This post is really more about media coverage of an important statement by Hamid Karzai complaining about the U.S./Nato drone attacks killing civillians.

I heard his actual words (delivered in English) on NPR radio, and was struck by the bluntness of them. Here is the key quote from the U.K. Telegraph, one of the few print sources that is reporting this accurately:

"From this moment, air strikes on the houses of people are not allowed," he [said.

"If after the Afghan government said the aerial bombing of Afghan houses is banned and if it continues, then their presence will change from a war against terrorism to an occupying force.

"And in that case, Afghan history is witness to how the Afghans deal with occupying forces."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... istan.html

But when I started looking for this in print, most of the coverage seems to omit the third sentence, which contains what can only be described as a threat of (more) widespread insurrection against U.S./NATO forces.

For example, the BBC includes the first the BBC includes a milder approximation of the first two sentences, but not the third.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13599766
Reuters, the same:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/ ... RP20110531

WaPo does come close to getting it right, however:

He added that foreign forces are close to “the behavior of an occupation” and the “Afghan people know how to deal with that” — a thinly veiled threat that Afghans could rise up against NATO and drive them out as with past occupying armies. He said Afghanistan would be “forced to take unilateral action” if the bombardment of homes did not cease, although he did not specify what that action would be.

“History is a witness [to] how Afghanistan deals with occupiers,” he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/kar ... story.html

It's not getting much attention here in the U.S., but things are coming to a head in Afghanistan.

Oh, sheeeet...

He may not be a Massoud, but...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Massoud

Xela

I have always believed that Karzai was controlled by the Taliban, and now he is now dancing to the tune of his Taliban masters.

SamuraiCowboy wrote:I have always believed that Karzai was controlled by the Taliban, and now he is now dancing to the tune of his Taliban masters.

Yeah, he is certainly corrupt, and sometimes it's hard to tell whose puppet he is.

He is definitely walking a tightrope. I'm guessing he is an important middleman in negotiations going on behind the scenes. A negotiated solution is possibly the only outcome where Karzai's head doesn't end up on a pike.

And thanks, Xela, for reminding us about Massoud. I remember hearing about his assassination on 9/10/2001 and thinking "oh shit". The next day, of course, almost everybody in the U.S. forgot about him, unfortunately.

We did train these guys to be excellent insurrectionists...

Also, they did a number on the Brits before the Russians as well.

ErikO wrote:We did train these guys to be excellent insurrectionists...

Also, they did a number on the Brits before the Russians as well.

Yes, they were happy to take our money and our stinger missiles, but they didn't need our training.

As the old saying goes, "Would you teach your grandmother to suck eggs?"

(Actually, I recommend against using that saying. It's too easy to get it wrong and start a fight...)

Empty words from an empty suit, if he didn't have US/NATO protection he'd probably be assassinated in short order. Sounds like he's just taking a politically convenient stance since he's pretty much hated in Afghanistan.

marcgo2 wrote:Empty words from an empty suit, if he didn't have US/NATO protection he'd probably be assassinated in short order. Sounds like he's just taking a politically convenient stance since he's pretty much hated in Afghanistan.

Or he probably has enough in his cofers that he feels sufficiently confident to throw a fit.

In any case, it would seem it's the politically correct thing to do, and he's done it. Time will tell if it was too late, as he's not very popular back home.

Xela

Xela wrote: He may not be a Massoud, but...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Massoud

Xela

Massoud is also dead.

Karzai won't do shit, his military and police force are only loyal to the point that they despise the Taliban. His government is so corrupt he can't even pay, feed, or otherwise supply his military without the help of NATO. If he were to come out against us in some pathetic militaristic attempt, he'd be gone in a heartbeat. He just has to act tough to keep the hardliners in check. Fact of the matter is, the majority of Afghans love our presence there because they're getting fucking rich from it. They have the fastest growing economy in the world and they know it's because of us. We give them free farm equipment, vehicles, animals, dams, all sorts of infrastructure to the point that the average Afghan's standard of living has gone way up. The more we interact with the populace and give them aide, the more help and support we receive from the Afghans. Where the Taliban threaten them with violence, we give them medicine and go out of our way to limit the number of civilian casualties, and they know that.

Why does this smell so much like Saigon a la 1968?