Know what’s missing from this?
“My worry is that the Afghans come to see it as part of the problem, rather than as part of their solution. And then we are lost,” Gates said.
But Gates is also aware of the public relations problem as Karzai stirs the pot.
“I don’t believe that his rhetoric has been helpful, and I must tell you that when I was last there and visited Bagram, I got a briefing on the procedures that our pilots go through to try and avoid civilian casualties,” Gates said. “I took a significant element of the Afghan press with me with their cameras so that they could see that briefing and see just how hard we do work at trying to avoid civilian casualties.”
Pentagon officials say that the continued comments by the Afghan president are making it difficult for U.S. troops. The more the Afghan president criticizes U.S. commanders, the more a gulf grows in the relationship between locals and U.S. troops.
Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen have spoken to Karzai about his concerns on numerous occasions, officials said, and have related their same concerns on civilian deaths. (Emphasis mine.)
Yep, that’s right—what’s missing is a single quote from anyone from Afghanistan or the Afghan government, including Karzai. But really, Pentagon officials—continue blaming him if you think vocally complaining about civilian casualties is what’s making things difficult there.
Look, I am no fan of Karzai (I think if he wins the postponed election, we lose BIG TIME because Afghans will think democracy does not work), but this is a petty and ridiculous charge. There is little doubt Karzai is playing the victim role for the election… but he is not the one killing civilians. Expressing concern is meaningless if it doesn’t translate into concrete action to protect the innocent.
This post was written by...
Joshua Foust – author of 1771 posts on Registan.net.
Joshua Foust is a Fellow at the American Security Project and the author of Afghanistan Journal: Selections from Registan.net. His research focuses primarily on Central and South Asia. Joshua is a correspondent for The Atlantic and a columnist for PBS Need to Know. Joshua appears regularly on the BBC World News, Aljazeera, and international public radio. Joshua is also a regular contributor to Foreign Policy’s AfPak Channel, and his writing has appeared in the New York Times, Reuters, and the Christian Science Monitor. Follow him on twitter: @joshuafoust
{ 2 comments }
Also local population could be hostile if their leader criticize the american troops.
I’m going to presume that this is related to the recent reports out of the Pentagon indicating a scaling back of the strategic goals for the U.S. in Afghanistan. Karzai likely knows that the U.S. is considering limiting its attention to economic development and political development (i.e. democracy) in favor of focusing more energy on the security/combat role.
I’m not even going to try to argue that these aren’t related dimensions; but, given limited resources the focus has to be on security first. In your opinion, does Karzai lose from this change in policy and could it be leading to a divide between his government and U.S. warfighters?