Don’t expect President Karzai to mourn U.S. military deaths

This week’s report that at least 1,712 members of the U.S. military have died in Afghanistan since the invasion of that war-torn, poverty-ridden country in 2001 prompts the following question: Does Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, even care? We ask it because Karzai has shown a disturbing ho-hum attitude when it comes to expressing his condolences for the deaths of foreign military personnel.

The attitude was poignantly demonstrated two weeks ago when at least 12 Americans were killed by a Taliban suicide car bomber who rammed his explosives-laden vehicle into an armored shuttle bus in Kabul. Not all the occupants of the bus were members of the military — some were contractors — and not all were American. Afghan civilians were killed when the force of the blast tossed the bus several yards. A witness told the New York Times that the bus was lying on its side, completely blackened, and that it appeared to have crushed some of the dead Afghan civilians.

In a statement condemning the attack in Kabul, President Karzai, who has been criticizing the presence of American troops and those from other NATO countries, declared: “The enemies of Afghanistan carried out a dastardly and cowardly attack that caused sorrow for some Afghan families.”

Reporters covering the war on terrorism being fought in Afghanistan and in neighboring Pakistan were quick to note that Karzai made no mention of the Americans and other foreign nationals killed.

As the New York Times reported, “In a sign of continued tensions between Americans and their Afghan allies, President Hamid Karzai issued a statement condemning the Kabul attack, but did not note the loss of American military lives.”

Karzai’s comments angered American officials in Kabul, the newspaper said, noting that there already was bitterness over the president’s statement a week earlier that Afghanistan would back Pakistan in any war with the United States. It was “one in a series of pronouncements that might be intended for domestic consumption but raise fears about Mr. Karzai’s steadfastness as an ally,” the Times reported.

Pakistan, supposedly America’s No. 1 ally in the war on global terrorism, has also been behaving in a way that casts doubts about its commitment to go after Taliban and al-Qaida operatives who have established safe havens in the mountain region between the two countries.

In an editorial published Oct. 15 headlined, “Ungrateful American allies prompt questions about aid,” we referred to the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the American death toll has now reached 4,484, saying: “The two countries that owe their free existence to the United States are the two that have turned out to be the most ungrateful. And as the number of Americans questioning the purpose of our foreign excursions continues to rise, the demands for the White House to reassess its commitments will increase. If Afghanistan and Iraq hope to continue being in America’s good graces, their leaders had better stop thumbing their noses at President Barack Obama.”

Billions spent

The editorial preceded the Karzai snub and, thus, prompts us to ask, “What is the United States getting for the billions of dollars being spent in Afghanistan and Iraq?”

Aware of the uproar caused by his lack of human decency, Karzai sought to make amends by expressing his “heartfelt condolences and sympathies to the family and relatives of those foreign troops and Afghan civilians who were killed.” His sentiments were conveyed to Gen. John R. Allen, the NATO commander, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker.

But the damage has been done. It is clear that Karzai doesn’t consider the loss of American lives to be as important as the loss of the lives of his own people.