Very interesting article S-2.
I agree with some of Karzai's arguments, but he seems a lost man. NATO is undermining him, Pakistan is undermining him, Warlords in his administration are undermining him.
He is perhaps correct that Afghanistan needs to be dealt with the way the Afghans want, but then he advocates the West undertake military action in Pakistan, a country perhaps even more complex and with its own set of political, religious and ethnic dynamics.
Again, he seems lost, and at the moment Pakistan (and now apparently the West as well) is his scapegoat.
I must also say. that despite all his talk of peaceful coexistence with Pakistan, demanding respect from Pakistan, he has not done anything to address Pakistani concerns on the Durand, and talk of 'saving the Pashtun of Pakistan' is not the talk of a 'respectful friend'.
He has every right to have a close relationship with India, but when someone can explain to me why seven consulates are needed for a few thousand Indians in Afghanistan, I might actually believe him that he won't allow one country to use Afghanistan against another.
These are seven consulates with requisite staff after all - not rest areas for Indian workers along the highway she is constructing.
Another interesting view he offered, that anti-Pakistan warlords are being sustained by the US led coalition, and they are warlords he doesn't care for either - Muse's argument, that most of the anti-Pakistan efforts emanating from Afghanistan have US backing, take on new significance with this view of Karzai's.
