Thursday, June 22, 2006

Karzai Criticizes Coalition Military Tactics

Afghanistan's president Karzai has some serious words for the coalition of the willing regarding their anti-terrorism tactics in his country:

A clearly frustrated Karzai complained that the coalition’s hunt for Taliban militants was killing hundreds of Afghans, saying that “is not acceptable.” More than 600 people, mostly militants, have been killed in recent weeks as insurgents have launched their deadliest campaign of violence in years.

“I strongly believe ... that we must engage strategically in disarming terrorism by stopping their sources of supply of money, training, equipment and motivation,” Karzai said at a news conference.

“It is not acceptable for us that in all this fighting, Afghans are dying. In the last three to four weeks, 500 to 600 Afghans were killed. (Even) if they are Taliban, they are sons of this land,” he added.

While that last statement may be a shocker, Karzai is reflecting the reality that has already been acknowledged in Iraq: these wars will not be won militarily. They will be won by political means.

The bloodshed can certainly go on indefinitely with thousands more lives lost but, unless all parties involved can actually work issues out diplomatically and through more peaceful methods, the cause will be lost.

Canada needs to pay attention to the words of the Afghan president. If he is signaling that our troops under NATO are adding to his country's problems, it's time to seriously reevaluate our commitment. We must never forget that it is their country and that we must have respect for the wishes of its leader who was democratically elected to speak on behalf of his people.

An editorial in today's Toronto Star, that aims to pump up support for keeping Canadian troops in Afghanistan, is short-sighted:

Canadians must remember that our 2,300 troops and $800 million in aid are in Afghanistan at Karzai's express request, under a United Nations mandate and with 37 countries, including our North Atlantic Treaty Organization partners. The legitimacy of this mission is beyond criticism. Ignatieff and Brison deserve credit, not censure, for their defence of it.

Some Liberals worry that Canada's balanced "Three D" approach, which marries diplomacy, defence and development, has become a single D, defence, under U.S. direction. And indeed Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier may have muddied the waters with his eagerness to "take down" the Taliban "murderers and scumbags." But NATO's growing command role should ease any concern. And Canada's diplomats are very present, making sure our aid helps ordinary people rebuild their shattered lives.

There's no guarantee that NATO's takeover of the mission will change any of the tactics that Karzai decries. NATO's prime mission in Afghanistan is that of providing security ie. 'fighting'. Painting a rosy picture that NATO troops will just be there to get aid flowing ignores the very grim reality on the ground: strong offensive measures to rid the country of the Taliban by any means necessary.

How many deaths will Karzai put up with before he asks troops to leave?

He's learned the same lessons that the Iraqi government is dealing with. Neither country's leaders are in control of the fate of these wars, despite assurances from the US that if they were asked to leave, they would. That, in the end, is the price of occupation.

No comments:

Post a Comment