Do you agree with Hamid Karzai's assertion that the U.S. is too reckless in Afghanistan?

Question

"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," a clearly frustrated Karzai told reporters in Kabul.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/23/ap/world/mainD8IDLNGG1.shtml

Answer 1

yeah

Answer 2

While "curious" is obviously correct about the reasons behind Karzai's statements, it seems clear to me that support for the American forces is now lagging from its levels of a couple of years ago. An increase in Talibani attacks, especially upon units that are in the process of withdrawal, replacement, or relocation is a sign that support for the occupation by Western forces is skin deep only. Casualties mount every time our forces are on the move in large number - most recently in late winter and early spring.

We simply do not have enough boots on the ground (somewhere around 20,000 western combat troops IIRC as of this month) to occupy a country of the size and terrain of Afghanistan. Karzai basically functions as the "President of Kabul" in the joking words of the Americans there, and depends upon the warlords to control the countryside. In many villages the warlords act like civilians in many other countries in many other wars - they suck up to the Americans when they are around and suck up equally to the Taliban when we are gone. It is a bad sign that former (and probably current) Talibanis are living peacefully and in significant numbers almost everywhere but Kabul itself. Many of the vilage mayors or chiefs agree with the fundamentalists who wanted to impose the death penalty for conversion to Christianity.

That said, I think that Afghanistan stands a far better chance of pacification than Iraq, so long as the country is allowed to return to a neutral status rather than an active ally in American efforts in Iraq and the Middle East in general.

But we will need many more troops and a much more tolerant attitude toward the Islamic fundamentalists who do NOT support Al Qaida's policy of active war on the west.

We have two choices - try to shape Afghanistan into a conservative but neutral state or be prepared to prevent future state support of terrorism there through threat of force. Bush seems to think we can somehow combine threat and nation-building to create a country that fits our western ideas and values, but that idea has not worked in the past and will not work in the future.

Answer 3

There were many thousands of Nazis killed in Germany. They too were sons of the land. It still had to be done and Germany is better off as a result. Afghanistan will also be better off after this is over, but the Taliban must first be removed. They were far more reckless when in control of the country

Answer 4

No, I do not agree with Karzai's assertion; however, he is a politician with several constituents from various tribal factions to appease. His words were meant for the Afghan people in an effort to unite the populace and ease the tensions created by extremist rhetoric. His assertions were meant to improve his domestic political standing, and not really meant for US forces.

Answer 5

some very intelligent answers here, especially from AndyH.
However Karzai is standing up for his nation and his people and should be applauded. It is the only way for him to go.