Following the statements of Afghan former President Hamid Karzai as a backlash against the “Mother Of All Bombs”, his National Security advisor Dr. Rangin Dadfar Spanta sought to justify his sarcastic statements in a commentary written in in a local Newspaper. Since I am familiar with his writings to some extent, I deem his recent article the weakest one during his political and educational lifetime. Not only the syntax but also the contents and logic of the article were highly complicated.
In his commentary entitled “Silence is Betrayal I Protest” Dr. Spanta said, “Whatever the reason behind the use of this bomb is, there is no moral, political and military logic for using this horrific weapon in our country from the perspective of Afghan people. Afghans have the right to raise their voice through a strong and widespread reaction against this act of the US and its complicit Afghan government and all those who support this criminal act and I protest.”
His words are full of paradox. When he justifies his objection based on Frankfurt School and citation of Bertolt Brecht and calls the supporter of the offensive against the self-styled Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) fool, it reflects the fact that if he had a critical mind, he would honor the people exhausted from the war waged by ISIS.
It is surprising to see that no other bodies have expressed strong reaction in this regard other than Mr. Spanta, Hamid Karzai, the Taliban. All individuals – including the national media, civil organizations, simple citizens and officials – have supported this act in one way or another and showed satisfaction for the destruction of the one of the ISIS’s key stronghold. However, Spanta counts one person equal to “Afghan people”.
Now Spanta’s commentary reminds one of the well-known sentence “Spanta is the witness” which was used as a fun in public conversations. This sentence was changed into a public satire when the former President pointed to Spanta, in a news conference, several times for the accuracy of his claims and constantly called him witness.
Following the harsh statements of Afghanistan’s former President, Dr. Spanta became a witness once more and showed that he is always the witness for Karzai’s acts, attitudes and even words.
Now that Spanta himself has stepped to the ground and witnessed the accuracy of Karzai’s words, let us ask him about the strategy of previous administration regarding counter-insurgency, the nation’s tragedy as a result of suicide and terrorist attacks and the conflict of that administration with its international allies. Let us ask him why Hamid Karzai called the terrorist “discontented brothers” and underlined that they were also Afghans and should have been given the chance to live in Afghanistan. The question is that was it Afghan people who denied them the chance of living or it was the Taliban who offered Afghans no chance of living? Was there an ear to listen to the public complaints when the Taliban were released from Afghanistan’s prisons in group? Despite being aware of terrorists’ attacks being orchestrated in our neighboring country Pakistan, what was the reason behind Afghanistan’s close relationship to Pakistan? Millions of dollars were spent generously under the pretext of peace negotiation and peace process with the Taliban, what was the result for the people of Afghanistan? Were there any fruitful results for the nation other than spending budgets, killing time and revitalizing the terrorists? In spite of the fact that the Taliban inflicted heavy casualties upon Afghan nation in many years and victimized thousands of people and destroyed the country’s economic infrastructure, how many members of terrorist group were prosecuted or punished due to their acts in the past years? Whenever the Taliban’s hideouts were attacked in the past or being attacked now, Mr. Karzai raised his voice. However, several deadly attacks were carried out only in Kabul last year, did he show such a strong reaction? Why attacking on terrorists irritates Karzai; however, attacks on local and defenseless people are not frustrating for him?
Currently, Afghanistan’s relations have been developed with the world and with its allies and it has acquired a position in international politics, why should one hamper the recovery?
It is believed that he thinks about organizing regional and international supports for his campaigns in the next round presidential election. Don’t you think that the time is not ripe for stoking such tensions in the country which is already full of turbulence?
The aforementioned queries are parts of questions that a simple citizen can have for Karzai’s National Security advisor. Now will he have answers for these questions? Let us look forward to hearing from him.