« | »

Karzai: No More NATO Airstrikes On Houses

From a cheering Associated Press:

Afghan president seeks to limit NATO airstrikes

By Heidi Vogt And Rahim Faiez, Associated Press
May 31, 2011

KABUL, Afghanistan – Angered by civilian casualties, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said Tuesday he will no longer allow NATO airstrikes on houses, issuing his strongest statement yet against strikes that the military alliance says are key to its war on Taliban insurgents.

Note to the terrorists: hide in houses.

The president’s remarks follow a recent strike that mistakenly killed a group of children and women in southern Helmand province. He said it would be the last.

"From this moment, airstrikes on the houses of people are not allowed," Karzai told reporters in Kabul.

At long last Mr. Obama will have help in stopping our military’s relentless war on innocent civilians which he too has decried for so long. (See clip above and August 2007 AP article below.)

NATO says it never conducts such strikes without Afghan government coordination and approval. A spokesman for NATO forces in Afghanistan said they will review their procedures for airstrikes given Karzai’s statement but did not say that it would force any immediate change in tactics…

Especially since US and NATO ‘rules of engagement’ already prohibit fighting "near houses."

Karzai has previously made strong statements against certain military tactics — such as night raids — only to back off from them later.

In that way Mr. Karzai sounds like our own President.

But if Karzai holds to what sounds like an order to international troops to abandon strikes, it could bring the Afghan government in direct conflict with its international allies…

Or give them cover to eventually end all significant military action.

It is unclear if Karzai has the power to order an end to such strikes. NATO and American forces are in Afghanistan under a United Nations mandate.

The AP is conflicted here. Naturally, they would like to see the United Nations have the ultimate say over any countries elected leaders as a matter of principle.

Negotiations between the United States and the Afghan government on the presence of U.S. forces have become contentious, with Karzai declaring that he will put strict controls on how U.S. troops conduct themselves.

"The Afghan people can no longer tolerate these attacks," Karzai told reporters at the presidential palace.

He probably has seen what is happening in Pakistan, and he just wants more baksheesh.

Asked what he will do if international forces continue to order strikes on houses, Karzai said: "The Afghan government will be forced to take unilateral action." He did not say what that action would be, but said he plans to discuss it with NATO officials next week.

He noted that he has repeatedly told his international allies that civilian deaths from air strikes are unacceptable.

"If this is repeated, Afghanistan has a lot of ways of stopping it, but we don’t want to go there. We want NATO to stop the raids on its own, without a declaration … by the Afghan government, because we want to continue to cooperate," he said.

Since Mr. Karzai has already threatened to join the Taliban, and has regularly offered to give the Taliban the store – it’s hard to see what more he could do.

Karzai said that NATO forces risk being seen as an "occupying force," using the same phrase that Taliban insurgents use to describe the international coalition

Well, when you lose a war like Afghanistan has done, you can expect to be occupied. But if Mr. Karzai is going to sound exactly like the Taliban, we might as well treat him like the enemy and kill him.

At least 2,777 civilians were killed in Afghanistan in 2010, a 15 percent increase over the prior year, according to a United Nations report. The insurgency was blamed for most of those deaths, while civilian deaths attributed to NATO troops declined 21 percent.

And yet Mr. Karzai never has a harsh word for the Taliban. Why is that? Still, lest we forget, Mr. Obama had no problem lecturing Mr. Bush how he needed to do better on this score.

From almost four years ago, via the very same Associated Press:

Obama: U.S. Troops in Afghanistan Must Do More Than Kill Civilians

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

HANOVER, N.H. — Presidential hopeful Barack Obama was warned by a friendly voter Monday to avoid public spats with his Democratic rivals — but remarks he made later could add fuel to the criticism against him…

Asked whether he would move U.S. troops out of Iraq to better fight terrorism elsewhere, he brought up Afghanistan and said, “We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.” …

Besides, Mr. Karzai, where are Mr. Obama’s critics? Where are Obama’s Obamas?

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, May 31st, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

8 Responses to “Karzai: No More NATO Airstrikes On Houses”

  1. GetBackJack says:

    I keep asking myself this question – would it take George Patton NINE YEARS to win in Afghanistan? Would it take even the bureaucrat general Marshall NINE YEARS to win in Afghanistan? Would it take Sherman NINE YEARS to win in Afghanistan?

    So, why are we fighting with tactics and “strategies” GUARANTEED to prevent us from winning the peace and de-Nazifying an enemy nation?

    Who in the chain of command is delighting in prolonging this conflict? Reveling in our soldiers deaths? Wonking their way along in an academic Vietnam styled political war of micro-management and insanely destructive war fighting directives?

  2. Liberals Demise says:

    Open letter to Mr. Karsai:
    Sir, if you are not part of the solution then you are a part of the problem.
    Just like our little dingleBarry……….

    What’s that hum I hear? A drone perhaps?
    Do like the coyote does in the Roadrunner cartoon……..open a parasol!

  3. bousquem says:

    It is hard to target the enemy when said enemy are people your helping one moment and the next they’re blowing themselves up in some delusion that this is the holy thing to do. Also it is hard when they use houses of worship as ammo dumps/fire bases because as soon as you target them, the MSM screams about attacking Islam, never mind the place blew up more because of all the ammo and bombs in there than the one bomb the plane dropped. Also you have the terrorists using women and children as living meat shields, they fire at troops then hide amoung the innocents knowing that if the US goes to kill the terrorists then the cowards die as “martyrs” and there are tons of civilians killed to look good when the media shows up, of course after all the weapons and such have been removed to that instead of the terrorist camp it was, it was a “wedding” or some other BS that the MSM will suck up and use as propaganda.

  4. Rusty Shackleford says:

    To the thinking person, the problem is very simple. Said combatants in Af-goon-istan are a hazy, semi-militarized bunch of pogs who blend into and out of the background. When they are firing at US servicemen, they are “agents of jihad” but when they are part of the background, they are “innocent civilians”. Again, not donning uniforms and operate in full military operations is their way of winning.

    No, to be perfectly fair, the fledgling United States did the same against the uber-organized British Army but there are differences. The British had no qualms against torching a house that had American patriots, or just families in it. Nor, did the American patriots have much trouble eliminating the enemy by any/all means possible. So, it was war. And in a war, ugly things happen on the soil whereupon it is engaged. People die. People get maimed, burned, blinded. This is why war is something to be avoided because it is human instinct at its most guttural. It is unadulterated mayhem.

    Somehow, our omniscient intellectuals in our government think that war can be a “limited engagement”. If that term sounds familiar, it’s what McNamara and Johnson wanted to do with Vietnam. They felt an all-out campaign to destroy the enemy would’ve angered the Chi-Coms. Well, it worked so well, the Chi-Coms started sending in troops, tanks, fighter planes and materiel by the ton. But it took them awhile to do it. Had the US operated properly, the NVA would’ve been isolated and neutralized in a fraction of the time that the actual war went on.

    Let generals be generals. Politicians, repeatedly show how adept they are at manipulating rules, regulations and, because they are attorneys, fight over procedures, language and protocol. Soldiers fight over territory. Soldiers have little to no time diddling with the ROE. ROE is for practice maneuvers because you don’t want your practice enemy to get killed while learning tactics of warfare. ROE has next to no place in an actual combat theater. You see the enemy, you kill them. Simple.

    Now the politicians have made Iraq and Afghanistan a Vietnam, part II. And for exactly the same reasons. Yet, during the Vietnam war, they were arguing that the enemy would eventually capitulate once they realized that our forces would escalate to match theirs each time. Then, there were the off-limits targets which simply allowed the NVA to maintain a viable military stronghold.

    Everyone who has ever played any sport or even certain board games knows that what’s happening in Iraq/Afghanistan is really just prolonging the inevitable. Personally, though the war on terror is far from won, we need to re-think this “nation-building” crap and leave. From the beginning, I have said to not endanger a single American life. The sand-people think diagonally compared to us. Their values are skewed and they still live in the 14th century with all the foibles, customs and backwards mentality that comes with that. Any and all men who can pull a trigger will do so. And if they can’t fight against “infidel invaders” then they will fight amongst themselves. I say let them.

    Recently, it was discovered that Afghanistan has some pretty valuable mineral resources. Who wants to bet that it will never be exploited. My guess is that for another 150-200 years it will not be mined. And, if it ever does, it will be done by a Western nation and the benefits of it will be used by developed nations and the money spent on it will go into the hands of “tribal leaders” who will subjugate the masses in their tribes and keep them stupid.

    Many like to think that a renaissance for the sand-people is “just around the corner” but it’s not. Many things in Europe had to happen for its own renaissance to occur….but the very first order of business was to get rid of the muslims.

    They do not know what freedom is. They also do not care. They prefer the caste system they are in because they don’t know any better but also they don’t want to know any better. It is chauvinism on the grandest of scales. Excessive or prejudiced loyalty or support for one’s own cause, group, or gender. We know how hard it was to whittle away at it in the West, imagine how impossibly hard it is in sand-people-land where the average education level is about the 3rd grade. Where women are property, the tribal elders have all the power, no matter how stupid they might be.

    My friend who came back from Afghanistan for the second time last year, said it was like taking a trip back in time to when the Romans had just been taken out as the force of the land. People drinking water from mud holes, taking a dump wherever, having very little to eat, no education, wearing the same clothes for their whole life. And that’s the good parts of it.

    They are not decades but centuries behind the West in everything. How can you help them? Leave them alone and only when they ASK can you do so. And even then, not militarily, not with money…but with education. And only at their request.

    We need to leave the middle east. Let them implode. If they bother us or try to hold oil from us, we go clobber ’em. We have that ability. But staying there is ridiculous. Other than to eliminate terror-training camps when they crop up. But drones can keep an eye on things as well as satellites.

    Much as I respect generals, they haven’t really been able to embrace the full capability of waging a war on people who don’t think the way we do. The grunts on the ground know it. They are effective but a few levels above them, the leaders aren’t gettig it.

    • tranquil.night says:

      “Personally, though the war on terror is far from won, we need to re-think this ‘nation-building’ crap and leave.”

      Principally, I agree, especially if Karzai or the Afghans do for some insane reason carry out any of these ridiculous threats. However, we do still have resources which might serve to leverage some more favorable circumstances for us before we leave. Allies in the security forces and protected regions that might be encouraged to coup for a pro-westerner in elections while we’re drawing down. Civil War following our exit might be the best outcome, but we’d have clear sight on the bad guys and the chance to continue financial aid and drone support to the good.

      Whatever change in mission that happens needs to be well-reasoned, deliberate, and planned with the best possible consideration for our national interests in the region. That means being mindful of the downward spiral of Pakistan, the likelihood that we’ll soon be addressing Iran, the continued hope that whatever Libya is will end – and of course that we have nutty anti-Westerners in control of the UN stirring the excrement with Israel/Palestine while Egypt is going down the tubes, and China is striking deals with our regional enemies to hedge against the relationships we have with our Democratic allies.

      And this will only get more complicated and consequential for us the longer we have this bunch expressing an explicitly (and intentionally) weak foreign policy.

      Mama Grizzly offers basically the same analysis from her bus today in reaction to this news: http://www.sarahpac.com/posts/new-afghanistan-development-dangerous-to-nato

      Am I lovin’ watching the media being willingly dragged around by the leash on the Sarahcuda Show more than Spike loves the Country Club? You betcha.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Yes, Sarah not telling the MBM where she’s going is classic. When I heard Rush telling about it yesterday, I got this wry grin. And the first sentence of her statement where she said, fairly directly that she doesn’t really owe the media anything, but without saying “after they dogged me and my family down”, is true poetic justice and “turnabout is fair play” as far as I’m concerned.

      The media loves to claim that Sarah is stupid and yet, they simultaneously advertise their intense fear of her.

      It’s worth mentioning that to be president, one needs a certain amount of intelligence but good sense, reason and some analytical thinking skills are far more important than pure “intelligence”. In other words, much as I am a fan of Albert Einstein, I doubt he would’ve made a very good president. Little needs to be said here about Obama’s lacking abilities in several areas, along with the myth of his great intelligence.

      But a person who knows work, understands how everyday people live their lives, the concept of a majority deciding what it wants, etc. are all factors that Sarah gets. In terms of skills needed in public office, Sarah has it in spades over Hambone. She knows how to prioritize, isn’t a political hack and is genuinely personable. But being the chief executive of this country really isn’t rocket science and was never intended to be. The socialists would prefer a multi-degreed physicist work on their car or fix their sun-deck than a person who actually knows how to get it done. Such is the false value of credentialed academics.

    • tranquil.night says:

      “Such is the false value of credentialed academics.”

      Surely, you have psychic instincts, because that was the perfect lead-in to a follow-up response to CK’s latest round of “Palin is unsophisticated on the issuez (especially on FoPo)” criticism/candidate selection last night on Bill O’blivious: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/31/quotes-of-the-day-701/

      Her substance stands for itself, and when it comes to her early and often expressed views on the War on Terror, Israel/Palestine, and the Arab Spring, I challenge CK or indeed any of the establishment to examine her record and conclude that it hasn’t been very ‘gutsy’ by today’s standards to say the minimum.

      We’re curious though – since Sarah is such an ill-studied dunce, where exactly are the Wizards of Smart on the establishment side on current events abroad? Does Mittoast have the Ruling Class approved view that Egypt is still a democracy uprising? Probably. What does Rudy think about the War on Terror – that it can be won with a competent can-do technocrat? Oh, but for-shame on Herman Cain for daring to voice that he would trust in experienced advisors.

      Well? Where are the leaders of the Democracy Project as Spike Obama does his damnedest to erase everything for which America’s finest (not you theoreticians) have fought and died in this past decade? Or have you resolved that he’s ‘unbeatable’ on Foreign Affairs, as your previous champion Mitchtoast said?

      Edit: Michelle – “Chasing Sarah: The Boys Behind the Bus” http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43842

      “They call her dumb and then run around in circles trying to figure out her ‘mystery tour’ and blame her for ‘faking them out.'”

      Lmfao @ apparatchiks going haywire @ the paradox of Life, Liberty, & Pursuit of Truth.

  5. canary says:

    There has been ongoing assassination attempts on Karzai’s top officials and military leaders. Karzai has been traveling around to other countries to sell their new found copper and mineral resources, and he doesn’t have the military & police support like other middle-eastern countries have. Those primitive man-made disasters think it’s a sin to eat food from infidels or accept anything. Better to be poor, starve, and die and go to heaven. Karzai won’t be protected like Osama was. He doesn’t want to have to live in a cave some day.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »