Skip to content

Tension builds over Afghanistan massacre

Last week, a U.S. staff sergeant sta­tioned at a mil­i­tary out­post near Kan­dahar, Afghanistan, allegedly opened fire in Afghan vil­lages and killed 16 civil­ians. The Tal­iban vowed vengeance for the civilian deaths, and the inci­dent prompted demands by many for an imme­diate with­drawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Afghan Pres­i­dent Hamid Karzai accused the U.S. of blocking the Afghan probe into the inci­dent and requested that Amer­ican troops be con­fined to major mil­i­tary bases in the country by next year. We asked Kim­berly Jones, a fac­ulty asso­ciate in North­eastern University’s Middle East Center for Peace, Cul­ture and Devel­op­ment, to ana­lyze the pos­sible impli­ca­tions of this devel­oping situation. 

How will this inci­dent — par­tic­u­larly in light of Karzai’s reac­tion — affect the U.S. plan to with­draw troops from Afghanistan?

For a range of rea­sons, the United States needs to wrap up the bulk of its mil­i­tary engage­ment in Afghanistan; this has to do with domestic (U.S.) con­cerns as well as the sit­u­a­tion on the ground there. In terms of the impact of recent events on this plan, I think we need to take care not be too reac­tive. We cannot afford to change the timetable too hastily. Although critics of U.S. policy might argue that we should have with­drawn ages ago, our engage­ment — and mil­i­tary dis­en­gage­ment — with Afghanistan is com­plex. Afghanistan has known con­flict for decades. Our actions, such as troop draw­downs, are con­trol­lable and cause reac­tions on the ground there.  We need to be able to antic­i­pate those reac­tions and plan for them so that the best pos­sible out­come for the Afghans is possible.

How will the attack affect U.S.-Afghanistan relations?

A range of rela­tion­ships are affected, but the two most dis­cussed in con­nec­tion with this hor­rific attack are state-​​to-​​state inter­ac­tions as well as engage­ment between Afghans and U.S. forces on the ground. State-​​to-​​state rela­tions have already become a bit more com­pli­cated and will con­tinue that way, espe­cially if domestic pres­sure on Afghan Pres­i­dent Hamid Karzai increases appre­ciably and is main­tained over time. We have seen some of this play out with the requested pull-​​back of troops.

The more local­ized envi­ron­ment could change sig­nif­i­cantly. The inci­dent adds to the Taliban’s list of griev­ances, for example, which res­onates with seg­ments of the pop­u­la­tion, increasing their sup­port. It could also fuel more “reprisal” attacks. More­over, these acts serve to under­mine some of the pos­i­tive rela­tion­ships that have been built up over time, between U.S. forces and the Afghan population.

Two points are missing from a lot of the con­ver­sa­tion about this attack. First is the impact on Afghans, par­tic­u­larly those who were trau­ma­tized by the killings or who lost family or friends. Second, we too often see Afghanistan as an issue, par­tic­u­larly a mil­i­tary one. This then blinds or impairs our vision of the broader con­flict con­text that includes gov­er­nance, devel­op­ment and human rights. All of these are inter­con­nected to each other as well as to the cre­ation of a sus­tain­able, secure state.

What is the cumu­la­tive effect on the global per­cep­tion of Amer­i­cans fol­lowing this inci­dent and others, including the acci­dental Koran burn­ings by U.S. sol­diers?

There are still many ques­tions to be asked and answered about this event, but these look to be indi­vidual acts — iso­lated deci­sions and choices, hor­ren­dous as they may be. Impor­tantly, many U.S. troops in Afghanistan con­duct them­selves hon­or­ably and with courage in very dif­fi­cult circumstances.

The one way I would say they are “con­nected” is in terms of their con­se­quences.  They obvi­ously impact the Afghan pop­u­la­tion and can rein­force neg­a­tive per­cep­tions of U.S. forces. In addi­tion, these three inci­dents are part of a larger set of issues that many Afghans have with United States’ poli­cies and actions — ranging from drone strikes to deten­tions at Bagram.  Fur­ther com­pli­cating mat­ters are the varying per­spec­tives on U.S. dis­en­gage­ment and what comes next.

This can all seem over­whelming and in some ways it is. Our chal­lenge, how­ever, should not be to solve or fix Afghanistan, but rather to find ways to empower Afghans across the country to meet the chal­lenges they face. This trio of inci­dents make this more dif­fi­cult, but not impossible.

– by Lauren Dibble

More Stories

Photo of the Capitol Building at night

High stakes for politics, SCOTUS in 2018

Photo of the crashed truck that was used in the October 31st attack in Manhattan.

Weaponizing Language: How the meaning of “allahu akbar” has been distorted

Northeastern logo

Why I love studying Spanish