan ever survive without US aggression ? or without coca cola, contractor$, mutilated lives, "democracy" and psycho invaders ? Sheep herders vs. the EMPIRE. My bet is on the sheep herders. The Empire has ulterior motives.
It survived for centuries as a territory for diverse warrior clans.
That's great, There's the money for the unemployment extension
Traditional immorality of the imperial USA on display.
This is why the USA strategically fought WW2 to weaken the rest of the the world and propel the USA into the number one spot: so it could hold its riches over the heads of others to try to make them do what the USA wants – which is to allow the USA to keep everyone else down and keep a tiny US elite rich and powerful.
Aid is given on condition of subordination.
"No troops, no aid." If this could come to pass, it sounds like the goal we've been working for will have been attained. Hooray!
"No troops, no aid." If this could come to pass, it sounds like the goal we've been working for will have been attained. Hooray!
Have some dignity and tell them to piss off, but not before repairing the damage they're responsible for. Worthless Yankee scum!
WE SHOULD JUST GET OUT OF THERE AND GIVE THE SAVAGES NOTHING! IF THEY DO DOMETHING DUMB MAKE THEM INTO A PARKING LOT!
Through selective editing (a/k/a taking out of context) the Ambassador's word, the article makes a prediction sound like a threat. Here is the complete quote "My judgment is no troops, no aid, or almost no aid, …The political support for the aid comes from the military presence." In other words, what he was saying was that he guessed that Congress would not support humanitarian aid without a military presence. It may well have been a veiled threat, but on its face its simply a prediction.