Afghan President Hamid Karzai this week demanded that the U.S. and NATO stop bombing civilian homes, after an aerial attack in southern Helmand province killed nine people, including women and children. “From this moment, airstrikes on the houses of people are not allowed,” Karzai said. If bombings continued, he warned, the coalition would be considered “an occupying force.” And “history shows what Afghans do with trespassers and with occupiers.” NATO apologized for the civilian deaths but refused to rule out future airstrikes.
Karzai’s threats come as officials in Washington continue to argue over the cost of the Afghan war at a time of deep deficits at home. The U.S. military will spend $113 billion on operations in Afghanistan this year, an outlay one White House staffer described as “simply not sustainable.” Civilian advisers are pressuring Obama to draw down troops, while Pentagon officials are warning that such a move would jeopardize gains made against the Taliban.
NATO’s dismissive response to President Karzai highlights the hypocrisy of this war, said Glenn Greenwald in Salon.com. “We’re in Afghanistan to bring Freedom and Democracy to the Afghan people,” and yet their “elected” leader “has no power whatsoever to tell us to stop bombing Afghan homes.” But don’t be fooled by Karzai’s criticisms of American occupation, said Amy Davidson in NewYorker.com. They’re not driven by concern for his citizens, but by a desire to distract Afghans from his own “political bankruptcy.” Karzai’s regime is unpopular, and “anti-Americanism is about the best card he has to play.”
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Karzai should be careful what he wishes for, said Howard LaFranchi in The Christian Science Monitor. As the White House tries to slash costs, it might decide to lighten Karzai’s “sense of ‘occupation’” by switching to Vice President Joe Biden’s strategy of fewer troops and more targeted strikes, which “could actually lead to more of the kinds of air operations against insurgents that the Afghan leader finds so objectionable.”
-
How will the new Repayment Assistance Plan for student loans work?the explainer The Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP) will replace existing income-driven repayment plans
-
In the Spotlight Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has been at odds with US forces
-
Music reviews: Ethel Cain, Amaarae, and The Black KeysFeature "Willoughby Tucker, I'll Always Love You," "Black Star," and "No Rain, No Flowers"
-
Putin’s threat to fracture Ukrainefeature Fears that Russia was building a pretext for an invasion of eastern Ukraine grew, as pro-Kremlin protesters occupied government buildings in three cities.
-
Curbing NSA surveillance
feature The White House said it will propose a broad overhaul of the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program.
-
Downsizing the military
feature A new budget plan for the Pentagon would save hundreds of billions of dollars by taking the military off its post-9/11 war footing.
-
Putin ratchets up pressure on Ukraine
feature Russian President Vladimir Putin put 150,000 troops at the Ukraine border on high alert and cut off $15 billion in financial aid.
-
Ukraine on the brink of civil war
feature Ukraine’s capital was engulfed in flames and violence when hundreds of riot police launched an assault on an anti-government protest camp.
-
Ukraine at the breaking point
feature An alliance of opposition groups vowed protests would continue until President Viktor Yanukovych is removed from power.
-
Dim prospects for Syrian talks
feature A long-awaited Syrian peace conference in Montreux, Switzerland, quickly degenerated into a cross fire of bitter accusations.
-
The fight over jobless benefits
feature A bill to restore federal benefits for the long-term unemployed advanced when six Republican senators voted with Democrats.