If there’s a strategy behind Karzai’s ‘win’, it’s pretty difficult to spot!
AFGHANISTAN: News from the Press on November 2nd revealed that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had phoned Hamid Karzai to congratulate him on winning the recent Presidential election.
“Yes,” I hear. “He is our ally in a war and has been re-elected. Quite normal.”
Yes, but, but …. the election was very seriously flawed – indeed rigged – mostly by supporters of Karzai.
In “The Telegraph” we read: “An inquiry by a UN-backed watchdog this week confirmed staggering levels of fraud, most of it in favour of President Hamid Karzai. It declared more than one million ballots suspect – a quarter of the total cast..”
So, many in Karzai’s party CHEATED. To what extent Karzai himself orchestrated all this is unclear, but HE IS THE LEADER, and if the Leader is not overall responsible, who is? Mr Brown and the UN have also called on Mr Karzai to “end corruption”.
To summarize, A) the Karzai regime is corrupt and B) it cheated in the recent elections.
Given this, WHAT ON EARTH are we doing CONGRATULATING him? Do we usually congratulate corrupt cheats, or only when they are Presidents?
Or perhaps this is traditional, accepted “Diplospeak”?
For us, the world needs honesty, which includes above all speaking the truth. The truth is, there is NOTHING to congratulate Karzai for and so it should NOT have been done. If this is “diplomatic convention”, then CHANGE the convention in the interests of honesty.
We are stuck with Karzai for the moment, but if the corruption continues, then we will lose the fight; the Afghan people will simply no longer support our presence propping up a corrupt regime. But being stuck with him does not mean grovelling, or that honesty has to go out of the window. Too much is at stake.
On Sunday, November 1st, a British bomb expert was killed defusing his 65th bomb on his last mission. The truth is (that’s what we seek, isn’t it?) that we are paying a heavy price to support a corrupt cheat; many will soon start to say “too heavy a price”.
By Chris Snuggs
[PS. Interesting article in the Financial Times advocating that the US shouldn’t commit to a surge. PPS. Another 5 UK soldiers killed in Afghanistan brings this year’s total to 92. Ed.]
Learning from Dogs 
When Britain and France declared war to Adolf Hitler, they were philosophically right, according to the philosophy that our civilization incarnates. Less than six years later, the Nazi regime had been completely destroyed, never to come back.
Britain and France won, because they were philosophically right. In Afghanistan, some say that we are defending our civilization. This is not true in several ways. Technically speaking, we are defending the Afghan constitution.
This is an Islamist constitution. Here are official extracts:
“The Constitution of Afghanistan
Year 1382
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate
(Unofficial Translation, Please refer to Pashto and Dari version for accuracy)
[…]In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate
Preamble
We the people of Afghanistan:
1. With firm faith in God Almighty and relying on His lawful mercy, and Believing in the Sacred religion of Islam,
2. Realizing the injustice and shortcoming of the past, and the numerous troubles imposed on our country,
3. While acknowledging the sacrifices and the historic struggles, rightful Jihad and just resistance of all people of Afghanistan, and respecting the high position of the martyrs for the freedom of Afghanistan,
[…]Have adopted this constitution in compliance with historical, cultural, and social requirements of the era, through our elected representatives in the Loya Jirga dated 14 Jaddi 1382 in the city of Kabul.
Chapter One
The State
Article One
Ch. 1. Art. 1
Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.
Article Two
Ch. 1, Art. 2
The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam.
[…]Article Three
Ch. 1, Art. 3
In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.
***
So, in particular, husbands can rape wives (and those are obligated to enjoy it). A “wife” can be a “battlefield wife” as provided by the Qur’an. If a Muslim stop believing in Islam, he is to be killed (in the Qur’an, once again!).
And so on.
The constitution of the West is secular, republic, democratic, obeys no superstition, and treats women as equal, not half human (a woman is worth half a man in many places in the Qur’an, for example as a witness). The West has no business supporting Islam. The West has no business supporting Christianity anymore, so why would it support one of its heresies, which explicitly contradicts the UN charter in too many places to count them all, some very grievious?
Western troops should refrain to be involved in Muslim civil war (which is exactly what we are doing right now, Karzai v Taliban). Charlemagne tried that, and suffered his only defeat. Smartly, though, he gave up, and turned his efforts to better objectives.
Last and not least, Hitler said he was deeply influenced by the Qur’an, a book deeply hateful of Jews. Muhammad himself deliberatedly massacred, from his own command, nearly 900 Jewish prisoners, just because they were Jews.
Patrice Ayme
LikeLike