Karzai blames NATO and Afghan officials for allowing Kabul attacks

Afghan President Hamid Karzai criticized 'intelligence failures' by his own government but especially faulted NATO for a series of tightly coordinated insurgent attacks that rocked Kabul.

Rahmat Gul/AP
An Afghan soldier stands guard as a helicopter flies low over the scene of a suicide attack on the US-led provincial reconstruction team (PRT) compound in the Behsood district of Jalalabad, east of Kabul, Afghanistan, on Sunday, April 15.

After the militant-led assault on Kabul ended this morning, Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai criticized Afghan and NATO authorities for allowing the attacks to occur.

As attacks like Sunday's stymie NATO and Afghan government claims that they are making progress against the insurgency and erode confidence in the government, there is increasing pressure to determine why high-profile attacks continue to happen in Kabul and who is responsible.

The 17-hour Kabul attacks have led some to worry that the fighting is just a sample of what is to come this summer and has raised questions about whether the Afghan government or international troops can do much to stop such incidents.

Most fighting here occurs in the provinces outside the capital city. Kabul, meanwhile, is generally considered as something of a “security bubble.” During the past year, however, Kabul has seen several high-profile attacks, including the assault on the US embassy in September and the Intercontinental Hotel in June. 

“Even though yesterday’s attacks didn’t harm many foreign or Afghan forces, the insurgents wanted to show that they are stronger and can reach any spot with organized, complex attacks,” says Noor-ul-haq Ulumi, a former Afghan Army general. 

Sunday’s fighting marked one of the most complicated attacks on the capital in recent memory. Insurgents struck throughout Kabul and in the eastern provinces of Nangarhar, Logar, and Paktia, killing 11 Afghan security forces and 4 civilians. Forty-two Afghan security forces were also injured along with 32 civilians. All 36 insurgents involved in the attack were killed and one more was arrested, according to police.

A number of analysts and some Afghan officials have blamed the attack on the Haqqani Network for Sunday’s violence. There is also some speculation that a faction of the Taliban – members who don’t want to negotiate for peace – are responsible for launching the attacks.

But General Ulumi says, “The Taliban wants to show themselves as strong. If they do any talks with the Afghans or US government, they’ll have a powerful stance. They’ll get a good share from any kind of deal.”

Although these attacks resulted in relatively limited harm to Afghan and international forces, they stand in contrast to Afghan and international claims of headway against the insurgency. The attacks may be militarily ineffective, but the ability of the groups to move such large numbers of weapons and fighters into supposedly secure areas of Kabul paints a grim picture of security conditions here.

President Karzai called the infiltration of the capital an "intelligence failure for us and especially NATO."

Still, it appears unlikely that militants will receive enough support among the general population to hold any enduring influence or sway over the population here.

“If they continue like this they will not be able to rule this country. People will resist until their last blood,” says Saleh Mohammad Saleh, a member of parliament from Kunar Province, speaking about insurgent-caused civilian casualties and property damage caused during the attack. “To rule you need the support of the population and if you alienate the population than how will you rule? It will be hard for the Taliban to even control a small part of Afghanistan.”

As insurgents fired on the parliament building, lawmakers say that Naeem Lalai Hamidzai, a member of parliament from Kandahar Province and former police commander, took to the roof and personally returned fire.

“Since there were attacks in the past, we can’t say this was an isolated attack. If the government really tries hard maybe they can create security,” says Mohammad Rafi, who runs a plumbing shop next door to a building that was occupied by insurgents during Sunday’s fighting. “Right now the government is not strong enough to stop the terrorist attacks on Kabul.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.