- We could cease military operations, which then means what? A quick withdrawal would possibly followy since a purely defensive stance would increase the risks to the international forces. The irony is that the countries that are most comfortable with operating purely in a defensive stance are the ones already closest to the door.
- We could re-define operations so that smaller-scale patrols and such can continue, but there would still be a risk of killing civilians.
- We could follow his advice and move our forces into Pakistan to fight the enemy there. Insert maniacal laughter here. Nope, that ain't gonna happen.
- We could hope that Karzai changes his mind or that he really did not mean it. This is probably the best bet for what will actually happen and what is the best choice in general. Karzai talks a good game, but usually is speaking to one audience at a time, either not realizing or not caring that other audiences are also listening.
Once again, the ratio of civilians killed is 75% by the other side and 25% by NATO. NATO is trying hard to reduce such casualties but the other side pursues tactics to induce the outsiders to put civilians in harm's way. The proper comparison is not so much the current status quo versus no civilians killed by outsiders, but the current status quo as compared to an Afghanistan sans US/NATO. As long as the US and NATO stick around, there will be mistakes.
My ambivalence about the war just gets deeper and deeper. It would be easy to call for a pullout, but there is more at stake in Afghanistan than Karzai's position. If we were to leave, the lives of Afghans would certainly worsen in the short term with a much deeper, more brutal civil war. Karzai might be willing to sell out to the Taliban, but a good hunk of the country will not. The impact on the neighborhood from a western defeat would not be that great either.
So, once again, we have lousy choices.