This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/world/asia/another-afghan-child-dead-a-different-response.html

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Another Afghan Child Dead, a Different Response Afghans Assail Karzai’s Disparate Views on Killings
(35 minutes later)
KABUL, Afghanistan — As so often happens in the fog of war, the attack in a village in Kandahar on Friday missed the enemy patrol that was its intended target, instead killing an 8-year-old boy and wounding two other children.KABUL, Afghanistan — As so often happens in the fog of war, the attack in a village in Kandahar on Friday missed the enemy patrol that was its intended target, instead killing an 8-year-old boy and wounding two other children.
President Hamid Karzai was silent about the civilian casualties, although just the day before he had responded with fury to a similar attack in Helmand Province, which also killed one child and gravely wounded two women.President Hamid Karzai was silent about the civilian casualties, although just the day before he had responded with fury to a similar attack in Helmand Province, which also killed one child and gravely wounded two women.
The attack he complained about was carried out by the American-led coalition and used a drone. The attack he ignored was by the Taliban and used a suicide bomber.The attack he complained about was carried out by the American-led coalition and used a drone. The attack he ignored was by the Taliban and used a suicide bomber.
The bomber had targeted an American military patrol in the Daman district but detonated prematurely — killing only himself and the boy and wounding two American soldiers, said Javed Faisal, a spokesman for the Kandahar governor, who said no condolences had yet been received from Kabul.The bomber had targeted an American military patrol in the Daman district but detonated prematurely — killing only himself and the boy and wounding two American soldiers, said Javed Faisal, a spokesman for the Kandahar governor, who said no condolences had yet been received from Kabul.
The disparity in the Afghan president’s reaction has been rued by American officials here, but little commented upon, to avoid a messy diplomatic squabble in an already troubled alliance. Now it has started to draw criticism among many Afghans, who complain that their president has been looking for excuses to besmirch the Americans and delay signing a vitally important security deal with them, while overlooking equally serious or even worse abuses attributed to the Taliban.The disparity in the Afghan president’s reaction has been rued by American officials here, but little commented upon, to avoid a messy diplomatic squabble in an already troubled alliance. Now it has started to draw criticism among many Afghans, who complain that their president has been looking for excuses to besmirch the Americans and delay signing a vitally important security deal with them, while overlooking equally serious or even worse abuses attributed to the Taliban.
In short, many Afghans have begun asking, Who exactly are our enemies here? The Americans, who underwrite our government and military but now say they will be forced to withdraw in 2015 without a security deal? Or the Taliban, who have a history of killing officials even remotely connected with the government — a policy that has apparently begun to claim the lives even of some independent relief workers?In short, many Afghans have begun asking, Who exactly are our enemies here? The Americans, who underwrite our government and military but now say they will be forced to withdraw in 2015 without a security deal? Or the Taliban, who have a history of killing officials even remotely connected with the government — a policy that has apparently begun to claim the lives even of some independent relief workers?
That unease has spread throughout governing circles, and several prominent officials have said that a meeting of the president’s cabinet last Monday was dominated by ministers who tried to persuade Mr. Karzai to sign the bilateral security agreement promptly, as his own handpicked loya jirga, or grand council, also urged him to do on Nov. 24.That unease has spread throughout governing circles, and several prominent officials have said that a meeting of the president’s cabinet last Monday was dominated by ministers who tried to persuade Mr. Karzai to sign the bilateral security agreement promptly, as his own handpicked loya jirga, or grand council, also urged him to do on Nov. 24.
“We were so shocked by the president’s decision on postponing the signing of the B.S.A.,” one high-ranking official said, on the condition of anonymity to preserve his job. “I think most of his advisers and members of his cabinet disagree with the president on the B.S.A. issue. They all want it to be signed.”“We were so shocked by the president’s decision on postponing the signing of the B.S.A.,” one high-ranking official said, on the condition of anonymity to preserve his job. “I think most of his advisers and members of his cabinet disagree with the president on the B.S.A. issue. They all want it to be signed.”
Atiqullah Baryalai, a former deputy defense minister in the Karzai government, said, “His entire cabinet is against him on this.”Atiqullah Baryalai, a former deputy defense minister in the Karzai government, said, “His entire cabinet is against him on this.”
“The only ones with him are his spokesman and a few in his inner circle like Khurram,” he added, referring to Mr. Karzai’s chief of staff, Abdul Karim Khurram. A member of the hard-line and conservative Hizb-i-Islami political party, Mr. Khurram since 2012 has been in control of the president’s news media message, persuading Mr. Karzai to appoint a Khurram ally, Aimal Faizi, as spokesman and wresting control of the Government Media and Information Center from its American-mentored staff.“The only ones with him are his spokesman and a few in his inner circle like Khurram,” he added, referring to Mr. Karzai’s chief of staff, Abdul Karim Khurram. A member of the hard-line and conservative Hizb-i-Islami political party, Mr. Khurram since 2012 has been in control of the president’s news media message, persuading Mr. Karzai to appoint a Khurram ally, Aimal Faizi, as spokesman and wresting control of the Government Media and Information Center from its American-mentored staff.
At the president’s cabinet meeting last Monday, Finance Minister Omar Zakhilwal went through a detailed analysis of what Afghanistan had to lose financially.At the president’s cabinet meeting last Monday, Finance Minister Omar Zakhilwal went through a detailed analysis of what Afghanistan had to lose financially.
“We need international support,” Mr. Zakhilwal said he reminded the cabinet. “Without that, we would not have been here. Our security, every element of government development, depends on it.”“We need international support,” Mr. Zakhilwal said he reminded the cabinet. “Without that, we would not have been here. Our security, every element of government development, depends on it.”
Mr. Zakhilwal has a close relationship with Mr. Karzai and is also well regarded by the Americans.Mr. Zakhilwal has a close relationship with Mr. Karzai and is also well regarded by the Americans.
After the cabinet session, Mr. Zakhilwal gave a series of interviews suggesting that Mr. Karzai was moderating the demands he had made before he would agree to sign the deal, dropping his insistence on a politically difficult release of Afghan prisoners from the American base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and accepting United States assurances that it would not interfere in next year’s Afghan presidential elections.After the cabinet session, Mr. Zakhilwal gave a series of interviews suggesting that Mr. Karzai was moderating the demands he had made before he would agree to sign the deal, dropping his insistence on a politically difficult release of Afghan prisoners from the American base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and accepting United States assurances that it would not interfere in next year’s Afghan presidential elections.
That left only the president’s insistence that raids on Afghan homes had to stop immediately (instead of in 2015, as provided in the security agreement) and that the Americans should make some initial steps to try to restart peace talks with the Taliban.That left only the president’s insistence that raids on Afghan homes had to stop immediately (instead of in 2015, as provided in the security agreement) and that the Americans should make some initial steps to try to restart peace talks with the Taliban.
“These are conditions that are doable,” Mr. Zakhilwal said in an interview. “These things could be done very quickly.”“These are conditions that are doable,” Mr. Zakhilwal said in an interview. “These things could be done very quickly.”
He predicted that the security agreement could be signed within two or three weeks, if there was proof that home raids had really stopped and some concrete overtures toward peace talks were made. “The president absolutely has no intention of delaying this thing,” Mr. Zakhilwal said.He predicted that the security agreement could be signed within two or three weeks, if there was proof that home raids had really stopped and some concrete overtures toward peace talks were made. “The president absolutely has no intention of delaying this thing,” Mr. Zakhilwal said.
Mr. Faizi, the spokesman, said he had made similar assurances in an interview with 1TV, an Afghan station.Mr. Faizi, the spokesman, said he had made similar assurances in an interview with 1TV, an Afghan station.
Then the drone attack in Helmand took place on Thursday.Then the drone attack in Helmand took place on Thursday.
Asked on Friday about Mr. Zakhilwal’s assurances, Mr. Faizi was dismissive. In an email response to questions, he said of Mr. Zakhilwal: “His opinion is based on what I said two days ago to 1TV in an interview, which was the case. But yesterday’s incident in Helmand has damaged the whole atmosphere.”Asked on Friday about Mr. Zakhilwal’s assurances, Mr. Faizi was dismissive. In an email response to questions, he said of Mr. Zakhilwal: “His opinion is based on what I said two days ago to 1TV in an interview, which was the case. But yesterday’s incident in Helmand has damaged the whole atmosphere.”
“President Obama assured President Karzai that the U.S. will ‘make every effort to respect the sanctity and dignity of Afghans in their homes and in their daily lives, JUST AS WE DO FOR OUR OWN CITIZENS,’ ” he said, quoting from a letter that Mr. Obama sent Mr. Karzai, to which Mr. Faizi added his own emphasis. “That is how the U.S. respects the sanctity and dignity of homes in the U.S., bombing a residence for an individual?”“President Obama assured President Karzai that the U.S. will ‘make every effort to respect the sanctity and dignity of Afghans in their homes and in their daily lives, JUST AS WE DO FOR OUR OWN CITIZENS,’ ” he said, quoting from a letter that Mr. Obama sent Mr. Karzai, to which Mr. Faizi added his own emphasis. “That is how the U.S. respects the sanctity and dignity of homes in the U.S., bombing a residence for an individual?”
The Taliban for years have been killing far more civilians than the coalition has; the latest United Nations report on the subject says three-fourths of the 1,038 civilian fatalities between January and July this year were by the Taliban, and less than one-tenth of them by the Americans and their coalition partners.The Taliban for years have been killing far more civilians than the coalition has; the latest United Nations report on the subject says three-fourths of the 1,038 civilian fatalities between January and July this year were by the Taliban, and less than one-tenth of them by the Americans and their coalition partners.
“What does this mean, when every time he says nothing about the Taliban but always is raising questions about the Americans?” Mr. Baryalai asked. “I think Karzai is sending a message to the Taliban, that he really doesn’t want a security agreement with the Americans.”“What does this mean, when every time he says nothing about the Taliban but always is raising questions about the Americans?” Mr. Baryalai asked. “I think Karzai is sending a message to the Taliban, that he really doesn’t want a security agreement with the Americans.”
Most of Mr. Karzai’s American allies, for all the bruising they have taken from him in public lately, would probably not go that far. But, as one Western diplomat warned, noting how weak public support was in the United States for a continued mission in Afghanistan: “Mr. Karzai should be careful what he wishes for.”Most of Mr. Karzai’s American allies, for all the bruising they have taken from him in public lately, would probably not go that far. But, as one Western diplomat warned, noting how weak public support was in the United States for a continued mission in Afghanistan: “Mr. Karzai should be careful what he wishes for.”

Alissa J. Rubin contributed reporting from Kabul, and Taimoor Shah from Kandahar.

Alissa J. Rubin contributed reporting from Kabul, and Taimoor Shah from Kandahar, Afghanistan.