The corpse of a terror victim is
collected from the site of the suicide
attack on a Kabul eatery: Riven by years of conflict, divided by those
loyal to
Taliban and others seeking a path
to modernity, the decision
over whether to allow U.S. troops to remain
is a historic turning point.
Afghans Support Karzai's U.S. Security Deal Demands (Afghanistan
Times, Afghanistan)
"America's problem is that it has utterly failed in grasp
the Afghan psyche. To think that the hearts and minds of Afghans would be won
simply by injecting dollars into their economy as their loved ones were killed
and the sanctity of their homes and houses of worship violated - was
delusional. Any Afghan would prefer to starve to death rather than be
humiliated by being fed by a haughty Khan."
Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai: His refusal to sign the Bilateral Security Agreement with the United States until the United States pledges to end riads on Afghan homes and take steps to bring 'lasting peace and stability' to the country may be a show stopper, with the U.S. leaving for good.
With
time running out for the United States and Afghanistan, our resolute president,
HamidKarzai, is holding
out on signing the Bilateral Security Agreement [BSA]
that would allow the American military to remain in Afghanistan for another
decade. The more the U.S. presses Kabul to sign the deal, the more the Karzai Administration resists. Kabul not only feels like
it's being taken down a peg down, but since the U.S. has failed to follow
through on what it promised before the invasion, it feels betrayed.
While
the U.S. declared a global war on terror, it was only fought in Afghanistan,
where the roots of militancy lay. Because Kabul has failed to move Washington
to take its war beyond Afghanistan's borders, it has no choice but to adopt a
hard line on signing the BSA and ask Washington to halt its raids on Afghan
homes.
America's
problem is that it has utterly failed in grasp the Afghan psyche. To think that
the hearts and minds of Afghans would be won simply by injecting dollars into
their economy as their loved ones were killed and the sanctity of their homes
and houses of worship violated - was delusional. Any Afghan would prefer to
starve to death rather than be humiliated by being fed by a haughty Khan. How, then, will
the United States buy the allegiance of a people who listen to voices of their
hearts rather than their brains? In fact, in this particular case, Afghans have
listened to the their brains: not only do Kabul's demands seem worthwhile, they
will prove to be a bandage for their bruised national egos.
On
Sunday, the [Afghan] National Security Council asked foreign troops to stop
conducting night raids and bombing Afghan homes. President Karzai
again repeated his refusal to sign the security agreement unless the conditions
set by his government are met. Unless the U.S. changes course, the deadlock
will be difficult to break.
The
latest blow to the BSA were the civilian casualties that resulted from a joint
Afghan-U.S. operation in SeyahGard
on Jan. 15. A government investigation team submitted its report to the National
Security Council on the incident. According to its findings, 12 civilians -
including five children and three women - were killed. Although it was a joint
military operation, it shows that night time raids by foreign forces have
resumed.
Before
the BSA is signed, the National Security Council has called on the United
States to take substantial measures to bring about lasting peace and stability
in the country. In addition to all this, the U.S. has failed to properly
interpret Kabul's demands when it comes to the BSA. Painting Kabul’s pragmatic
approach as a refusal to bargain fairly fails to take account of Washington's
own flagrant disregard of Afghan aspirations for peace, security, and good
government.
Posted
By Worldmeets.US
If
the United States fails to revamp its Afghan mission, then the road it has
taken with the current Afghan government tensions will snowball. And as America
shows its stubbornness over the BSA, even moderate Afghans, who once tirelessly
spoke in favor of the U.S., are casting a skeptical eye toward it. And after
all, why?
The
answer was recently put forward by former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates, who in his memoir served up several devastating accounts and assessments
of the Obama Administration. Gates alleges that the White House’s approach to
foreign policy and national security was dominated by political considerations.
Gates also lashed out at President Obama for being unclear about his commitment
to the Afghan war, and says that by early 2010 he had concluded that Obama
doesn’t believe in his own strategy - and doesn’t consider the war to be his.
With
an approach that holds Kabul responsible and pressing it to kneel before it,
Washington has adopted a counterproductive policy. This is especially true,
given the way President Karzai has made himself
impregnable by garnering support within his nation - even among those who once
were his arch rivals - by adopting a bold attitude and imposing conditions for
signing the BSA.
