Posted by: Editor | May 22, 2009

Civilian Death Exaggeration, Karzai’s Political Card

Kabul May 22– News from a conflict zone has always been controversial. Be it Taliban claiming responsibility for attacking foreign troops, or the Government outcry civilian deaths, all incidents lack independent reporting, thus lead to controversies.

The US says the civilian death toll by the Government has been hugely exaggerated. Last week the government had claimed that as many as 140 civilians were killed in a US aerial strike in Bala Buluk village of Farah Province.  Pentagon officials say their investigation and the video evidences of the strike shows 20 civilians came under fire while Taliban were using them as shelter hiding in private houses. US Military says 60 Taliban were killed, while the Government reduces the number.

Two weeks ago  a group of 300 Taliban insurgents came in villages of Bala Buluk and attacked police killing three. The US aerial support was called by the provincial Governor. The Government statistics of “civilian deaths” were based on claims made by people from the place of incident, who are not confirmed whether they were the remaining of those 300 Taliban insurgents or local villagers. Government had said the victims did not include militants while the US officials say 60 Taliban have been killed.

Attacks by Taliban have always killed more civilian than troops. They often use civilians as shelter to attack foreign forces. Recent incident of the Farah Province is an example where Taliban terrorists were hiding among local population. On the other hand, Government–mostly Karzai himself directly–make public statements claiming huge civilian casualties without any proper investigation. For example the recent claim of 140 “civilian deaths” were made immediately after the incident based on what some people from the ground had said.  People that shelter or hide Taliban in their homes are equally guilty of giving refuge to a terrorist, but the Government has never condemned Taliban publicly for not using civilians as shelter. Karzai has been calling upon them for “negotiations”.

The irresponsible public statements from Karzai with provoking tone against foreign troops is aimed at political aspirations. He want to use “civilian deaths” as a pressure option against US as well as to gain sympathy and his lost popularity among masses. During visit of the mosque in Farah with US Ambassador, Karzai announced to send the relatives of the victims to Hajj.Villagers assured their full support to Karzai in the August elections.

Karzai’s crocodile tears on “civilian deaths” shows he is more part of the trouble, than solution. He creates hatred among masses towards the international efforts made for Afghanistan. Using humanitarian issues for one’s political aspirations is devilish.


  1. Karzai clearly trying to get sympathy votes as the elections creep closer.

    His core constituency is the Durrani(mohammadzais the traditional ruling elitist group) paushtun vote bank, and now he also wants to woo the ghilzai pushtuns of Southern Afghanistan.

    In the absence of any formidable opposition candidate who also has a foreign backing – unfortunately it seems that Kharzai is on his way to another term in office.

    This clearly does not bode well for the poor masses of the country and especially for all ethnic groups other than Pashtuns – as Karzai has virtually nothing to show as an achievement in his current term; which by the way has ended and the Supreme Court very dubiously has extended.

    Khalilzad will be placed as the CEO, as the American-Afghanistani citizen did not surrender his American nationality primarily due to the fact that Karzai has entrenched himself deeply into the system and Khalilzad was not confident enough of a win. Karzai has deep pockets mainly due to the fact that his brother runs a very efficient narcotics trade and also that the karzai administration has brazenly siphoned off all the funding for the poor masses.

    It would be interesting to see how the two offices of CEO and the president will operate – will they team up to further encourage war lordism, corruption, nepotism or will the CEO be effective?

    Histroy teaches otherwise but time will tell.

  2. Latest News

    Hizb-i-wahdat e islami and Junbish-i-milli declared their support for Hamid Karzai instead of Abdullah Abdullah in the upcoming election …

    A wise but debatable decision …

  3. Although it is too premature to comment on the news the Wahdat-Junbish are going to support Karzai but the first thoughts that come to mind are:

    -Tajiks have been an arrogant and unreliable player. They prefer to do it alone – only two instances where Tajiks actually controlled Kabul. Once was when habibullah (bache saqoo) took over and then ran away instead of standing and giving it a fight againt Nadir shah and the second was when rabbani-massoud took control during early 90’s. Here instead of engaging other ethnic groups like Hazaras and Uzbeks; the Tajiks decided to do-it-alone!

    So history teaches us that Tajiks are dicey partners.

    Plus one also gets a feeling of arrogance around Tajiks – it seems they like the Pashtuns look down upon Hazaras and Uzbeks.

    Supporting Karzai the apparently the best of worst options – I hope that we can bargain and get something out for the Mongol-Turk people of Hazara and Uzbek nations!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: