Reply #15: No, according to Peter Galbraith, the former deputy UN special envoy ...

[ShortnFiery]

responsible for electoral matters, Karzai's THUGS stuffed over a MILLION ballots in his favor. According to Galbraith, our PUPPET did not even score 50%. Therefore, the election is illegitimate and so is Karzai's rule.
Galbraith made the lucid argument: When your partner is corrupt, I can't see continuing the escalation of combat troops because the MISSION CAN NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED.

Sending troops in to KILL and DIE for a "profoundly corrupt" and "illegitimate" leader would logically foment the intense resentment of the populace for "the puppet" that the USA has installed, i.e., Hamid Karzai. Therefore, my supposition that these resentments would also extend to the leader (President Obama) whose military occupies your native land, is IMO, quite LOGICAL. :shrug:

But no, we must have our Ruling Thug, so we had this honorable man FIRED and supported this DESPISED THUG whose brother is the biggest taliban NARCOTICS trafficer in Afghanistan.

I'm seeing stark parallels to our earlier meddling in the leadership of South Vietnam and the signs do not bode positive.
-----------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/30/afghanistan-diplomat-galbraith-forced-out

The recall of Galbraith would have required the agreement of the Obama administration and has come as a surprise following the earlier demand by Obama's own envoy to Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, that Karzai respect the proper election process.

Further damning US criticism of the Karzai administration emerged in the leaked confidential report prepared by the US commander in the country, General Stanley McChrystal, which warned that corruption within the Karzai government was as big a threat as the Taliban.

The exit of Galbraith would appear to further reduce Obama's scope for manoeuvre in Afghanistan at a time when he is facing calls from his military commander, General Stanley McChrystal, for up to 40,000 more soldiers.