tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN July 18, 2014 10:00pm-12:01am EDT
10:00 pm
years old to the age of 13. mr. president, despite regional and international efforts to bring an end to the violence and bloodshed as well as an end to the siege, isolation and punishment of all people and despite the broad consensus that there is no military solution to this crisis or to the conflict intensifiedety has its military operations with full intention and knowledge that civilian casualties will mount. in less than 24 hours, this assault has killed more than 40
10:01 pm
palestinians. while the president has been continuously engaged in efforts to secure a comprehensive cease-fire including efforts by egypt and turkey among other concerned countries in the region and beyond, israel has , continue waging war on our people. command, thect occupying forces are killing and injuring hundreds of palestinian civilians. the majority of children and women destroying homes and infrastructure and displacing thousands of families. beingother disaster is inflicted, traumatizing the entire population and worsening the humanitarian crisis with repeated aggression and leaving
10:02 pm
an eight year blockade showing widespread distress and rage among our people. this savage aggression cannot be justified by any means. it is not self-defense. it is intentionally planned and perpetrated by the occupying power against the civilian population. among the goals of this military are the destruction of palestinian unity and the collapse of the consensus government. officialsns made by from the prime minister on down are clear evidence of this including the specific aims of that aggression. here we are reminded that the israeli government shows the killing of israeli settlers, a crime for which has not been an
10:03 pm
independent transparent investigation, but has been used as the basis for its barbaric attack upon which officials and extremists continue to incite and harmed our people. moreover, the crisis manufactured by israel over the years. and justify the root causes, mainly israel ease denial as a violation of the human rights of the palestinian people and the occupation and colonization. it is not by coincidence that this deliver it the stabilization on the ground diverts attention from obstruction of peace efforts,
10:04 pm
particularly the malicious element campaign throughout the west bank and including jerusalem. humanity, there are systematic human rights violations being committed against the palestinian people. this is not simply the palestinian narrative. this is fact. before the eyes of the world, they wage war against the defense was civilian population traveling human rights, creating reaches of humanitarian law and destroying the pillars of the international system as it forces a repugnant double standard on the international including destroying the credibility of the security council at health which continues to stand aside as israel figure early -- sacredly violates these institutions.
10:05 pm
louder and made repeatedly by this council by the israeli representative, the kills innocent men and women. the death toll stands at 274. at to at the children to make it more than killed and 2065 people injured. ofoverwhelming majority those killed and injured are civilians, including 66 children . 48 women and 17 elderly persons. more than 47,000 people have been displaced.
10:06 pm
facts are: --ng .orroborated by reports the images of the palestinian children killed by israeli , i am compelled to share the names of some of peopleilies and disabled killed by the onslaught since our last appeal to the council. our children and women and all the victims have names. [reading names] family, theyme were obliterated.
10:07 pm
[reading names] they both suffered from severe mental and physical handicaps killed. 80 members of the family including six children and three women, one of them pregnant was massacred and 16 other civilians were wounded by the israeli occupying forces in a deliberately launched military airstrike at their home which is
10:09 pm
10:10 pm
page 14, his sister age 13 and brother. names]g we joined our grieving people in praying for their souls and asking for strength and resilience for the morning families and nations. the names of many of the dead are yet to be known as emergency -- this is the unjust reality in which they are struggling to survive and
10:11 pm
suffering greatly under the occupation as their right to and their legitimate aspirations to realize their freedom continues to be shamefully perverted by the occupying power. this reality is worse and by the appeasement of israel and the international community to hold them accountable and to impose the rule of law. we call upon the security council once again to uphold his duties and react to implement resolutions regarding the protection of civilians in armed conflict. should the security council failed to respond to our appeals , and shoulde law
10:12 pm
our peaceful diplomatic and political efforts in this regard fail home a will have no recourse but to turn to the judicial bodies of the united nations and international system. we have a duty to our people to as weno stone unturned strive to end the israeli occupation, oppression, and colonial domination. the call upon the security council to adopt a resolution that condemns the israel against the civilian population in the gaza strip and calling for the immediate and calls for protection of the palestinian since israel, the occupying power, has made it clear that it is their
10:13 pm
obligation to do so. in this regard, we draw attention to the fact that such a resolution and the necessary action to implement as the full endorsement of the air group, the oic, and constituting the majority. president, i wish to make an appeal to the international community to support the efforts to provide the humanitarian assistance to the palestinian population in gaza in order to alleviate their great suffering and devastation they are enduring. in this regard, we appeal for donor support. recognizing the vital role being played by the agency along with other u.n. agent these and
10:14 pm
international organizations on the ground to address this conclude,d before i allow me just to say a few words . [foreign language] >> we returned to the security council once again after failing to respond to the aggression and we askouncil, over theresistance fallen martyrs. they are israeli acts of
10:15 pm
aggression. there is no woman, man, children, and none of the 800,000 people living in gaza. your right to be angry at this council. the council that has not stopped this act of aggression. you're right to be angry as you suffer and as you lose your children and members of your families. aggression, they are proud. efforts to attain your freedom and put an end to this act of aggression. we know that you will succeed and you will succeed soon putting an end to this are derek act of aggression.
10:16 pm
>> the permanent observer of the state of palestine for his sentiments. and argued the representative of israel, you have the floor. >> in the face of terrorists kidnapping our children, who were left with no choice. rockets raining down on our citizens, we were left with no choice. s, the face of jihadist tunneling under our borders, we left with no choice. forceraeli defense entered to restore the quiet of , and we didf israel everything in our power to avoid this. he made the courageous decision to accept every cease-fire
10:17 pm
offered, even as the people of israel were under attack. rejected every overture to restore the quiet. his is not what we wanted. we have sent our children, sons, and daughters to face an enemy that lives by violence and celebrates it. clear that theit forces are fighting in gaza but they are not writing the people of gaza. her years, the citizens of israel have been the victims of unrelenting attacks perpetrated by a murderous terrorist group. they have attacked us in our homes and schools and buses. .tand now the next kidnapping and the next that we may,pt, so once and for all, remove the
10:18 pm
threat of terrorism casting its dark shadow over the people of israel. mr. president, the past month alone offers a glimpse into the unrelenting threat that israel rockets have been launched from syria, lebanon, and sinai. in over 1500 rockets have been fired by terrorists. great restraint is being met with unrestrained aggression. tuesday, israel had cease-fire t. israel seizes and thomas fires. it battered israel with 50 rockets. they sent a message loud and clear that thomas is determined
10:19 pm
to wage war on the jewish state. two days later, they ask for a humanitarian truce. netanyahu agreed that israel is not interested in a war. they transferred goods to assist the people of gaza and they continue to defiantly launch rockets into israel. sent her team heavily armed purposets with the sole of committing a massacre. this is the third time in two tried tot they have carry out attacks. all the while, still launching hundreds of rockets. mr. president, for 10 days, they
10:20 pm
have had just seconds to run for bomb shelters and save their life. cities, they are being bombarded on a daily basis. worldis no country in the that would tolerate an assault on their citizens and israel should not be expected to either. when acting solely to defend israel has been committed to upholding international law and our army is like no other in the world. we do not aspire to harm any innocent people. we operate only against terrorists target and genuinely regret billion loss. there is no red line become hostile not cross. nothing.top at
10:21 pm
eric even using ambulances filled with children to move terrorists around gaza. there is no site that is off-limits. it is storing weapons in family homes, launching rockets and establishing headquarters in the basement of a hospital. admitted thaty they found, mysteriously, 20 missiles in one of its schools. i am sure that it takes time to check other facilities and will discover this is just the tip of the iceberg. and facilitiesou to commit a double war crime by targeting israeli civilians while hiding behind palestinian civilians. from the safety of their luxury order roomders ordere with one hand and
10:22 pm
human shields with the other. you don't have to take my word for it. the palestinian delegation admitted as much saying, and i quote, the missiles now being launched against israel, each and every missile constitutes a where itinst humanity hits or misses depending on the civilian targets. i doubt the delegates will remember that. mr. president, israel has been faced with the choice that no nation should have to make. responding to rocket attacks and engaging with terrorist. the use palestinian casualties to fuel the propaganda machine. the strategy is clear. it perpetuates the killing of
10:23 pm
its own people in the hope that the international community will place pressure on israel to grant demands. sadly, many people have fallen for this cynical campaign by moralbing the fighting as equivalency or the "cycle of violence." those that say both sides are equally to blame our playing hands ands's furthering suffering. there is a clear difference between israel and hamas. the jewish people believe in the value of life while they believe in the value of taking life. how many must fall victim before he finally breaks his partnership? the president of the unity government that includes a murderous terrorist group.
10:24 pm
what is this government united for? not for peace. some members of the international community are sounding false alarms. they told us that as soon as lines,retreated in 1967 there would be peace. answers to the conflict was fueled by the so-called occupation. does no one remember anything? israel turned every inch of gaza over to the palestinians. the world watched as we uprooted thousands of families from their homes and dismantled businesses. there is not a soldier, not a settler, not a single israeli left. only left behind were
10:25 pm
greenhouses and other structures that would develop the economy and allow the palestinian people to build a peaceful society. the open border crossings because we wanted gaza to succeed. he hopes that this would serve as a model for two societies to live side-by-side. but thomas used the pretense of democracy to create a militant theocracy. first it wages civil war against fatwah.e -- against using them to build economic institutions, it built a terrorist regime complete with miles of underground tunnels. finally, the funding that flowed to flood with weapons.
10:26 pm
they have fired rockets toward israeli towns and cities. over time, they have expanded the arsenal of rockets from a few hundred to thousands. are more sophisticated and can reach further into israel than ever before. they escalated attacks by launching a massive offensive. over the course of three weeks, they fired 800 rockets that would reach one million israelis living in the area. rockets in a00 single week that could reach 3.5 million israelis. rocketse fired 1500 that threatened 5 million israelis or 70% of our population living throughout the country.
10:27 pm
escalation, the international community broke the cease-fire and israel except it hoping that it will finally bring peace. after three rounds of major years, 12,000nine rockets in nine years has become is nothat hamas interested in bringing peace to gaza. when they find themselves on the verge of defeat, it agrees to a brief recess to reset, rearm, and resume aggression. for years, we told you about the thousands of rockets they were smuggling into gaza. we repeated and we said we were met with silence. again, we called the international community to condemn the rocket fire and we were met with silence.
10:28 pm
to face theor them consequences of this in action. they used the foothold in gaza to trample on the palestinian basee and build a terror in israel's backyard. now it sees an opportunity to do it again. they are using the unity government to export capabilities from gaza. if they are not stopped, it will mean more terror for israel and more tragedy for the palestinians. we are concerned about the devastating impact of this crisis on both israeli and palestinian civilians. president obama spoke with the supportnister to israel's right to defend itself.
10:29 pm
accept rocketsd being fired into its borders or terrorists turning going into its territory. hamas has lost more than 1500 rockets. the attacks are unacceptable and would be to any member state of the united nations. its have a right to defend citizens and prevent these attacks. president obama said we are deeply concerned about the potential loss of more innocent lives. it is important everything possible is done to mitigate the suffering of innocent men, women, and children. the consequences are plain for all of us to see and they are heart wrenching. we feel profound anguish on seeing the images of suffering including the injuries of innocent palestinian civilians and the displacement of thousands of people.
10:30 pm
civilians including the elderly and children alike are fleeing to escape the barrage of rockets. this is no way for anyone to the palestinian boys playing on the beach were like boys everywhere. restless for play. their deaths are heart breaking and the loss their family members and neighbors must feel today must be searing. the israeli officials have opened an investigation into their deaths. the devastating consequences of this conflict make it all the more disturbing that hamas has squandered the serious efforts by egypt to broker a cease-fire, a cessation of violence would have offered civilians on both sides a chance for peace, but hamas continued its rocket attacks. as we have repeatedly stated, the united states is committed to finding a domestic solution to stop the ongoing violence.
10:31 pm
as president obama made clear, we believe there should be a return to the cease-fire that was reached in november, 2012. to this end, we are committed to supporting egypt's cease-fire proposal. that is why secretary of state kerry is working with our regional partners to try to bring about a cessation of hostilities and is prepared to travel to the region following additional consultations. until that cease-fire is reached we need to do everything in our power to assist the civilians caught in the middle of the violence. we are grateful for the fire-hour humanitarian pause negotiated by the special coordinator yesterday. it provided a critically important window for the united nations, humanitarian and medical workers and others to reach the wounded, displaced and most vulnerable. it allowed time for crucial infrastructure repairs to improve access to basic services, and it offered a brief reprieve for some of the people most affect bid this conflict. but let's be clear -- a humanitarian pause is just that, a pause. it is a brief stop in an otherwise persistent and often overwhelming stream of violence, which has inflicted suffering and terror on civilians. a pause is no substitute for a cease-fire, which is what is needed.
10:32 pm
indeed, what was already a very troubling humanitarian situation in gaza is rapidly deteriorating. there are widespread shortages of water, food, electricity and medicine. the united nations, humanitarian organizations and regular palestinian citizens are all doing tremendous work to assist those in need from opening their homes to the displaced, to delivering emergency rations to those in the hardest to reach places. but the situation is grave and getting worse. until a cease-fire is reached, we call on all parties to ensure the protection of civilians and to respect and protect humanitarian and medical facilities, including those of the united nations. this week the u.n. and gaza discovered 20 rockets that had been put in one of its schools. the u.n. quickly removed the rockets and condemned the action. such tactics are indefensible. we condemn in the strongest terms this dangerous use of schools and hospitals for
10:33 pm
military purposes which endangers some of society's most vulnerable members, children and the sick. no family, palestinian or israeli, should have to live in perpetual fear of being unsafe in their own homes. no children, israeli or palestinian, should be kept awake at night by the sounds of rockets and gunfire or to be prevented from going to school because it's too dangerous to venture outside. no people want to live like this. it is outrageous that they are being forced to. the only way to end this situation is an immediate cessation of rocket fire from gaza and a deescalation in hostilities that. is what we are calling for today. the recent surge in violence escalated with the kidnapping and senseless murder of three israeli boys, followed by the kidnapping and senseless murder of a palestinian boy. when news of the palestinian boy's killing reached the mother of one of the israeli victims, she said, "no mother or father should go through what we are going through now." she is right. too much innocent blood has been shed. the suffering of innocent civilians must come to an end. thank you.
10:34 pm
for president obama and members of united nations security council. >> we are here at salisbury house. leakes.y carl and edith carl was a man of varied interests. one of the most notable legacies of his interest are his collection of both he and edith collective in terms of culture. an amazing collection of rare limited works. it is incredible. carla collected the books she collected not only because the
10:35 pm
important, historical work but also he believed that the books themselves were works of art. a word beyond the words on a page. he collected almost every edition. but tohanged over time carl, it was the art of collecting. variety ofollected a first editions of ernest hemingway work. publishede green hill in 1935. this a great piece because it illustrates the personal relationship that existed between carl and ernest hemingway. carl, with very best wishes, ernest hemingway. >> explore the history and literary life of desk voice,
10:36 pm
iowa. -- des moines, iowa. >> many of the crises in afghanistan could have been avoided if the u.s. had listened to afghanistan president karzai according to former afghanistan war commander. he was part of an event looking at karzai's legacy as long as a kabul-based reporter. he leaves office in august. this is over 2 hours.
10:37 pm
get started.n welcome. thank you for coming. now that you are here, i should say there is maybe one slight problem with the topic we are going to deal with today. is, is it even a too premature to speak about karzai's legacy. audit of, we began an the 8 million votes according to a deal that secretary kerry brokered last week. it will be a complicated audit. i would not be surprised having gone through something similar with an ambassador that it maybe longer than expected. i imagine that to a certain degree, the question we are going to talk about today will also be affected by how this election comes to an end.
10:38 pm
we all still have a great until tuesday. president karzai has been leaving afghanistan for the past 13 years. thought it was an appropriate moment while the election is being worked out to take stock of what has been accomplished in that time and by that i mean, not only the state of the country he leaves for the next president but certain habits of the governing he has model tond become the a certain extent for an entire generation of young people who have grown up during that time. one of the questions will look at, is it the only way of governing? know the relationship he leaves behind with the international community and the u.s. in particular. afghanistan's progress and the next five years.
10:39 pm
the other tricky thing about the topic is is the karzai's legacy and not karzai himself. in the be difficult discussion to separate the man from the legacy. in my own thinking about this, it seems that from a point of view, u.s. foreign-policy, it has been difficult to have an afghanistan policy and we have offered a more had a policy toward president karzai which and terms wels have discussed have been more psychological almost than a diplomatic. what is president karzai thinking? how can we convince him to do this or that? has he lost his mind? this has been over the past 13 years and a testament in part to constitutionally, the president mean hense powers which is the most important part -- person in the country.
10:40 pm
and a testament to the shakespearean complexity of his leadership and personality. panelists i also are here to either praise or bury him but give an accurate assessment of the country he is leaving behind and what the challenges are and what he achieved and how really in during is this legacy. how much has been the afghanistan he created in large part over the last 13 years becomoe a permanent part of afghanistan, new dna or there will be new acts that can be changed by the next administration whoever will emerge from this. it is a complex topic. our panelists is a young afghan journalist who has published 2
10:41 pm
excellent articles on president karzai including one that introduces the topic of his legacy. here, "the have it man who ran afghanistan," if you have not read it, it is deftly worth the read. general alan, the commander of nato forces in afghanistan from 2011-2013, a crucial time to the afghan lead of combat operations. obviously dealt closely with president karzai across the spectrum of issues relating to the relationship and political. who was thesador special representative of the u.n. and 2010.08 during the 2009 election and, i
10:42 pm
will try to be an impartial moderator i suppose. i should disclose i worked with him during that period. that does not mean i will not challenge him on some points that he made raise. i will ask the panelists to speak in the following order -- speak about 10 or 15 minutes. i might have a few reactions and we will open it up for questions. with that, i will hand the floor over to you. >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you for organizing this. there have been many events here. i have enjoyed them very, very much. dayve to disclose the other -- [indiscernible] let me go back to 2 statements
10:43 pm
made by karzai when i talk to him in may. 2ne was looking back at 200 when they had just installed the authority. it was really a euphoric atmosphere. come in andy would clean the house. and then handed over to the already in good shape. that was his thinking at the time. as then he said about his "i seeg, 13 years later, a to stairs house. and how he organizes the house. the tenant is welcome to stay." but the owner has to organize
10:44 pm
the these and sometimes, somenational community has -- [indiscernible] statement.ramatic you wonder what happened in between? this euphoric statement of the 2012 and this bitterness that comes through in a 2014. karzai is seen as an deeply critical of the united states and i think it is unfair. he is critical of certain things and certain policies. but not of the u.s. come to treat some of the way we did? in my view because of the profound misunderstanding of the
10:45 pm
society. that willstonishing flirt nothing of the society. and then also, a misunderstanding of karzai. him, he isn you meet not like the other traditional leaders. leadersis he like the who have spent decades of broad to receive their education abroad. he is there somewhere in between. western-oriented leader dressed in afghan close bank -- clothes. [indiscernible] -guard leader. old politicale
10:46 pm
context. in institution established. and where did he felt most at ease? i think he most feels at ease in the old traditional world because that is his a world, the world in which he grew up. we tend to not understand that unfortunately. discussing his legacy with him in may, i asked him how do you see your legacy? he did not want to respond. he pushed the question to me and said, how do you see my legacy? i cannot answer, mr. president. first of all, i see you as a consensus builder. he says, yes. be the consensus
10:47 pm
builder. i said, there is not the easiest way for bringing a conflict from a to b. he said, how do you define democracy? my answer is democracy is ruled by majority. no, no, that is impossible in this country. byocracy must mean a rule consensus. if you are ruled by majority, this country would go through conflict and fragmentation. right. he is quite i must say, there is no other afghan leader i have met who understand his society and complexity more than he does. nd even when i was there in 2010 and later, afghan leaders spent much of their time abroad he understood the
10:48 pm
situation a much better. he understood the reaction in the communities. much better than we did. i remember so well the one prominent minister to the south and [indiscernible] in the real afghanistan. what did it mean to me? he spent much of his life abroad. a experience he described in his article. friday, this is -- ♪ [indiscernible]
10:49 pm
i remember leaving the meeting and thinking what is this about. it was about showing respect and allowing leaders to go back. sense, he is a master politician. he knows the country. and tremendously important at this juncture for keeping the country together. karzai, the reformer. 2-2014must say, from 200 the country has been through a tremendous transformation. sometimes we overdo it at little bit. maybe with figures and so on. it has been tremendous progress. you cannot say that the man who
10:50 pm
presided over this is not an important part of this process. he is. him, the media, for example. where it is society more viable and -- more vibrant and open. it has been discussed over and over again than in other -- any other country. just male but female. i remember one conversation with a female journalist raised her hand and asked a very provocative question. would not have happened a few years ago. it is an important change. he imagine to but, the
10:51 pm
peacemaker? unfortunately, not. in spite of all of the efforts reelection.and the so far, all of the -- [indiscernible] he wanted to put in a week president. to create a chaotic situation. -- she he wanted to put in a weak president. i believe karzai is a person that intends to leave and intended to see out the process and finish in peace. i may.e more minute if asre's a tendency to see him
10:52 pm
anti-u.s. and -- in 2009 before the inauguration of the president for a second term, i did a press conference. said iruption and i believed a future peaceful to someure goes back sort of neutral state. karzai became very angry. and reacted publicly. most of the media believed it the warlordsf of and corruption. not at all. he had heard that for me before and knew. i had six meetings with him.
10:53 pm
he knew all of that. what did he reacted to? i touched upon though most fundamental aspect of the countries future. the status, i said neutral. he called me up to his office and said i do not want this to be a neutral country. i want this country to be a u.s. ally. in nato, he repeated that in his inauguration speech a few weeks later. what did this mean? in spite of the humiliation he had gone through during the obama administration which he tried to get rid of him and concern, and spite of that, and spite of film he was rejected,
10:54 pm
-- in spite,ub s= he said of that relationship is critical to me. his second term became one long afort at restoring sovereignty. and i believe he was right but cuts -- because sovereignty and country'sr a sovereignty is a precondition for its return to normalcy. i think he has done a tremendous effort in trying to restore. hisit will be up to predecessors to choose if they will follow that course or if they will follow another. i do believe he has a framework for moving forward on some ground. in that respect, i do see
10:55 pm
president karzai as a historical leader who managed to keep the country together and managed to preside over a period of reform a respecty assisted for his country. a poor and war-torn country. thank you. >> thank you very much for the invitation to be here this morning. it is always great to be at usip. important tohat any gathering like this would be probably at the beginning to take a moment to talk about why this gathering is important. this is not just about karzai per se. in many respects, it is i
10:56 pm
believe a role of institution about how wetalk can learn from this kind of a gathering. the challenges that leaders like president karzai not only facing in his own country today but his successor will face and and other countries similar to the situation we find in afghanistan. it is also important for us to hold the mirror up and look at the mirror both as a people and as a country and decide whether we can stand the reflection we see. finally, a gathering like this ought to help us inform forcy makers of the u.s. not only our current relationship with afghanistan and other states in contemporary situations but our policy processes for the future.
10:57 pm
thanks very much for convening and putting this on. let me start by saying go with a bottom line up front is what you would expect from a marine, i believe is a historical legacy of president karzai is going to be far kinder than him than many other contemporary opinions expressed routinely today. all of us on this panel were or offer ouromment perspectives on what i believe to be an extraordinary import individual, a very complex man. we are probably going to agree on some issue and disagree on others. that does not mean that any of us or all of us are wrong it is when one regards karzai, his times and complexity of the environment in which he has had the challenges that he has had to face, it defies a simple desolation on the man or the
10:58 pm
circumstance. i took my role on this panel to be one of providing perspective of a military commander on president karzai. i remember well worrying about my first meeting with him. i spent a lot of time preparing. ourould do fine relationship and many respects and would follow on what was is be a springould relationship with the general petraeus. it was mid july in 2011 and i was the fourth commander in three years that president karzai was going to have to deal with. in and of itself, it was a source of friction on the outline on the western side. it turned out of the meeting was a pretty friendly meeting and an opportunity for us to establish
10:59 pm
what i believe to this day is a friendship. i pledged him my support and my full energy in our partnership for the future. but do not surprisingly, after were i was amused and a bit alarmed at the palace press release of our first meeting. so many things i had conceded to him in a meeting which i had actually done which took a couple of days, we're able to do so work done and established a standard for a good relation in the future. when i called my dear friend, ryan crocker to point out what i thatht was the process fell on this first meeting and the press release, he just laughed and welcomed me to afghanistan. [laughter] relationshipan a that was span of my 18 months of
11:00 pm
command where i would see him at least once a week and frequently. to make this relationship something more than cash will and make it -- more than casual and make them productive and considered the relationship a friendship. ands a very charming charismatic individual. he is extraordinarily well read. he was along to be one of his books and said when you give me your thoughts? a month later, marines take a while to get the books are read and he asked me where his book was? his book at my book which i asked him to inscribe. us far better than we understood him. of the ancient culture other tribes and as ethnicities of afghanistan.
11:01 pm
we were at a distinct disadvantage. a distinct advantage in his leadership. i often told people that you could make a fundamental error in your relationship with president karzai by assuming he was inherently a president in the context of a european leader. he is in fact a tribal leader. he is of the elite of the tribe. thosely said, many of were the paradigms first lenses through which he would view the challenges we face and the crises we would have to solve. none of that is wrong. orshould not be alarming surprising. it came from the inherent responsibilities we all had to understand the environment in
11:02 pm
which we were operating as military professionals and ultimately to understand the inherent nature of this leader would hope we would deal. he always was happiest when he was relating the details of afghan history. he was not just a national is in that sense but a patriot and in that regard. sometimes, he would be seemingly rambling from one topic to another. i was sitting there and wonder where all of it was going. invariably, he will bring it back to the present and tie it together skillfully to address what issue or crisis we face and with any use of the very clear vehicle of afghan history to make the imperative or point that we needed to solve the problem we were facing today. take you through just a few of the challenges we face together. define how he and i
11:03 pm
dealt on a day to day basis. quickly. through these we can come back in a question and answer session. each one of these were substantial lift. the first was the negotiation of .he and strategic walter kwok -- while ryan and i sat together during the session, we dealt closely on this issue. weirect result of the spa, ultimately had to go and to the negotiation of the bilateral agreement. in conjunction with the negotiations of the partnership agreement, he convened. this goes to a really important point about the nature of karzai as a leader and politician. he was masterful, masterful in managing and manipulating
11:04 pm
informal networks. when i say manipulating, it does not in a pejorative manner. he understand the people of afghanistan. he may not have been of their and but he understood them worked very well in formally and in those networks as a tribal leader would to seek the properly i think kai talked about was his intention. he was in enormously frustrated policy with. of the pakistan and convince we were fighting a war in the wrong place. this flowed through a number of themes we dealt with on a basis which were quite painful, civilian casualties, frustration over pakistani safe haven, the cross-border fires in 2012 and early 2013.
11:05 pm
part of which was a mess and part a reality. we dealt closely on the detention. it goes to the issue of president karzai seeking to establish and reinforce a sense sovereignstan was a country and arrest from the united states and other countries, the respected due to the country and its people. as we negotiated the contentions mou, turning over several thousand afghan detainees, that process and sense of sovereignty came home in a very real way for me. unfortunately, when karzai abdicated part of the mou i had to cease the turnover of detainees until i was sure that when not be released to target us or afghan citizens. of timehad a period
11:06 pm
when we weren't overnight operations and resulted in a memorandum of understanding where we stopped to be to onerally engaged where we partner with the afghans and i committed to him and the security leadership the development of special operations capabilities where pakistan could break unilaterally without specific u.s. or nato help. very clearly, a time of transition, removing the forces lead.eing in trail to the me, importantly for worked hard and i know stan mcchrystal did before me and dave petraeus, on trying to understand karzai's sense of national of afghan forces as the commander of chief.
11:07 pm
while more importantly, the ownership of the forces in the context of the conflict of being waged. to me his very clear attitude. we dealt very carefully and often on the situation of corruption. me trying to get him to work toward cedillo with institutional corruption and him trying to get me to get our spending and contract under control. there were a number of other institutions like the local police and elimination of private security and transitioning to work together very carefully. we face crises which were very important in defining how we weren't during times of real stress and crises. worked during times of a real stress and crises. we worked to get to a solution or keep the crises from spinning into space. the first was the downing of my seal board.n entire
11:08 pm
he believed we were beginning to the battlefield which was witnessed in afghanistan when the first stingers arrived in the soviet war. we worked very closely together. embassyafter that, u.s. in my headquarters was attacked by suicide bombers and the data was an area we worked very closely on the solution of that. followed almost immediately with the assassination of president rouhani. all of the associated difficulties with that. then an event along the pakistani border where 24 troops were tragically killed, ultimately resulted in pakistan principal ground line of communications which 80% of my
11:09 pm
supplies flowed into the country. followed by the urination video where u.s. marines were found to be urinating on dead taliban. it created a conjunction of events with sad burning of the holy koran. which began the process of the insider attacks which really stressed the relationship between the west in general and nato and the afghan government and president karzai, but also stress the relation within the coalition is self as increasingly these insider attacks were eroding the coal -- the coexistence. that was followed by the mass killing of the 16 afghans. and each of these, whether a challenge or crisis permitted me to take the measure of the man
11:10 pm
and i found president karzai to be a worthy partner. we do not agree on many of these and often the outcome was not what either of us desired. these were moments where we had the opportunity to work very closely. against the backdrop of these at many factors, i think it is important to take stock of president karzai's legacy under these many strains. has very strong opinions on the sources of corruption in afghanistan. he blames foreign influences significantly added the united states in particular. but was unable to take credible and decisive action to curb corruption. the u.s. role in the shaping of the 2009 election which costs a lot of animosity and and activity toward the united states -- antipathy
11:11 pm
toward the united states and ballot box stuffing. he was critical of the u.s. policy toward pakistan but did not exert every effort to reach out to pakistan to improve that relationship. he would accuse the u.s. of andgance and malfeasance demonstrate in the process his mastery of something called brinkmanship. time, we also had to keep in mind as americans, i heard this verse from dave petraeus and i touch on a weelf, many of the crises had with president karzai could have easily been solved if we onelistened closely to him or two or three years before when he had raised the issue early along in the process and we were either deaf to the issue he was raising or we were under resourced the solution and and
11:12 pm
not really solve the problem. issues about the private security. that was a real issue to him and to afghan. we do not solve a properly and he brought it to the brink. the perfect solution but a solution. and if the elimination of in terms ofeams rendering them as capacity building mechanisms rather than service provider mechanism which compromise the ability of local governance and ultimately, civilian contracting, civilian casualties. these were all issues if we had listened to him earlier and taken the kinds of actions that he believed we should have an offer and provide us excellent advice and that regard, it could have reduced friction in many respects. shapes andkes many
11:13 pm
invariably are formed in the eyes of the beholder's. let's take a crack and i want to be careful because it is difficult to talk about his legacy. ist's why a panel like this valuable i think in terms of how we look at the future but i think it is fraught with danger with a potential of criticizing a sitting president. , asll leave to the afghans we will hear from a permanent afghan journalist, how they view their president but from the many afghans with who i have anlt and i have never asked afghan his or her opinion of their president. i believe at a respect for the president, i did not want to put him in that place. it does not mean they do not offer their opinion. [laughter] i always had a sense of their grudgingsometimes
11:14 pm
respect for him. they respected karzai. there was also a a sense of melancholy on the absence of his presence and that of his governance in their lives in talking about subnational government which we were to so hard to try to develop. it defined my abilities. we can talk about that if you like. they were very proud of him in many ways. they were proud he stood up to the foreigners of which i was one. in regards to the bilateral security agreement which would enshrine, many afghans were horrified that he seemed to be sacrificing their future and not signing an agreement and never fully explaining why were clearly understanding why. in some respects, in terms of a thatmporary legacy, we see much ground was lost by the president in that regard.
11:15 pm
usually, i believe pakistan will not view the karzai aircraft and relationship -- era and relationship with much nostalgia. karzai's views of pakistan where seldom positive and openly discuss. for many reasons, i think this goes to kai's point about president karzai's journey and personal goals of making afghanistan a sovereign entity to be reckoned with. the iranians were determined even with substantial presence had a lesshey influence over the presidency and parliament than that had hoped. it left a foreign presence which iran had consistently resisted.
11:16 pm
nato, i single will view him in the short-term as an unappre ciative who became difficult to deal with. only president karzai can say it is unlikely, it is likely that he always viewed the enormity of the 50 coalition as too intrusive on the sovereignty of afghanistan and his own authority. but i think we may have missed or he may have missed a larger point that those 50 nations committed their blood and treasure to afghanistan and thus the international community was tied to this beleaguered country in ways we have probably never seen paralleled before in history. andanistan, a poor state emerging from conflict whose interests were the personal interest of 50 nations, i think it was a true advantage. then, there is the u.s.
11:17 pm
and he just unfairly so and will be likely for some time his inflammatory and provocative and sometimes disrespectful rhetoric aimed at this administration. but sadly, also aimed at the sacrifices of u.s. troops was compounded by a sense of his ungratefulness of the u.s. investment. again, perceptions. this perception ultimately attracted the eye or of much of the country -- ire of much of the countries -- congress and administration and put it in danger. when i was the commander, i was not seriously considering there was a possible likelihood of his reelection will stop in athens, the u.s. pulling out and teddy was a nato and the international community. i have to tell you and the last 6-8 months in particular with
11:18 pm
the rhetoric and problems over the bilateral agreement, we came perilously close to a zero option and still not have a signed a bilateral agreement even though i suspect the soon to be integrated president will do so. this has tended his short-term legacy overall and i think it will take it for a considerable period in the u.s. man with a extraordinary abilities but with human frailties. he was placed in one of the most amending, thankless positions and was forced to operate within a largely incapable government emerging after a generation of found not onlyhe difficulty in managing international governing from the palace but the kind of subnational government necessary to the people.
11:19 pm
he had to coexist and operate with the largest wartime insideon in a modern era of his country while seeking to reconcile well -- with the to bringnd ultimately, peace to his people. few men have ever faced larger challenges for so long, with so to real measures and tools deal with any one of them individually. yes, hewas flawed and played fast and loose with relations over time and he was provocative. and no, he was not demented or on meds. none that i knew of. in a few weeks time, when the next president is inaugurated, that new president will lead a nation still seriously challenge with a violent insurgency.
11:20 pm
but one profoundly changed for nearly 13 years that karzai assumed his office in this troubled nation. while today karzai finds himself strongly a detailed i believe analysis of his administration and presidency and him as a man will return a valid appraisal of after all oft was, these years of conflict, afghanistan could have come so far under his leadership. thank you. >> thank you, john. will be able to engage with later on. you put me and in the position of doing something you have wisely never done is to ask an afghan what he thinks of president karzai and his legacy. mujib? >> thank you, scott.
11:21 pm
i am hobbled to be part of this part of humbled to be this panel and i want to read a few passages of the article i read for "the atlantic." around for an hour trying to find a copy and i could not, so it tells me how will i know -- >> it is and everybody's briefcase. ofi will read a couple passages and i will have a few remarks about the president's domestic policy and legacy and local governments and providing the context, i will go back to one of the points the general emphasize and how difficult it is to predict a sitting president's legacy and how challenging it is. here is the passage. afghan is a more cohesive
11:22 pm
country than the fractured he inherited. among my own peers, educating young urbanites connected to the free and providing expression, a growing sense of nostalgia for him. he is largest seen as a man of great personal dignity who despite his shortcomings try to minimize the bloodshed my generation was born in. it is shaped by principles karzai sought as nonnegotiable. because of his style of leadership, he has gained -- a relatively free press blossomed. a threat against it emerged. not by the institutions or laws karzai put in place but his personal intervention. the same can be said of women's participation which has grown tremendously with few
11:23 pm
institutional safeguards. the warlordsle of is uncertain, karzai have kept most of them off-balance and he deserves credit. if these men are not gone, that continue to profit and investments from foreign militaries.that is an economic interest that is the loyal to a democratic society. many12 and a half years, have sanitized their images. shorter beards and fancier suits and more politically correct language, for better or worse, their songs and artists who have seen a more democratic processes are beginning to step into their shoes. karzai's national security advisor said he does anybody could've fared better and yet, the next president will inherit
11:24 pm
a broken chain of command and weakened institutions and a variety of local powers that may prove difficult. all of the more so because they will lack the personal connection that karzai worked so hard to cultivate. the question is if the forces againhe past will speak or will succeed again or will modernizing forces take the country forward? this is not been finalized. almost none of the achievements made under karzai up here irreversible. instead, afghanistan remains a place stop between modernity and is on splintered history. which way it will move is anybody's guess. i saw the president about a week after the first round of elections to find a successor to him.
11:25 pm
was heling at that time had done a good job staying neutral in the elections. jubilation, about 7 million people had turned out to vote. karzai had proved his critics wrong. as the ambassador said, there were a lot of conspiracy theories he would change the constitution and to stay in power. in april when i wrote all of went to printcle and in the one-month period until it came out, a lot changed. to go back to the difficult nature of predicting karzai's legacy. in that one month since the article printed, we had another round of elections, the first round did not have a winner. therethat the runoff,
11:26 pm
were allegations of karzai meddling in the elections. one of the front runners alleged there was a triangle of conspiracy. a triangle of conspiracy trying to steal the election from abdullah and the rival candidate, president karzai. changed and i started questioning some of the things i wrote. i am glad that most of the questions i discussed in the article deals with his 12 years of leadership and his particularly a style of local governing. make a few like to remarks about that and what sort of legacy he leaves behind. after the end of the day, the legacy that matters is on the ground. the relation with nato and the united states will matter and it will be questioned in history. what he leaves behind on the
11:27 pm
ground especially to my generation, a generation that is a product of his 13 years will matter a lot. back to thee go sense of you for your that the ,mbassador mentioned in 2002 when karzai came to power, it was an enormous responsibility and a mandate to build afghanistan was pretty fractured over three decades of war. and even the palace that karzai came to an kabul, and in the taliban days, people could take a shortcut through the palace. there were no institutions. shepherds could bring in their herds to graze on the the gardens. oft is just an indication how we do not have any
11:28 pm
institutions. the biggest mandate for karzai was to build. unfortunately, looking back 12 years later, that has been one of his weaknesses. he did not build institutions the way he should have. he personalized so much that the the president as a leader got localed in very minute, matters. he had a disregard for the chain of command in terms of local governance. he was directly involved. undermining the mandate. of of the biggest weaknesses president karzai looking back now is that. when i asked him that question, why did he not build institutions? he had his reasons. and that the reason goals to two handicaps he had over the past 12 years. which are really shaped his style of local governance.
11:29 pm
the first handicap was in 2002 when he took over the government, a government that was handed to him. he did not have a say in choosing any cabinet members or governors or local district chiefs. helm of a at the government he did not trust. what he did was develop in formal networks as the general mentioned. in formal networks to use for his governance. it first handicap was that, was not his government. he did not trust the government. he relied on informal sources. the second handicapped he developed what he started mistrusting the internationals and believing his government was in the pocket of the internationals. he cannot trust his governors because they were closer to the international and they would
11:30 pm
conspire against. factors played a major not trust his did own institutions and he did not put enough effort into building the institutions stronger. i will give you one example of what i mean adisalam. an named he was a former taliban commander, this beefy big man. and if you look at his history, he basically fought everyone he worked. e was first with the mujahadin. mular started finding omar. when he was in a difficult situation, there was sort of a consensus that the british
11:31 pm
troop had made of mess of him. karzai started experimenting in his local governance. he tried to turn him and appointment as district governor. it was an interesting experiment to see if he could, u know, neutralize the insurgency locally. but the problem was that karzai directly was in contact with this district chief going around his cabinet level ministry for local governance, going around his provincial governor and talking directly to the chief. he wouldn't let the cabinet know. he would call the president's office and say send me a car, i'm here to see the president. so in a country where building institutions should have been such a priority, he directly involved himself at such a local level and what happened
11:32 pm
in the process was under mining that sort of local governance chain of commands. i'll read you a couple of quotes. my interview with the president got sort of philosophical in his answers. one of the -- yes karzai is very traditional in his way of talking and in his beliefs, but one of his cabinet ministers told me that when he starts speaking in english he seems as modern a leader as any out ere because his education is -- was in politics and philosophy and in english. you don't see the tribal side as much when he speaks in english. my interview with him was in english. it was a friday. he was in a good mood. so he got very philosophical in his answers. and i asked him about relies on these informal sources, informal networks instead of his government institutions and
11:33 pm
he said, my style of leadership was not in the sense of the western president, relying on state institutions and government institutions. that is true. i relied government institutions. i relied the very least on government institutions. i was more on alliance and relying upon the afghan people. all my decisions, my statements were based on the information that i received from the people in the country not as own government institutions and i said doesn't that undermine your mandates to build institutions? he said no, the government has to be filled up. the government doesn't have to be fakely admired and kept weak. he said it was a realization of a fact of a true situation on the ground. the facts on the ground was that the afghan government was weak, that it had no capacity, that it had no means of
11:34 pm
movement. that it could not provide the president with the facts on the ground. that's why they relied on these informal source of information and informal networks to run the country. but i think there was a misinformed analysis in his decision to rely on these informal networks and tribal networks particularly. president karzai wrote an essay in the 1980's analyzing how the of a sed tribes as a sort bulwark. he had a good relationship with the tribe and that gave the regime 40 years of stable. and he wrote about that, how that was important to the king. the problem was that president karzai ruled on that mentality about 40 years later. and during those three to four decades of conflict, those
11:35 pm
tribal structures, those social networks had been completely disruptive. what the conflict did was create a new generation of local leaders who had guns, who had drug money, who did not have local legitimacy. karzai comes in in 2002 relies on what he thinks are tribal networks but, in fact, they're a new generation of these local leaders that are difficult to distinguish from war lords because they have guns. they have drug money and they don't have that legitimacy associated with tribal elders in the past. and i want to -- i want to comment on two other things about karzai's legacy over the past 12 years, one was an issue the general referred to of his views as a commander in chief. the perception on the ground among afghans was that karzai never became a commander in
11:36 pm
chief. and i asked him that question. i asked him that mr. president, when your soldiers die in the line of duty, you don't stand with them. that is the perception among the people. a few months ago there was an incident in kunar province with 20 army soldiers were killed. their bodies were brought to kabul at the military hospital. karzai had a plan tripped to sri lanka. he used the pretext with the death of the soldiers but he remained in his palace politics, building election coalitions rather than attending the funeral of those soldiers. and i asked him this. i said mr. president, the people believe you never became a commander in chief. he said yes, i never became a commander in chief for two reasons. one, that i'm an absolute pacifist in my heart. so the contradiction here that you have a president in time of war, 12 years of war who says
11:37 pm
is a self-proclaimed absolute pacifist. and the second reason he said is that i didn't believe in this war. this was not a war. this was conspiracy. so it was -- it was fascinating to me. and i asked him whether you see it as a conspiracy or as a war your soldiers die every day. and as a commander in chief you're expected to at least show appreciation. he said i do. he pounded, you know, the table. he said i do. that's western propaganda which is funny to me because i was a local sitting there asking that question. it wasn't a western journalist. so his views on the war were fascinating to me. the final issues that i would ike to, you know, close with is that the perception of muhammad karzai is that he's a tremendous political tactician in terms of building consensus, in terms of if you go back to
11:38 pm
2002 the way he came to power, he did not have a militia. he did not have a massive political network yet, 12 years later, he's the most powerful man in country. that shows that he has political genius in terms of political tactics. but he was never a visionary leader. i asked him that question. i said mr. president, the perception is that you did not have a vision for this country. that you're a great tactician trying to keep the fragile stability together but you didn't have a picture of where you wanted to see the country let's say 10 years from now and the luxury that president karzai has is so rare. no other leader would have the amount of resources he had, the amount of sources he had and yet he lacked a vision. they say he never defined a clear vision that this is where i want to see afghanistan 10
11:39 pm
years from now, 20 years from now. he had principles. he had principles that he did not compromise on. one of the principles was his freedom of press, freedom of expression. he's been good on the issue of women's rights within the context. but he has to please his tribal, you know, parts of the country but at the same time he has to work towards slow progress sort of institutionalizing safeguards for women. o he has principles but he didn't have a model in mind. that i want to see afghanistan like singapore, like in iran or pakistan or whatever. just not a clear picture and those closest to him say it's one thing to have a vision and not publicize it. it's another to not even sort of paint a picture of that vision to those closest to you who work with you every day and trying to help to move the country forward and i think the question that i try to raise in
11:40 pm
the piece "in the atlantic" but a question that is important to me also is, to ask whether it is possible to be a visionary in the circumstances that hamid karzai ruled. i think the general mentioned that we should see this learning experience of looking at leader as challenging. and i think that to me is one of the more fascinating questions that if had been like hamid karzai is not sure of his physical or political survival ery day especially if you go back to 2002, can he afford to be a visionary? and i went to kandahar to sort of trace the story a little bit. in september 2002 just a few months after he's taken power, he was attending his brother's wedding in kandahar and he got pretty close to being killed right there just a few months into his presidency. he was waving at the crowd and a young man in police uniform
11:41 pm
started opening fire at him from a very close range. he duckett. the governor of kandahar got a bullet in his ear who was sitting next to him. there was a young man who had heard his name. he jumped on the assassin and wrestled him down and saved hamid karzai. so i went to kandahar to trace the young man's story and to ask his family was that sacrifice worth it when you look back at it 12 years later? this young man made hamid karzai's 12 years of governance possible. was the sacrifice worth it? and the young man's brother had a very emotional answer and a very candid answer. he said sometimes when i think about it, we have a good house. we have a good family. all we want is our brother back. you know, the natural answer. but then his -- he said i have
11:42 pm
a 9-year-old daughter and he had his second child was asking for a second ice cream right there. they have a bakery. so i was interviewing him at his bakery. he said sometimes when i think about it, my girl is in fourth grade and sometimes when i think about it if my brother hadn't made that sacrifice in 2002, maybe this wouldn't have been possible. there would have been more chaos, more bloodshed and maybe my daughter wouldn't be in fourth grade right now. so it's that mixed legacy. but i think i'll leave -- we ought to ask that question that in the circumstances that hamid scar die ruled in a very fragmented society, unsure of his physical and political survival every day can a leader fford to be a visionary? >> i want to ask one question before we open up.
11:43 pm
it's fascinating listening to him both being in kabul and both being directly able to ask president karzai these questions i think we've been asking ourselves for a long time about what his legacy is. why weren't you a commander in chief? why did you act in this way and not the other? but i think both of you minimized an issue that i think is maybe, especially interesting to this audience and i think porn to the future of afghanistan which is, you no, the relationship with the u.s. and with the rest of the world because afghanistan is still a country that depends a great deal on the resources of the international community on e willingness to support the ansf continuing to pry to provide security and paying the salaries of the government and so forth. general alan raised this question but, you know, the question i have first may be the reaction from john is, you
11:44 pm
know, it seems in the last year or several monlts president karzai has gone out of his way his antagonistic in relationship particularly with the u.s.a.. you know, things like the release of prisoners from back gram. the annexation of crimea. these would be deliberately antagonizing an ally that the next that would need an ally. what is his thinking? is there something more than just a visceral reaction and then maybe after you two speak, general alan if you have something for to say with that? i'll start with you. >> you mentioned the crimea and i discussed that with him. i don't think i will go into that here. a i think there is now
11:45 pm
level of -- in him that has increased tremendously over the last couple of years. it stems from the very early days. he came in not into the government of his choosing. but what was he facing? he was facing a situation where there was a reluctance on the part of the u.s. to try to regulate or reduce the power of the war lords at the time. although, there may have been an opportunity. there was a clear reluctance. there was a strong hesitation with regard to starting building afghan institutions. there was very little investment in 2002 and 2003. we lost tremendous time. it was from the u.n. as well as the u.s. because the u.s. tension was already on iraq.
11:46 pm
he was the only one that had the heavy footprint -- where he could remain where he was. he had no instruments to project power. that is -- that was a start. and i think that problem has been with us all the time. and then when the money started to come in and the forces started to come in, what happened? it's almost inevitable that you have civilian casualties and inevitable where you know and the intelligence that you get from one person can be parts of a family dispute with another, etc. etc. when some te clear say he's now playing to his own audience as if it's a tactic. what is so in terms of si
11:47 pm
valuian casualties destruction, etc. harmed him in the eyes of his public. very, very strongly. not on the u.s. the u.s. became less popular but there were protests in kabul against the president and i remember it was the governor risgon who says if this doesn't stop they will start a jihad against the americans and it was followed by demonstrations in kabul. then when the money came in -- when the money came in, what did the president see? he saw that the u.s. contracting system and subcontracting etc., etc. left little in afghanistan. much money was spent on afghanistan -- very little was left in afghanistan. and it is so hard. some of these people became super rich. and in fact, our criticism of corruption to be hypocritic.
11:48 pm
it's not quite right. i'm not sharing that reasonably. because it has been so hypocritic. i remember in the hague when we wanted to address the question about corruption is that yes, that's all right? we would carry out a joint audit in the international community of the afghans of the money that's being spent. and he said it doesn't relate to us. it relates to you it relates .ery much to us it has proven to have doubt. so i must say, i think he has reason for this. i think he is grateful to see everything that has been invested but as one very prominent colleague, member of his government said, we should e grateful that he was
11:49 pm
spending it in an efficient way. and there are people that know this better than i do. when i was head of the u.n. we found out that between one half and 1/3 of the money spent in afghanistan, nobody knew where it was going, for what purpose, to what area? we didn't have a clue. how come you didn't coordinate? bidding institutions that you mentioned, general. 1/3 of it was done with the knowledge of the afghan governance. how can you then build institutions? there had to be a partnership between the two that simply was not there. they were must say not there today. in the beginning the afghans did not have an institution and they were spoon feeding the
11:50 pm
international community. and as one member of government said, you don't bite the hand that feeds you. much was accepted at the time. and then a different situation where the afghans thought that now we are strong enough to say what we think about this. and -- and the business increased. and you -- you saw the reaction from karzai. and even one of those who have spent the longest time in -- abroad and came back as member of the government said, rereally had to tolerate a lot at that time. e should not have tolerated. and as he said, i cannot record it but i recorded him recently. he said the americans found it very difficult to distinguish between afghanistan and a sovereign country and afghanistan as enemy territory.
11:51 pm
and i think there's something true in that. we did not manage the international community to adapt in the institution where afghanistan was without institutions relying completely on the international community to a situation where he had institutions and where we had to demonstrate that they should not really be in control. we talk about the organize all the time. but the reason we were very reluctant, in fact, implemented i'm afraid. like so -- so -- i think much his bitterness and he looks back at the last 30 years as we do. much of his bitterness can be understood. -- he -- he disregarded the chain of command, put at the
11:52 pm
head of the government that he didn't trust. many of the people who came in and that we believe would have been the best members of government, didn't know much about afghanistan. -- for 20, 25 year. so no wonder why he would pick up the forum and bring me an others and say now you will hear what the afghans really think. those he trust in, the people he met during the friday meetings or during his much too infrequent meetings to the pro-venses. being -- provinces. being called the mayor of kabul as we used to say in criticizing him and we did not in the beginning start building an afghan army immediately. we did not allow isef to go
11:53 pm
outside of kabul. and we did not build the si i havian institutions to project power. so we made him also the mayor of kabul in many ways. >> i think it's not just -- i'm convinced knew it's not tactical antagonism. it's more of a deeper pain that he feels. it may have been tactical at times. but -- so when i framed my he didn't him and know me. he didn't trust me. so we had lunch. i explained what i wanted to do that i wanted to write this story as an afghan, a product of him for 13 years. and i explained the him that i am entirely focusing on domestic government which means there would be no questions about the u.s. but every couple of minutes
11:54 pm
somehow he would drag the u.s. into it. nd in very sort of deeply sort of heartfelt anger. so i don't think it is tactical antagonism. and the ambassador mentioned some of the sources for such feeling, some of the reasons for such feeling. i think he feels that, to me there's -- there's this hi pock hypocrisy some of the war lords that the americans allied with and then a couple of years later they would pressure a mid karzai not to side with the sam war lords. these two were the biggest of the americans when they first came into afghanistan. when karzai was trying to build an electoral coalition if you read the wicky leeks how much
11:55 pm
pressure there was from the americans not to sign so that becomes clear to thame there is a sort of two-faceness to the american policy and he told me there's a -- i mentioned an episode in the article. there's a meeting between the general who is the commander of the u.s. intercom at the time and president karzai. and he complained that you shouldn't -- why are you helping some of these war lords who are causing me trouble? and the response from the general is pretty interesting. he said well, they're one of us just like you're one of us. we're not going to be green on green. and it was a thearm karzai heard for the first time, a term that after the insider attacks would be very common. but at the time it was a term that he heard for the first time and the general confirmed this anecdote.
11:56 pm
he remembered saying something like that to karzai. so back in 2007, 2008, you are not putting all this anger publically. yet you're expressing it to your partners in private but you're not seeing any actions on it as the general said. the allies were either deaf or not doing enough. and part of it is natural also that this perception of somebody's in power and there's a change in administration and obviously that becomes a change of policy but one partner is the same guy and he perceived that as hypocrisy rather than just the national ral change. but there were episodes in private that kept triggering this anger deeper. so i'm convinced that it's no longer tactical antagonism. but i think it also -- it also goes back to what the general said was that he knows the united states far better than the united states or some of
11:57 pm
the u.s. sfrirbles nonhim. and i think -- it proves the point in the b.s.a. negotiations that the u.s. threatened with the zero option that if you don't sign this, we're going to pull out all troops. yet several months later, we see that that hasn't happened. so he knows how far to push the u.s. maybe sometimes he pushes the u.s. too far. and it's the u.s.'s patience and not -- and not sort of jeopardizing 12 years because they know that president karzai will be gone pretty soon. but tactically we need to give karzai credit that he knows how far to push them and he's done that with the issue of b.s.a. and the funding -- the military funding. >> so general, why were we so deaf? and you mentioned at the beginning of your talks the important of it. what share of the responsibility do we also have
11:58 pm
for where we are right now? >> well, i'm not sure i want to engage in an experience of eflgulation. but we didn't listen to him. and we didn't listen because we felt in so many ways we had the answer. in so many ways we felt that the operational environment drove us to make decisions that we would perhaps under other circumstances might have been illing to listen more closely. a couple of things. he and i had a couple of conversations about the issue of sovereignty. both he and the ambassador hit very clearly. it's a really porn point. as time went on and we were clearly facing the end of the
11:59 pm
large scale international involvement in afghanistan. i think the president rightly saw that one of the most important things he could deliver to the afghans was a sense of their overpbity, a sense of their citizenship. a sense that as a people they were bigger than their trouble or ethnic origins. and i told him on a number of occasions that i did not feel any differently about that than he did. and that it was, in fact, one of my principle goal and objectives to do all i could ultimately for the national security forces to be in the lead -- in its entirety. in the context of creating a stable and safe and peaceful afghanistan. >> but i also told him on a number of occasions and this is a conversation i've actually had in a number of places around the world, that
12:00 am
sovereignty isn't something that exists apart from the inherent responsibility of the people seeking overpbity to act responsibly. so to be able to take responsibility for your actions and vision such as may exist. visionary was more than perhaps some folks have given him credit for. it requires capacity. the frustration we had often in our conversations was, mr. president, i absolutely do not disagree with you in regard to your ambitions. beorder for you to sovereign, you have to take responsibility for the actions of the judiciary or finance elementsor actions of within
35 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN Television Archive The Chin Grimes TV News Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on