# Karzai urges selection of end date for international military operations in Afghanistan



## twistedcables (25 Nov 2008)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7748610.stm 




Afghan President Hamid Karzai has called for a timetable for ending the war against the Taleban in his country.

Mr Karzai made the call in a speech to a visiting UN Security Council team.

He said if Afghans had "no light at the end of the tunnel" they had the right to pursue other options, such as peace negotiations with the Taleban.

Mr Karzai also demanded an end to arrests of Afghans "in their homes, in the roads" by international forces, saying it was the job of Afghan police.

The US and its allies ousted the Taleban regime in 2001 and there are now about 70,000 mainly Western troops pursuing a "war on terror".

'Sanctuaries'

Mr Karzai said Afghans could be asking why a "little force like the Taleban can continue to exist, can continue to flourish, can continue to launch attacks".

The president said after seven years Afghans were asking why "with the entire international community behind them, still we are not able to defeat the Taleban". 

Mr Karzai said there were two options.

First would be to set a timeline, saying that what had not been achieved in the past seven years would be achieved in the next "four years, five years or another seven years".

But he added: "If we cannot give a light at the end of the tunnel to the Afghan people, [do] the Afghan people have a right to ask for negotiation for peace? [Do] the Afghan people have a right to seek other avenues?"

Mr Karzai said he would continue to fight al-Qaeda and Taleban members "who are ideologically against the rest of the world".

However, he said Taleban members who were "part of the Afghan community" could be brought back to serve Afghanistan.

The BBC's Daud Qarizadah in Kabul says Mr Karzai's strong comments show he is extremely worried about the dissatisfaction and frustration among Afghans in the south and east where the insurgency is high.

The call for the timeline is an attempt to win support back in those regions ahead of elections next year, our correspondent says.

Mr Karzai also demanded an end to "forceful entry" by coalition forces into Afghan homes.

"The arrest of Afghans in their homes, in the roads must stop by the international forces... This is the job of the Afghan judicial system and the Afghan police," he said.

The war against the militants had to be fought against their "sanctuaries" in Pakistan, he added.

Our correspondent says Mr Karzai is clearly trying to distance himself from the foreign forces to regain lost popularity.

The UN delegation is on a fact-finding mission and is discussing the use of $20bn pledged at a donors' conference this year.


----------



## Armymedic (25 Nov 2008)

As he should. NATO does not want to be there forever.


----------



## Gasplug (26 Nov 2008)

Mr Karzai needs to cater to his internal audience (the Afghan population).  The next elections are always just around the corner!

Gasplug


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Nov 2008)

From AFG media, shared with the usual disclaimer....

*Karzai may begin peace talks with Taliban*
Timeline for withdrawal of foreign troops must be drawn up says President 
Quqnoos.com, 26 Nov 08
Article link

President Karzai has warned that unless a timeline is established for the withdrawal of foreign troops, the Afghan government will begin peace talks with the Taliban.

Speaking to a delegation from the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Karzai highlighted the disappointment that the security situation has caused many Afghans.

While declaring that his government was committed to fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda, Karzai indicated that so called ‘reconcilable’ rebel elements could be welcome at peace talks.

The embattled president also called once again for a halt to civilian casualties in Afghanistan. He also demanded that civilian arrests and house searches by foreign troops must stop.

In response to Karzai’s remarks, the US ambassador to the UN, Zalmy Khailzad, said that great progress had been made by the Afghan people in the past seven years.

The other ambassadors present reiterated their countries support for Afghanistan and expressed their regret over recent civilian casualties.

The UN delegation, visiting Afghanistan to assess the country’s position seven years after the fall of the Taliban, travelled to Herat on Wednesday morning.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Nov 2008)

From the Sandbox Thread:


Afghan president wants date for pullout of foreign troops
Last Updated: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 CBC News 
Article Link

Afghan President Hamid Karzai is calling for the international community to set a timeline for the withdrawal of troops from the war-torn country.

Speaking to a United Nations Security Council delegation on Tuesday, Karzai said that if no deadline is set, Afghanistan has the right to negotiate an end date for the presence of coalition forces.

"If there is no deadline, we have the right to find another solution for peace and security, which is negotiations," Karzai was quoted as saying in a statement from his office.

He told the delegation that aerial bombings by international military forces and searches of Afghan homes must come to an end.

Karzai has repeatedly asked for Western troops to cut back on civilian deaths, which erode support for the foreign military presence.

Canada is part of a multi-national NATO-led force, a coalition that has about 50,000 troops in Afghanistan. About 2,500 Canadian soldiers are stationed in Afghanistan, primarily in the southern province of Kandahar.

The Afghan president also said not enough attention has been paid to militant bases outside Afghanistan, a likely reference to the volatile tribal areas in neighbouring Pakistan.

In the past, Afghan officials have accused Pakistan of harbouring Taliban and al-Qaeda militants. The U.S. has launched a number of missile attacks in the border region of the two countries in recent weeks.
More on link




I am wondering if this happens, will it leave President Hamid Karzai in a very exposed position and open to a Taliban or other Force moving in and deposing/assasinating him?  I think that even he may not realize the length of time it is going to take to provide him and Afghans the safe and secure environment to maintain stability in the Region.  Setting an "official" withdrawal date is setting him up for failure.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Nov 2008)

I would agree with others who've been saying he's also playing to his local constituencies (same ones that he figures responds to calls to NATO for fewer civilian casualties) - especially with an election approaching.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (26 Nov 2008)

Negotiations are atleast a step forward, If President Karzai feels confident enough to attempt a negotiation on his own then we should back up and allow it to happen.


 Cheers.


----------



## Sonnyjim (26 Nov 2008)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/26/afghanistan.karzai.taliban/index.html

Here's some more info from the original post if you're interested.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Nov 2008)

He is starting to think of the election and wants to appear not to be a puppet.


----------



## Greymatters (26 Nov 2008)

Political posturing...


----------



## twistedcables (26 Nov 2008)

We are in a tricky situation - BUT if Obama follows through with his re-dedication to AFG - hopefully by the time any semblance of order appears, all the worst of the TB/AQ bunch will be very dead.  As for those who might say such talk is harsh: radical ideological terror is defeated ONLY by two ways: kill the major players and make the ideology unappealing.

Guess what the CF is in the business of.


----------



## Flanker (27 Nov 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> He is starting to think of the election and wants to appear not to be a puppet.



Said this, would you agree that his is a puppet?


----------



## McG (27 Nov 2008)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> President Karzai has warned that unless a timeline is established for the withdrawal of foreign troops, the Afghan government will begin peace talks with the Taliban.


I should expect that the international community is pressuring for such talks where possible.  It seems odd to use it as a threat.



			
				twistedcables said:
			
		

> We are in a tricky situation - BUT if Obama follows through with his re-dedication to AFG - hopefully by the time any semblance of order appears, all the worst of the TB/AQ bunch will be very dead.  As for those who might say such talk is harsh: radical ideological terror is defeated ONLY by two ways: kill the major players and make the ideology unappealing.
> 
> Guess what the CF is in the business of.


It is not possible to kill-off an insurgency.  There will always be more people stepping in to replace the killed.  A political solution is required, and the CF's business in this is setting the security conditions necessary for that to happend.  Note, this role does include offensive combat operations to destroy enemy cells, units and networks.


----------



## helpup (27 Nov 2008)

Well, the Afghan Prez just came out with a inquiry into what the UN/NATO/ US timeline is for having troops in Afghanistan.  I am not sure if that is being done for optics or if he is now believing a Timeline must be set for troop pull out.  I can see some in the West jumping on this one a tad too quickly and ill informed.  He also brought up that Coalition forces must stop injuring Afghan non combatants and take the fight into the Pakistani boarder area where they base out of.  It must be really frustrating for the man, knowing that at this time he needs the help of Western forces, yet the use of those forces causing co-lateral damage hurts his and our cause,( don't get me wrong here I am not saying that eggs wont be broken making a OMLT or espousing we are doing more harm then good )

Yes we should be there, to finish the job we as the West started,(entered into) and what Canada signed up for.  That job is very much linked into being wanted there by the Afghan Govt and people.  ( and I know we currently are )


----------



## Nfld Sapper (9 Jan 2009)

sm1lodon said:
			
		

> Canada is leaving the destruction of enemy cells, units, and networks to the Americans?



 :

Read the quote again.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> I should expect that the international community is pressuring for such talks where possible.  It seems odd to use it as a threat.
> It is not possible to kill-off an insurgency.  There will always be more people stepping in to replace the killed.  A political solution is required, and *the CF's business in this is setting the security conditions necessary for that to happend.  Note, this role does include offensive combat operations to destroy enemy cells, units and networks.*


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Sep 2009)

According to the _Times_ (UK), the UK, France and Germany want to give President Karzai, essentially, what he seeks (according to the thread title) - as usual, be careful what you wish for...


> Britain, France and Germany have called for “timelines” to be set for a step-by-step handover of responsibility for Afghanistan to its people.
> 
> Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel and President Sarkozy proposed in a letter to the UN Secretary-General that an international conference on Afghanistan be held this year. The first stage would be held in Kabul, the second in a leading city — Mr Brown has offered to host it in London.
> 
> ...



More from the Associated Press, the _Washington Post_ and _New York Times_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2009)

If *good governance* is to be a criterion then they might as well just invite Afghanistan into the European Union because European troops will never leave.

The correct “victory condition” is sufficient security so that the writ of the legitimate, elected Afghan government extends, pretty much, everywhere in the country. Thus: _Afghans can make their own political decisions_, including decisions we do not like, _in their own ways_, including in ways we don’t like, _without too much fear of intimidation_ by e.g. the Taliban. 

It appears to me that the Canadian and European _peoples_ have given up. They are sick and tired of the war – and it looks like the Americans, Democrats, anyway, are not too far behind.

*Our* _vital_ security interests have been, pretty much, achieved. Afghanistan is no longer, and likely will not become again, a terrorist base. _Al qaeda_ and its friends will have great problems setting up shop in some other weak or failing state. That aspect of the mission has been accomplished.

For Canada a vital political goal has been accomplished: our “voice” is louder and clearer in the world. It’s neither as loud nor as clear as we might wish but our international reputation is brighter than it has been for about 25 years – when Canada led the anti-apartheid _movement_. Our military reputation is better than it has been for 40 years. Not *great* again, but much, much better.

That leaves the “helping the poor, war ravaged Afghans” goal. We’ve failed. Thucydides is right. The first real “test” of *helping* will be in about 215, when all those girls start to leave school and contribute to the public life of their country. My guess is that he’s a prophet crying in the wilderness and he will not be heard; not in Canada, not in Germany and not in Britain.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If *good governance* is to be a criterion then they might as well just invite Afghanistan into the European Union because European troops will never leave.
> 
> The correct “victory condition” is sufficient security so that the writ of the legitimate, elected Afghan government extends, pretty much, everywhere in the country. Thus: _Afghans can make their own political decisions_, including decisions we do not like, _in their own ways_, including in ways we don’t like, _without too much fear of intimidation_ by e.g. the Taliban.
> 
> ...




Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_, is more evidence that “we” – the American led West – want to give up on Afghanistan:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Afghan+government+corrupt+image+could+more+nations+bail+mission+analyst/1988212/story.html


> Afghan government’s corrupt image could see more nations bail on mission: analyst
> 
> By Peter O’Neil - Europe Correspondent, Canwest News Service
> 
> ...




Let us be clear: election chicanery *cannot* be an “excuse” for some, maybe a half dozen or so, of the ISAF members – elections in several ISAF members nations are also marred by ballot box stuffing and intimidation. That there was an election at all, that *most* polls actually worked is at least as “good” as the outcomes in many NATO/ISAF member states. Elections are not the issues – excuse, yes; issue, no.

The _issue_ is: *hope* or, rather, lack of same. Most populations in most NATO/ISAF member states have no faith in the *strategy* and, therefore, no *hope* for success, much less victory.


----------



## GAP (13 Sep 2009)

So much treasure has flooded into Afghanistan that their real economy (what there was of it) is skewed way out of proportion to what it could ever hope to be. Stopping the artificial inflation and the skimming that is done at each stage, just won't work, but walking away also just makes people/groups doing the skimming want to continue to have the $$ roll in, so they find another way/organization....thus the cycle continues...(see Africa)


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Nov 2009)

Good luck with that (links to single page with two articles visible).


----------



## burnaby (2 Apr 2010)

I foresee some problems: 

1)What constitute as stable governance that will show or stratify the Western states (+ NATO->ISAF) and other non-government groups that the Afghan state is stable enough? 

Afghanistan is a by product of European expansionism; there was no Afghanistan before that (there was concept in Western history). Afghanistan is comprised of many tribal groups and in these tribal group these groups have the same religion but at the same time different interpretations. In the West we are taught that there should be a separation between the state and religion(s). However  the Afghan people does not hold that view; religion and governance comes hand in hand. With these differences to create a government that includes all these groups is hard and some say almost impossible. After centuries of barbarism one can say the use of violence as a legitimate way to solve problems is in trenched in the minds of the Afghans. However there is also groups who believe in peace to a certain extent because the teaching of the Koran. 

Democracy in the most simplest terms is the collective agreement among the majority (personal free will) to agree on governance. The Afghan people must put aside the hard line rhetoric of being in a certain group who are superior to others mentality. Can we as a outsider imposes a liberal democracy and show positive results that the average Afghan can see; example through elections and other social, economical and political means. Can we adopt and adapt local customs and traditions (the "good" parts) with democracy? Karzai may request or demand we leave but "we" want to see a stability before we do. 

2) Giving a pull out date.

it is a double edge sword problem. On one hand if ISAF gives a solid date on pulling out it will signal to the Taliban and other militant groups in Afghanistan to just wait it out. On the other hand if we don't give a pull out date the current Afghan government will lack or not as pressured to take the initiative to be self sufficient. 

By not giving a pull out date on logic the Taliban will see a) lets bleed the ISAF forces more b) there is no way of winning and better have a peace settlement and acculturate to the government so Western troops can leave. By giving a pull out date it can signal to the average Afghan people that they as a people have united that country and now strong enough to stand on its own and participate in the world community as equals. A pull out date can reinforce the belief of a stable government.

3) (jumping ahead here, worst case) If Afghanistan fails what do we do with the massive migration of refugees to neighbouring states? what are we going to do with the people who have worked with the West? do we leave them or take them with us; the ones who want to leave. How will a fail state impact on the already volatile region? It can potentially polarize a regional problem into a international one.


----------

