Hamid Karzai and civilian deaths in Afghanistan

For the first time during the conflict, the U.S. government has sort of admitted civilian casualties in Afghanistan, although with the usual qualification of “they made us do it.” The admission probably comes partly from the severity of the recent death toll and partly from the somewhat persistent public criticisms issued by Hamid Karzai, which he has increased roughly since Obama’s election. Robert Fisk is, as expected, not pleased, finds the excuses predictable, and thinks the problem is inherent in the nature of air strikes. Here’s another interesting piece where Karzai discusses his relations with the U.S.

Random thoughts: There are a few popular interpretations and reactions to recent events. One is that Karzai just politically needs to take anti-U.S. postures in order to gain favor in Afghanistan, and he’s not serious. Another is that he is actually not a simple proxy of the U.S. administration and is genuinely responding to Afghan concerns, which are real and easily available (e.g. see page 5 of this, especially the results relating to civilian casualties, a “key irritant”). One interesting media phenomenon is that Karzai seems to have magically become more corrupt as his condemnations of the U.S. become more intense and frequent. This is a disturbing trend in relations with American-installed governments. As they become less agreeable to U.S. policies, they acquire all sorts of additional sins, like internal corruption (after all, what aside from corruption could make someone dislike U.S. policy?). I’m not suggesting Karzai was not corrupt from the beginning, but it’s interesting to note when it starts mattering. It’s also interesting to note the legions of allied countries where corruption is evidently not a concern.

Go ahead, watch an Al Jazeera piece on the recent air strike: