Interview: Talking to Afghan President Karzai

Afghan President Hamid Karzai

Sean Gallup / Getty
  • Print
  • Share

(3 of 7)

Recently there has been a spate of civilian casualties. The Afghan Senate is trying to bring foreign forces under afghan law so they can be tried for civilian casualties. Is that what you want?
You cannot justify any civilian casualties. Look. Afghanistan is grateful to our allies for having brought us liberation from terrorists, al-Qaeda and the Taliban. And for having given Afghanistan its place back in the international community. Our flag is flying around the world because of what happened. We would be nowhere, we would be a miserable lot under occupation without the U.S. presence and the presence of the international community. Taxpayer money is spent here in Afghanistan. It is not easy money. It is money that the American and European people have worked hard to earn. The sacrifice in life by the men and women of America and our other allies — that is all recognized, highly registered, with immense appreciation by the Afghans.
But the Afghan people have given a lot too in this war against terrorism. Seven years on we still have people dying in our villages. Seven years on, on a daily basis we are losing our lives, whether the police, army, engineers, teachers and even our children. This the Afghan people understand. But they do not understand why for six years the Afghans have been saying to their allies, that the war against terrorism will not be won unless and until we go to the sanctuaries, to the training grounds, to the financiers, to the motivators of hatred that come across the border to kill us all.
And the allies have not heard us. We took the brunt of this war. Even now the Afghan people, even when badly hurt, when entire families have been victims, killed in bombings, they are still with us in this fight against terrorism. But they don't understand why they should be the victims. We asked for this a long time back. The war against terrorism is not in Afghan villages, it is not in the middle of Afghan civilians. It is not on the roads of Kandahar and Kabul where people die from soldiers shooting out of fear. It is correcting the problem at its origins.
I am speaking of doing the right thing. If Afghanistan is using a method, and that method is causing a problem in the rest of the world, then the rest of the world must come to me to stop that method. If Afghanistan is growing poppies, the rest of the world calls me every day on the reduction and eradication and removal of poppies. Every day in all my meetings, I face pressure on this. I know, and the world knows that it is not going to go away. I know and the world knows that if I could do it as the Afghan president, I would do it tomorrow. I know if President Bush could do it he would get rid of it tomorrow. But then a problem has been identified in Afghanistan, and that problem is being discussed with me every day. Have we done this with regard to sanctuaries, with regard to the training grounds, with those who have it? And those who cause it? Have we done enough to reduce the problem? What methods have we used to cut it short, to weaken it? This is my question. We have war here as a consequence of something else.

Even if you go after the problem in Pakistan tomorrow, you are still going to have war here for a long time to come.
For several more months, years, maybe longer, I agree. Or more. We understand. In that case [if the origins of terrorism are addressed], civilian casualties will be acceptable. But you can't have casualties, and no end in sight. As if the whole war in Afghanistan is because we are the ones producing terrorism. While we are not. We are the victims both ways. That is my point.

And the call in the senate to bring foreign forces under Afghan law?
It is a loud cry by the Afghan people, reflected by the Afghan senate, and they are right about that. And I have discussed the issues with our partners early on, many years behind us now. And we have to find a way forward, oh yes, I support the move in the senate.

At the risk of Americans pulling out?
Well, we have to win this war. The United States is here to win this war against terrorism. Are we doing it correctly? Are we winning this war? We defeated terrorism in less than a month-and-a-half in Afghanistan, but we are still suffering from it. The remnants are still there, killing American troops, killing Afghan, killing French, killing everyone else. What is it that we have done, what is it that we must do to bring an end in sight. Do we have a problem with the Afghan people? In that case the definition of what we are doing is very different. Do we have a problem with international terrorism, then what is it we are doing to address it? So far in my view, and in the view of the Afghan people, not much. Now if we see this as an effort aimed at the right target, spoken about with us, with a proper identification of the problem areas, then we can go along, and in that situation if we suffer civilian casualties, alright, we will accept it.
The senate says we must control the foreign forces, we must control and bring harmony and coordination against the forces of terrorism. We have worked on this for the past five years, we have brought about a reduction in casualties, and we have brought about a lot of improvements. Together in cooperation with the international community. They don't want to have casualties. [Head of NATO forces, U.S. General David] McKiernan doesn't want Afghan civilians to die. [Former NATO forces commander General Dan] McNeil didn't' want that, nobody wants casualties because it doesn't help, it isn't right. Therefore, McKiernan, everybody, should adopt the right mechanism where casualties will be down, where we will be targeting the right place with the right weaponry, and with an effect on the spread of terrorism.

Related

Quotes of the Day »

ASIM WARIS, engineering student in Pakistan, after a suicide attack at a Pakistani mosque killed his friend and at least 39 others
For use in rail of Articles page or Section Fronts pages. Duplicate and change name as necesssary to distinguish.