This article deserves the widest circulation possible…
Afghans say: Obama builds occupation
"This is part of America's further occupation of Afghanistan," he said. "
Wed Dec 2, 2009
Afghans unimpressed by Obama's troops surge
"Even if they bring the whole of
U.S. President Barack Obama's announcement of a massive new escalation of the eight-year-old war seemed to have impressed nobody in the Afghan capital, where few watched the speech on TV before dawn and fewer seemed to think new troops would help.
Obama said his goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" al Qaeda in
Shopkeeper Ahmad Fawad, 25, said it would not help.
"The troops will be stationed in populated areas where the Taliban will somehow infiltrate and then may attack the troops," he said. "Instead of pouring in more soldiers, they need to focus on equipping and raising Afghan forces, which is cheap and easy."
For many, the prospect of more troops meant one thing: more civilian deaths.
"More troops will mean more targets for the Taliban and the troops are bound to fight, and fighting certainly will cause civilian casualties," Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai, a former Afghan prime minister, told Reuters.
"The civilian casualties will be further a blow to the
"NOTHING REALLY NEW"
By late morning, the Afghan government had yet to issue an official response to Obama's statement.President Hamid Karzai has in the past said he favors additional Western troops, although he wants Afghan forces to take over security for the country within five years.
Although Obama pointedly addressed Afghans, telling them the
"It was a very wonderful speech for
"It seems to me that President Obama is very far away from the reality and truth in
Other Afghans, hardened by decades of war and wary of foreign forces whom have for years fought proxy battles in
"This is part of