President Hamid Karzai angrily condemned Saturday “indiscriminate and unprecise” operations by NATO- and US-led forces in Afghanistan that he said had killed 90 civilians in just over a week.
“Attacks causing civilian casualties, as I have said before, is not acceptable for us. It is no longer tolerated,” Karzai told reporters at his palace.
“As you are aware over the past several days, as result of indiscriminate and unprecise operations of NATO and coalition forces, our people suffered casualties,” the grim-faced president said.
Such incidents would cause the international mission to bring security to Afghanistan to fail, he warned.
Sooner or later, that cluster of politicians and pimps that is the Washington Establishment will be forced to accede to the natural requirements of sovereign nations. Even a client state like Afghanistan will eventually control its own destiny.
One of the questions we get to face – this side of the world – is what sort of politics and policies will eventually govern in those far-off lands as a result of our “leadership”?
The future is never certain – – -but – – –
Sure would be alot cheaper if we simply did our military strikes and then went home. Give the locals another chance to get it right, and keep going in until they succeed.
To that end, I agree GOUSA should not act as the worlds policeman but the analogy to being the worlds firefighters might fit better. Sad when a quick surgical strike in Darfur would stop that nonsense.
Not saying we should, just its another way to go.
The rules of engagement and the line between civilian and hostile gets too fuzzy as these actions continue. Most occupational forces tend to lose moral supremacy over time. We really need to step back and rethink these strategies on a strategic level. The goal of exterminating extremists is unrealistic. In fact we may be spreading the infection like an inept physician.
Maybe if Hamid and his buddies used some of the Afghan heroin money to build up their own armed forces and remove the warlords and the Taliban permanently, NATO wouldn’t have to bomb anyone at all, let alone so-called civilians?
Also, if Hamid would simply tell us all to get the hell out, I’m sure the “indiscriminate and (sic) unprecise” attacks would cease immediately and then everyone would be ever so very happy – including us, for a change.
“The Taliban use of civilians as human shields is paying off. Even though civilians killed by NATO, in those situations, has declined since the beginning of the year, every incident is played up by the mass media, and brings with it more calls for NATO forces to respect the Taliban use of human shields. In effect, to allow the Taliban to protect themselves from NATO attack if some civilians can be found to use as shields. No one will come out and say it quite like that, but that’s what it amounts to” (www.strategypage.com). How about a story blasting the Taliban for using civilians as human shields? Yet that would go against the Anti-President Bush & NATO Establishment here.
“Sooner or later, that cluster of politicians and pimps that is the Washington Establishment will be forced to accede to the natural requirements of sovereign nations. Even a client state like Afghanistan will eventually control its own destiny.” What? That’s so vague I don’t know where to begin. The best way to stop the surgical strikes, which are called in near populated areas, is to build up the ANA so they can go out into villages and setup defensive perimeters against Taliban raids. Recently, that has been happening as the ANA performed its first independent mission in Kandahar Province. Even local teachers have begun to form armed resistance groups against the Taliban’s raids against the schools. Again, these local forces may be large enough to protect a school but not a major town or small city.
I just saw the press briefing on Al Jazeera where President Karzai and a couple of comments. The line, “It is no longer tolerated” was it ever tolerated in the first place? He also makes the claim that indirect fire is not effective against terrorists which is false. One of the great sucesses is hitting large flat bed trucks used by the Taliban when they cross the Pakistani border. Finally, he raised his voice which is odd for such a clam and collected man. This press briefing makes sense due to the growing discontent among educated youth in Kabul about the collateral damage from indirect fire. However, I would like to hear what the President says behind closed doors as he is known as a keen negotiator.
#1 – Simply bombing the Janjaweed militias in Darfur is not enough to stop the genocide that is happening. The majority of the deaths are caused by exposure so unless those bombs not only explode, but build houses and spread food and water, it will be ineffective.
Quoting crap like “surgical strikes” – ah. Kissing butt for the Pentagon desk jockeys, now.
5–I agree bombs do not build anything, but it was what that Canadian commander of UN forces begged for at the beginning of the Darfur Massacres. Like Hitlers invasion of Sudetenland, a little force at the right time can push a bully back.
Surgical strikes have been shown to work. Israel did not invade and occupy Iraq back when they took out the Nuclear Plants (to world condemnation include from the US which I assume was fake).
Is it now undeniable that invading and occupying is a strategy that often will not work and even when it does work (if it ever does?) that will break the economic back of the occupier? No. If “invade and occupy” is not desired, what is the other choices?
If economic sanctions don’t work in the next 5-6-7 years, what other real option is there against Iran’s Nukes?
But not the first time.
I don’t even get me started about this one:
Accountability: Most Canadians took the cavalier attitude shucking any responsibility as a slap in the face (and forget formal apology at the highest levels).
Hey, I thought that Canadians and Americans were friends (or just of friends of convenience).