Follow Christiane on social media:
What time is Amanpour on CNN?
Check showtimes to see when Amanpour is on CNN where you are. Or watch online.
Afghanistan observer sees disappointment
By Tom Evans; Sr. Writer, AMANPOUR.
(CNN) - As the top NATO commander in Afghanistan publicly apologized for the latest civilian deaths in the war, one of his former advisers said Tuesday the Afghan people have "crystallized their frustration" on the issue of civilian casualties.
"It's crystallized a disappointment with the international intervention that's been growing since about 2003," said Sarah Chayes, who just completed one year of service as an adviser to Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his staff in Kabul.
"I actually think the issue is broader," she told CNN's Christiane Amanpour. "And so the impact on the Marjah (offensive) is really going to depend on what else happens in that operation."
Chayes was referring to the joint U.S., British, and Afghan offensive in Helmand province in which 15,000 troops are trying to take control of a town and the surrounding area from Taliban fighters.
Despite military efforts to avoid civilian casualties, several dozen have been killed recently by NATO bullets and bombs. In the past two weeks alone, more than 50 Afghan civilians are believed to have been killed in more than half a dozen U.S. and NATO military operations.
McChrystal on Tuesday released a video message to the Afghan population apologizing for an incident Sunday in which 27 civilians were killed in an air strike.
"I have made it clear to our forces that we are here to protect the Afghan people," he said. "I pledge to strengthen our efforts to regain your trust to build a brighter future for all Afghans."
// // Chayes - a former National Public Radio journalist who for several years lived among the Afghan population in Kandahar province - said the tolerance for civilian casualties among Afghans has gone down in recent years. "I remember early cases of civilian casualties where I was actually surprised at the level of tolerance for it on the part of the people I was living amongst," she said.
"But it was because they felt that the international intervention was really doing something for them ... or they still held out the hope that it would."
She said the view of Afghan people on civilian casualties depends on issues such as whether they believe they are being governed by a responsive and respectful institution and whether they are seeing any prospects for economic improvement. "You need to protect the population and earn the population's trust," she said.
Chayes strongly criticized Afghan President Hamid Karzai's approach to tackling corruption in government, saying his administration is operating like a "criminal syndicate."
"Why I talk about a criminal syndicate is because it's not just ad hoc, people making up their ends of the month. It's because their superiors purchase their office."
She said the re-election of Karzai last year has not made any difference, despite his promise to crack down on graft.
"If you read carefully some of the statements made by President Karzai in his inaugural address and in response to some of the issues about corruption ... he's actually not really promising any action," she said.
"He's saying, yes, corruption is a problem, but it's not an issue of removing individuals, it's an issue of changing the legal framework."
Chayes said the coalition's biggest mistake in the war has been its failure to ensure the Afghan people are truly represented by their government.
"By not leveraging the government to respond to the needs of its people, we force them back into the arms of the Taliban," she said. "How Afghanistan turns out is going to have a major impact on how a lot of people (around the world) make up their minds about radical Islam."
@camanpour on Twitter
I agree with what Sarah Chayes said. As Gen. McChrystal and other Nato officials said, important is what comes after the battle. I´m sure the US/Nato forces can expel the Taliban from Marjah, but I´m not sure if they are able to estalish law and order to Marjah as soon as it is needed.
With so little trust in the Afghan police and the Afghan government in Kabul, I can´t imagine that the population in Marjah will welcome them with open arms.
As long as the US/Nato forces are there,I think it will work. But then?
Has Karzai done anything to strengthen the relationship between Kabul and local governments? I haven´t read about it.
And his new announcement that he has changed the electoral watchdog, what does it mean? He can handpick the persons who are loyal to him. Absolutely not good. He will lose also his international supporters.
And when it comes to corruption, only nice words and halfhearted or no action. I believe that the international community must press him to more actions and transparency. Even when there is not "the Afghan face" which all would like to see. The Afghan government is simply not able, to do all this without foreign help or assistance.
And finally, Abdullah Abdullah is right when he said, that Afghanistan needs political parties. This would bring a bit more of transparency and control. The government would be forced to explain more what it is doing. When I remember it right, it was Karzai himself who rejected political parties in Afghanistan. (Ahmed Rashid in "Descent into Chaos)
How inspiring!!!!! If only more people stoped being so self absorb and see that there is more to life than stressful, nonsense jobs. In the end the wealth you have you wont be bringing it with you when you die.
What matters is what you can do, to try and make the world a better place and to make a difference.
Why US attacks everything which has 'N' in its tail – Taliban, Afghanistan, Iran...Japan... Pakistan... SaddamHussain? Amanpour, R U Listening?
Nick Soccio. I agree with you. I remember a few years back, sitting in a Strarbucks, hating everybody, reading the first chapter of Sarah Chayes' book and getting a little teary-eyed. Part of it was the sense of having looked away from the world for a few years, frustrated with people andl their pissing contests, and discovering that other people, mostly feminists, had reinvented a pragmatic and non-doctrinal humanism.
Elke from Germany. Not being critical but you may have missed one point that Sarah Chayes made in the podcast. One of the elements of "government in a box' involves creating leverage or systems of leverage at all levels of gov't from the village level up. In theory this seems fairly simple - in N. America we don't just have Mayors and Provincial (State) leaders we have city councils and legisl. assemblies. On the ground, I'm not qualified to say, but most corruption can't survive scrutiny at the local level. (It would be worth reading the Afghan. constitution)..
A couple of problems here. Obama has ruled out "nation-building". However, to make aid effective you need institutional capacity and maybe you can build institutional capacity out of a box - eg. the Afghans already have the jirga. Also there seems to be a lot of passivity among the Afghans. especially in rural areas, they want better gov't but seem to be unwilling to pursue it themselves. What the causes of this apparent passivity are, I'm not qualified to say. However, if you can demonstrate effective systems of leverage, oversight and appeal, maybe people will see these as important and want to keep them going, even after the bulk of the Nato forces are.
Oh yeah, get a law degree or something. We need you.
amanpour there r thousand may be millions who love u for ur journalistic accelence but i always watch u r programe just bcz of ur beauty i wish i could ever meet u in person in my life
I went over this internet site and I think you have a lot of superb info, saved to favorites (:.
https://www.electricpercolatorcoffeepot.com/10-top-coffee-bloggers/