Originally posted by ComradePashtun
View Post
There is a school of thought that Michael Semple wrote of recently in a nice article:
The narrative that Karzai is drawing on is one of Afghan heroic victimhood. According to this telling of recent history, everything that has gone wrong in Afghanistan is a result of self-serving intervention by the U.S. and machinations by Pakistani and Western — notably British — secret intelligence agencies. The narrative claims that the United States intervened in Afghanistan not to remove Al Qaeda from the country but because it wanted a foothold in south-central Asia as part of a larger strategic game. Meanwhile, Pakistan is an older enemy. Its security establishment fears a strong Afghanistan and so they conspire to keep the country unstable, mainly by funding terrorist proxies. Likewise, Britain is a close ally of Pakistan and, in keeping with its heritage as a protagonist in Curzon’s Great Game, is a partner in Pakistan’s destabilization of Afghanistan.
Do you understand how stupid that sounds? How phenomenally, erratically, irrationally, donkey level stupid?
But there is a reason why Big K Hamida Karzai Bibi does this. Lets see why:
However conspiratorial the heroic victimhood narrative might seem, it explains a set of Afghan policy stances, which Karzai and associates have toyed with over the years. By focusing on external causes of conflict, it absolves the Afghan elite of responsibility for reform or addressing human rights abuses. Identifying Pakistan as a key agent of instability drives deep skepticism about the prospects for improving Pak-Afghan relations. It also pushes some Afghan analysts to write off the Taliban as mere foreign proxies, incapable of any autonomous action, who should be dealt with in Pakistan rather than in Afghanistan.
By focusing on external causes of conflict, it absolves the Afghan elite of responsibility for reform or addressing human rights abuses
The logic is very similar to when people rightfully criticize the actions of Israel.
The response often is: "You only focus on the bad and don't cite any of the good."
This is an attempt to dilute, divert, or soften the criticism.
Pakistan doesnt matter a lick or a wit in this equation. It is, for all intents and purposes a failed state. The focus will continue to fall on the mistakes, mishaps, and poor leadership of the failed in the West and installed in the East tin pot government - first, second, and third.
The response has been wonderful and the effect has been astounding. The chafing, media response, and subsequent actions of people like Atmar have more than validated this approach and shown its gettings to them.


Comment