Skip to main content

Afghan Leader, Showing Impatience With War, Demands Timetable From NATO

By KIRK SEMPLE

KABUL, Afghanistan — President Hamid Karzai bluntly rebuked NATO on Wednesday for its faltering campaign against the Taliban and Al Qaeda and demanded a timetable for the seven-year war here to end.

Mr. Karzai’s remarks, at a news conference with the secretary general of NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, reflected dwindling public support for the war here and Mr. Karzai’s own political vulnerabilities. In the United States, however, the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama is planning a significant increase in the Afghanistan war effort as it scales back the American military deployment in Iraq.

“How long will this war go?” Mr. Karzai asked. “Afghanistan can’t continue to suffer a war without end.”

Mr. Karzai’s comments echoed remarks he made here on Tuesday to a visiting United Nations Security Council delegation. They seemed to be part of a strategy he has adopted in recent months to appear more in control of the country and more assertive in his dealings with foreign powers, even if the populist tenor of his remarks risks alienating the foreign backers who have channeled billions of dollars into reconstruction and the counterinsurgency fight.

Amid worsening security and economic conditions, Mr. Karzai, who faces re-election next year, has been trying to counter rising dissatisfaction and criticism that he is little more than an ineffective puppet of foreign masters.

In recent months he has adopted, at least in public, an increasingly adversarial posture toward NATO and American forces deployed here, denouncing what he has called heavy-handed bombings and house raids that have caused civilian casualties, offended cultural sensitivities and undermined popular support for the war that routed the Taliban in late 2001.

He has also criticized the detention of hundreds of suspects for years without trial at Bagram air base and at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

While many in the foreign diplomatic community attribute the president’s criticisms to the 2009 elections, he has struck a supportive chord with many Afghans who have lost patience with the NATO-led effort, especially because of the civilian casualties.

On Wednesday, Mr. Karzai said that if he could, he would ground American warplanes before they could inflict civilian casualties and destroy villages.

“We have no other choice, we have no power to stop the planes,” he said. “I wish I could intercept the planes that are going to bomb Afghan villages, but that’s not in my hands.”

On Tuesday, Mr. Karzai, speaking to the Security Council delegates, assailed the foreign forces’ counterinsurgency strategy.

“The Afghans don’t understand anymore how come a little force like the Taliban can continue to exist” in spite of NATO’s presence, the president said, according to a transcript of the remarks distributed by his office.

“There must be a problem somewhere,” he said, then suggested that “the international community didn’t fight the Taliban properly.”

“Give the Afghan people a timeline,” he said.

At the Wednesday news conference, with Mr. Scheffer standing beside him, Mr. Karzai refined his demand. “I didn’t ask them to set a time for their withdrawal,” he said. “I asked them to set a time for success.”

“Our villages have been bombarded,” he continued, “our people have been killed.”

Mr. Scheffer responded that foreign forces “will stay as long as we are welcome” and said it was his hope that Afghan forces could assume full responsibility for safeguarding the country “sooner rather than later.”

Mr. Karzai’s call for a timetable was received warmly by his political supporters, but assailed by some critics who said it was merely an attempt to buoy his electoral support.

Salih Mohammad Registani, a member of the parliamentary opposition, said that Mr. Karzai’s demand was in theory a “good thing,” in part because it might defuse tensions among neighboring countries wary of the American presence in Afghanistan.

But with Mr. Karzai’s political stock low and the Taliban insurgency strong, he said, the demand seems largely political.

“It’s only because he’s trying to draw support for the next election,” Mr. Registani said. He predicted that Mr. Karzai’s choice of words would “become anti-American.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Siege - A Poem By Ahmad Faraz Against The Dictatorship Of Zia Ul Haq

Related Posts: 1.  Did Muhammad Ali Jinnah Want Pakistan To Be A Theocracy Or A Secular State? 2. The Relationship Between Khadim & Makhdoom In Pakistan 3. Battle for God; Battleground Pakistan - a time has finally come to call a spade a spade 4. Pakistan - Facing Contradictory Strategic Choices In An Uncertain Region 5. Pakistan, Islamic Terror & General Zia-Ul-Haq 6. Why Pakistan Army Must Allow The Democracy To Flourish In Pakistan & Why Pakistanis Must Give Democracy A Chance? 7. A new social contract in Pakistan between the Pakistani Federation and its components 8. Birth of Bangladesh / Secession of East Pakistan & The Sins of Our Fathers 9. Pakistan Army Must Not Intervene In The Current Crisis - Who To Blame For the Present Crisis in Pakistan ? 10. Balochistan - Troubles Of A Demographic Nature

India: The Terrorists Within

A day after major Indian cities were placed on high alert following blasts in the IT city of Bangalore, as many as 17 blasts ripped through Ahmedabad, capital of the affluent western Indian state of Gujarat . Some 30 people were killed, some at hospitals where bombs were timed to go off when the injured from other blasts were being brought in. (Later, in Surat, a center for the world's diamond industry, a bomb was defused near a hospital and two cars packed with explosives were found in in the city's outskirts.) Investigators pointed fingers at the usual Islamist suspects: Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), Bangladesh- based Harkat-ul Jihadi Islami (HUJI) and the indigenous Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). But even as the police searched for clues, the Ahmedabad attacks were owned up by a group calling itself the " Indian Mujahideen. " Several TV news stations received an email five minutes before the first blasts in Ahmedabad. The message repo...

Pakistan Army Must Not Intervene In The Current Crisis - Who To Blame For the Present Crisis in Pakistan ?

By Sikander Hayat Another day of agony and despair as Pakistanis live through a period of uncertainty but still I believe that army must not intervene in this crisis. These are the kind of circumstances when army need to show their resolve of not meddling in the political sphere of the country. No doubt that there will be people in the corridors of power and beyond who will be urging the army to step in and ‘save’ the country but let me tell you that country will only be saved if army stays away and let the politicians decide the future of the country, even if it means that there will be clashes on the streets of Islamabad. With free media in place, people are watching with open eyes the parts being played by each and every individual in this current saga. They know who is right and who is wrong and they will eventually decide who stays in power when the next general election comes. Who said that democracy was and orderly and pretty business ; it is anything but. Democracy ...