| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Afghanistan | |||
| Don't Call Us Occupiers When We're Dying for Your Country, U.S. Tells Karzai | |||
| 2011-06-21 | |||
On Sunday, Karzai met with Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi -- on the first ever official visit by Iran's top defense official -- and the two discussed problems arising from "the presence of foreign forces" in Afghanistan, according to reports in Iranian state media. Last week Karzai held talks with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the sidelines of a Eurasian summit in Kazakhstan, and similar sentiments were expressed. More than 1,500 U.S. troops have lost their lives in Afghanistan -- some 177 this year alone -- since U.S.-led forces invaded to topple the Taliban regime following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. More than 900 military personnel from other nations have been killed over that period. There are around 100,000 American troops deployed in Afghanistan, and the first in a series of phased withdrawals is due to take place in the coming weeks. Without mentioning Karzai by name, Eikenberry took aim Sunday at the increasingly harsh anti-coalition rhetoric emanating from the president, calling it "hurtful and inappropriate." The ambassador, who will leave his post over the summer, made the remarks at the end of a speech on the future of U.S.-Afghan relations, delivered to several hundred students at Herat University. "When Americans, who are serving in your country at great cost in terms of lives and treasure, when they hear themselves compared with occupiers, told that they're only here to advance their own interest, and likened to the brutal enemies of the Afghan people, my people in turn are filled with confusion and they grow weary of our effort here," Eikenberry said. "Mothers and fathers of fallen soldiers, spouses of soldiers who have lost arms and legs, children of those who've lost their lives in this country -- they ask themselves about the meaning of their loved one's sacrifice," he continued. "I have to tell you, when I hear some of your leaders call us occupiers, I cannot look at these mourning parents, these mourning spouses, these mourning children, and give them any kind of comforting reply." Eikenberry conceded that that the "learning curve has been steep" in what is a "complex" situation. "But -- in spite of our mistakes -- we are a good people whose aim is to help improve our mutual security by strengthening your government, army and police, and economy." He went on to list some of the accomplishments, including the building of schools, clinics, roads, power stations, investment in educational training and in the agricultural field, promoting trade and reviving culture, music and sport. "Yet, when we hear ourselves being called occupiers and worse, our pride is offended and we begin to lose our inspiration to carry on," he told the Herat University students. "At the point your leaders believe that we are doing more harm than good, when we reach a point that we feel our soldiers and civilians are being asked to sacrifice without a just cause, and our generous aid programs dismissed as totally ineffective and the source of all corruption ... especially at a time our economy is suffering and our needs are not being met, the American people will ask for our forces to come home." | |||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #11 "...Great cost in terms of Lives + Treasure". THOMAS JEFFERSON? BEN FRANKLIN? MADISON? That sound you're hearing are Amers suddenly + mysteriously missing their Shakepeare + Latin classes from youth. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2011-06-21 22:23 |
| #10 Amscray and burn down the roads, rails, runsways and ports behind us. This is an Indian problem. |
| Posted by: Zombie Hillary Lover 2011-06-21 18:57 |
| #9 Suggest to Karzai that the first group of troops we're going to pull out include his personal security detail. I bet he'll come around. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2011-06-21 17:40 |
| #8 My two-cents: We started off on the right foot, but after the Taliban were toppled we really should have let the Afghans fight for themselves. I think the reason we stayed was to drain the swamp of all the Jihadis in the area. They enemy cannot field an Army or capture territory so they can only win the public opinion battle. Declare victory, hand the key to Kazai, and get our troops out. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2011-06-21 16:22 |
| #7 Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were once civilized. That hasn't been true for Afghanistan since the Mongols build pyramids of severed heads there in the 13th century. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-06-21 14:53 |
| #6 the Afghans would have been forced (at gunpoint) to abide by minimal standards of decency as defined by Western Civilization. That probably had a chance of succeeding, had it been initiated in the fall of 2001. However, it would have necessitated an imperial army on Afghan soil for about 50 years, with a matching cash outlay and casualties (a squad a month) going on that whole time. The USA electorate never would have tolerated that. The US did something like that in defeated Japan & Germany after WWII, but that was probably a once in a country's history type thing. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-06-21 14:51 |
| #5 Why should Western troops be obliged to die for the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan? This is a country that has the death penalty for ideological deviation, a country that officially demands the abolition of non-Muslim's civil rights in the West, a country that wants to make peace with the sponsors of 9/11? The problem is that the ambassador is right, there is no occupation but there should have been an occupation. Had Bush followed his own doctrine (no distinction between terrorists and state sponsors) he would have requested a declaration of war ON the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Afghanistan would have been defeated and the Afghans would have been forced (at gunpoint) to abide by minimal standards of decency as defined by Western Civilization. Instead the Bush administration made sure that Western military superiority could not be used to gain political and cultural influence in Afghanistan. That would have been insensitive, feelings would have been hurt. Instead we are paying danegeld in the form of aid, and our troops are fighting one faction of islamofascists at the behest of another faction of islamofascists. And if some citizen of any Western nation dares to exercise his civil rights in a way that displeases any of the islamofascists he or she will be roundly condemned, legally harassed and told to shut up and voluntarily obey Sharia. /rant |
| Posted by: Vernal Dingle1079 2011-06-21 09:04 |
| #4 This kind of thing always makes me think of The Mouse That Roared. There are real advantages to losing to America, once one gets over the humiliation. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2011-06-21 07:52 |
| #3 I believe most Afghans DO think of the USA as an occupying infidel force. Well sure. That's because that's what we are. But there are benefits as well -- schools, wells, roads, power plants, bio-gas home power designs... I'm seeing things which indicate that, like in Iraq, thinking Afghans are starting to realize the downside of us leaving them to the tender mercies of their neighbors. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2011-06-21 07:46 |
| #2 Practicing scorched earth meaning never having to stay around to do any occupying. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-06-21 07:38 |
| #1 I believe most Afghans DO think of the USA as an occupying infidel force. It's not just the Karzai gov't with that idea. The only armed foreigners Afghans will tolerate are jihadis. Which is why we're there in the first place. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-06-21 01:40 |