The Karzai Factor
I can get onboard with most of this.
I'll agree that, for the most part, there's very little point in continued air strikes; my guess is that there aren't a great deal of air strikes going on at this point. I'll also agree that if American troops are going to search the homes of Afghans, they should do so in conjunction with the Afghan government. Just as our goal in Iraq is to build an Iraqi fighting force capable of kicking terrorist ass and taking names, our goal in Afghanistan is to build an Afghan fighting force capable of kicking terrorist ass and taking names.
I can't fully agree that there's no need for coalition troops in Afghanistan. Every few days, you'll hear about a car bomb, or an assassination attempt, or masked gunmen, or something. Heavy emphasis should be placed on terrorist bases and camps, and I've said before (and will probably have occasion to say again) that part of that infrastructure is probably in Pakistan. As long as terrorists continue to carry out attacks in Afghanistan, and as long as the Afghan security forces don't have the training and experience to handle it, coalition forces need to continue operations in Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai has proven to be a strong leader with big, cast iron balls, but he doesn't have any military experience, so I have to take some of his statements with a grain of salt.
KABUL, Afghanistan - President Hamid Karzai on Tuesday challenged the need for major foreign military operations in Afghanistan, saying air strikes are no longer effective and that U.S.-led coalition forces should focus on rooting out terror bases and support networks.
Karzai also demanded an immediate end to foreign troops searching people's homes without his government's authorization.
"I don't think there is a big need for military activity in Afghanistan anymore," he told reporters in Kabul. "The nature of the war on terrorism in Afghanistan has changed now.
"No coalition forces should go to Afghan homes without the authorization of the Afghan government. ... The use of air power is something that may not be very effective now."
In suggesting a new approach to fighting militants, Karzai said foreign governments should "concentrate on where terrorists are trained, on their bases, on the supply to them, on the money coming to them" — a veiled reference to alleged support that the militants get from neighboring Pakistan.
I'll agree that, for the most part, there's very little point in continued air strikes; my guess is that there aren't a great deal of air strikes going on at this point. I'll also agree that if American troops are going to search the homes of Afghans, they should do so in conjunction with the Afghan government. Just as our goal in Iraq is to build an Iraqi fighting force capable of kicking terrorist ass and taking names, our goal in Afghanistan is to build an Afghan fighting force capable of kicking terrorist ass and taking names.
I can't fully agree that there's no need for coalition troops in Afghanistan. Every few days, you'll hear about a car bomb, or an assassination attempt, or masked gunmen, or something. Heavy emphasis should be placed on terrorist bases and camps, and I've said before (and will probably have occasion to say again) that part of that infrastructure is probably in Pakistan. As long as terrorists continue to carry out attacks in Afghanistan, and as long as the Afghan security forces don't have the training and experience to handle it, coalition forces need to continue operations in Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai has proven to be a strong leader with big, cast iron balls, but he doesn't have any military experience, so I have to take some of his statements with a grain of salt.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home