{"id":38607,"date":"2013-11-25T13:21:41","date_gmt":"2013-11-25T18:21:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/?p=38607"},"modified":"2013-11-25T13:21:41","modified_gmt":"2013-11-25T18:21:41","slug":"karzai-demands-peace-as-precondition-for-future-us-presence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/?p=38607","title":{"rendered":"Karzai demands “peace” as precondition for future US presence"},"content":{"rendered":"

I think old Hamid’s cheese has slid off his cracker; addressing his elders’ council, the Loya Jirga, in spite of the council’s advice to sign the agreement with the US for our continued progress, Karzai said that he’d only accept the agreement if peace in his country is a precondition, according to link sent to us by Andy from Reuters<\/a>;<\/p>\n

The gathering, known as the Loya Jirga, had been convened by the president to debate the pact which outlines the legal terms of continued U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. It voted in favor and advised Karzai sign it promptly.<\/p>\n

But Karzai, in his final remarks to the four-day meeting, said he would not sign it until after a presidential election due next April.<\/p>\n

“If there is no peace, then this agreement will bring misfortune to Afghanistan,” he said. “Peace is our precondition. America should bring us peace and then we will sign it.”<\/p>\n

The president did not elaborate, but has previously said a free and fair vote is needed to guarantee peace in the country and his spokesman later said Karzai had not changed his mind.<\/p>\n

As the meeting ended, assembly chairman Sibghatullah Mojeddedi told Karzai: “If you don’t sign it, we will be disappointed.” Karzai responded “Fine!” and left the stage.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yeah, well, the way I see it, even though Karzai didn’t elaborate what “peace” means, if there was peace in Afghanistan, there’d be no need for us to stay. And, oh, yeah, Karzai has done his level best to hamstring the US troops there so that the war drags on with ridiculous rules of engagement. <\/p>\n

Speaking of which, the Washington Times is reporting even more stringent requirements on engaging the enemy. According to the video, troops must only engage armed enemy, even if they’re 100% sure that the dude they’re targeting is Taliban;<\/p>\n