There are at least three ways to win an election. One would be by an honest outcome, another would be by fraud and a third would be by running unopposed.
In this respect, it looks like President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan may have managed to execute two of these scenarios in the same cycle. While most of America slept last night, Abdullah Abdullah, the one remaining challenger to Karzai in the planned runoff vote, announced his withdrawal.
The reason for the move was apparently due to Karzai’s refusal to make certain changes to enable a fair voting process. According to press reports, a senior member of Abdullah’s campaign complained yesterday that “the (election) apparatus is the same as in the last election, so the fraud is going to be the same.”
So, as if the situation isn’t already complicated enough, it now appears that - as long as Abdullah doesn’t change his mind - President Obama is going to have to factor in the likelihood of having a partner in the war that is not only weak but is also of questionable legitimacy. Undoubtedly, there is considerable diplomatic scrambling taking place today.
Overshadowing all other news out of Afghanistan this week, however, was the reported death toll involving 26 U.S. military personnel and three DEA agents, making it the most deadly week at the end of the most deadly month in the eight-year war.
The fallen troops ranged in age from 19 to 40. Improvised explosive devices accounted for 13 of the deaths, including one incident in which all seven soldiers in a vehicle were killed by one roadside bomb.
Helicopter crashes caused the deaths of 14 other Americans. In one, four Marines were killed when two helicopters collided in southern Afghanistan. In the other situation, seven special operations soldiers and the three DEA agents were killed when their helicopter crashed after a firefight with suspected drug traffickers in western Afghanistan.
The latter tragedy is a reminder of another complicating factor in the ongoing deliberations concerning Afghanistan. President Karzai’s brother is reputed to be one of the leading drug kingpins in the nation. A somber Obama may have been thinking of this on Thursday when he traveled to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to witness the return of 18 caskets, including those of the three drug enforcement agents.
The president also visited with the heartbroken families while there. The L.A. Times reported that the father of one of the fallen agents told him that his son had gone to Harvard Law School, just like Obama had.
Meanwhile, a terrorist attack in Kabul this week has turned the spotlight on perhaps the most significant complicating factor in the Afghan equation. It involved a suicide attack on a United Nations guest house that resulted in eight deaths, including those of five UN employees. What has made this significant is the subsequent revelation by the Afghanistan intelligence agency that an Al Qaeda operative based in Pakistan’s North Waziristan was involved in the planning. All of the attackers were also from North Waziristan.
Pakistan is the number one complicating factor in the war. Senator John Kerry pointed that out on his return from Afghanistan this past week. Pakistan is the mother nest that is nourishing the growing extremist movement. It is the home of Al Qaeda, which operates with impunity in many of the rural areas and it is here that Al Qaeda conducts the majority of its recruiting and training activities.
If the extremist movement represents a threat to the west in general, and to the United States in particular, that threat is primarily emanating from within the borders of Pakistan, and no area is more dangerous, in this respect, than North Waziristan.
New York Times reporter, David Rohde, was kidnapped by the Taliban in Afghanistan’s capital and held for seven months in North Waziristan before he escaped. In recent interviews, he has said that the test of Pakistan’s resolve in defeating the insurgency will be whether it invades North Waziristan.
For yet another complicating factor in the region is the connection that has long existed between elements of the Pakistan military and its intelligence agency, the ISI, on the one hand, and certain factions of the insurgency on the other. The Haqqini militant network in North Waziristan has had a particularly cozy relationship with these elements of the Pakistani government.
Further, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton learned again last week during her visit, Pakistanis do not trust the United States. Despite the billions of American taxpayers’ dollars we are continuing to give that nation, the people are bitter. They even resent the money which they perceive to be nothing more than a lever to give Washington control over their country. And they see the drone attacks as nothing more than acts of terrorism.
It’s hard to imagine a more difficult decision than the one now facing President Obama. The current convergence of multiple complications can’t help but leave one to wonder if it’s just irony or some sort of cruel omen that, according to the website icasualties.org, the overall U.S. death toll in Afghanistan is, as of today, 911.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 22
yes it is. It also looks like a no-win situation for him politically. If he says, it's time to start disengaging from Afghanistan, he gets called a traitor by the right. If he says, who cares about the illegitimate government in Afghanistan, I am sending 40,000 soldiers to prop up Karzai, he gets it from the left.
As usual, Dave, you summed up the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan very well. Things are getting worse there. The Afghanis won't trust us until they are certain we will stay until the Taliban is no longer strong enough to take over the government again as soon as we leave. I watched two documentaries where a journalist and a cameraman were embedded for a month with two different units of our troops. In both, the mission was as much to win the trust of the villagers as it was to defend them against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. You could see how uneasy the people were. The ones who cooperate openly with us, expect to be killed by the Taliban if we leave. Who can blame them? They can't trust us to stay. Our people have lost the will to pour more billions into a seemingly unwinable conflict. All the the Afghanis have ever known is rule by war lords and paid-off politicians. We may have to abandon them to more of the same, yet the oppression that will follow, especially to women, is dreadful to think of.
Pakistan has an even more dangerous situation, because we don't trust the government any more than they trust us. The people keep hating us more as we go on sending out mindless drones that kill as many or more innocent people than terrorists. At least the Pakistani government finally sees the threat of terorists to their own country, and are pulling troops off the Indian border to combat them. But can they do it alone? Should we keep giving them millions or billions of dollars to help fight Al Qaeda and whatever combination of terrorists are in the fray? Will they use the money for the purpose we give it, or will it line the pockets of crooked politicians. Meanwhile they are a country that already has a functioning atomic bomb, and we don't trust the country any more than they trust us. President Obama needs a lot of combined brainpower from all the experts who can advise him before he makes a final decision about what. There is no really good answer, and he will be criticized whatever he decides to do.
I think these guys are making it easier for Obama. No more troops because we can't afford it. Where are the fiscal conservatives when you need them?
If true, this would change the equation dramatically. No election would be necessary, and both men would, ostensibly rule.
Well, your assertion that "President Obama is going to have to factor in the likelihood of having a partner in the war that is not only weak but is also of questionable legitimacy" is summing up half the issue. More than that is the revelation that was doing the rounds earlier when Karzai had thought his mind loud his intend to have talks with Taliban, who are but an important limp of Al Qaida. So, looking from that angle, Karzai is not only a weak and corrupt head but a person not trustworthy as well. With a person like Karzai at the helm, how can the morale of the forces there be held high. I would also add, with Karzai in his seat, it would be apt to say that the Afghanistani forces would just be working out strategies to have the NATO forces doing the bleeding while they just reaped the benefit for their own country.
Speaking about Pakistan the trend there was a bygone conclusion after the exit of Pervez Musharraf, who was in essence a man with a will and determination. He indeed was sincere to the hilt, but circumstances did not allow him to stay on as Prez and the result was turmoil where it has taken the form of a tug-o-war politically. Personally, I feel the aid US is giving to Pak will not give any return in the long-run. Pak is a country that would go only with the wind - the wind of the people and the people are in no mood to allow a return of Pervez Musharraf. So who will bell the cat. Even Nawaz Sharief is not reliable. And what I personally believe is Iftikar Chaudhry may play his cards as he did during the rule of Pervez Musharraf. Look out there - Iftikar is a dangerous man for the world if ever it comes to that.
The only real potential I see for making a better Afghanistan (is that our job?) is to fund the aid groups who have been there for years who at least have some positive relationship with the people and get our troops home.
Vinod, your analysis is of particular interest. Chaudhry will indeed be a man to watch. He was a major thorn in Musharraf's side. Although he was honored by the Harvard Law School, he has at times displayed opposition to America's activities over there, especially some which the CIA doesn't like to talk about. He is extremely popular with certain segments of the society, and has appeared to be actively opposed to corrupt practices of former leaders and their relatives. For that reason, and others, he would be a logical opponent to run against the present leader, dubbed "Mr. 10%," I believe, for his alleged pattern of demanding kickbacks while married to President Benazir Bhutto. Apparently Chaudhry is just waiting for the opportune time.
It sounds like you may be aware of some negative information about Chaudhry beyond what I know. As a leader, I don't believe he'd be much of a puppet for the U.S., but since his public efforts have been restricted to the field of law, I'm not sure where he would stand with respect to the insurgency or, beyond being independent, what his foreign policy might entail.
It might all boil down to the critical question of his relationship with the military and the ISI, which may be a bit rocky, given Chaudhry's opposition to their boy, Musharraf.
My only comment is that I was taken aback by the news that the President had called Karzai to congratulate him on his "victory". As you correctly stated, Karzai's opposition withdrew to protest his lack of action to correct election fraud and the fact that the election process was still subject to manipulation.
Perhaps the call was just the admiration of one Chicago-style politician for another, but it cast the President and our country in an unseemly light.
Posting after news broke of the Afghani trainee killing five British soldiers. We are invaders and have been for eight, EIGHT years!
What exactly did Bush/Cheney set up in Afghanistan anyway and will we to pay with blood and treasure for the next 100 years because they created the framework for the intervention?
Saw today that even Christopher Buckley (William F.'s son) recommends throwing up our hands and getting out.
Wonder if the White House is gauging whether or not the pendulum is swinging toward withdrawal before they make their decision on troop deployments?
BTW: that is a really great hat in your photo!
Researching the history behind the invasion is time consuming.
In 1998, the Uzbek ambassador, Mr Sadik Safayed traveled to Texas to meet with then Governor George W. Bush at the governors mansion.
Uzbekistan has natural gas reserves almost equivalent to the Iraqi oil reserves. Turkmenistan has even more. The only way to get that gas out now is through Russia, who won't allow its sale to the west or through Iran which is unpalatable to the US. The only recourse would be a pipeline through Afghanistan. Fortunately George Bush senior was a director of a company called Unocal which has designed and planned that very pipeline. In fact, Unocal actually held negotiations with the Taliban at one point and in 2001 Taliban delegations also visited Texas. The consultant who organized these events was a Mr. Hamid Karzai, employed by Unocal and now the president of Afghanistan.
If you carefully examine the deployment of US troops in Afghanistan, not other NATO country troops, you will find that their deployment is precisely positioned to guard this as yet un-constructed pipeline.
In the book, "Murder In Samarkand" is a letter from Ken Lay to George W. Bush recounting the meeting with the Uzbek ambassador. At that time Enron acquired Uzbekistans natural gas rights.
This is not about Democracy or freedom although our government would have you believe that. It is not about women's rights. It isn't about Al-Qaeda which the State Department recently admitted amounts to "less than 100 members." It isn't about the Taliban. It isn't about a country whose population is still living in the stone age.
It is about oil, gas and money. Our soldiers are fighting on behalf of the oil giants, unbeknownst to them. It's a very well orchestrated smoke and mirrors propaganda ploy by our own government, and that includes Bush, Clinton and now Obama.
As an aside, the media, for 5 years has drowned the public with the stories about Heroin exports funding the Taliban. LESS than 10% of the trade is by Taliban friendly participants while over 50% of the export of Heroin is directly controlled by members of the Karzai government including Karzai himself and his brother. The biggest Heroin dealer of all is General Dostum (sp), who's just been brought back into the fold and who many in the Pentagon believe should be further empowered. This is a man who has tied dissidents to tank tracks and run them over. He's a murderer.
The GDP of Afghanistan, according to the US State Department, has increased 150% since the invasion and is the greatest developmental success the west has ever seen as a result. ALL of that increase is the direct result of the heroin trade. No longer does Afghanistan export opium. The trade has been commercialized and democratized. Opium is now processed industrially in Afghanistan with the chemical precursors hauled in tanker trucks along the very same route that our US soldiers are supplied on and they're protected by US soldiers as well. Afghanistan in the 21st century now exports refined heroin produced on an industrial scale.
In 2001 the Taliban had reduced the opium harvest to virtually nothing.
This is about ALL OF US paying with our taxes for wars that benefit a tiny clique.
Watch the two videos with Mr. Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan at the link below. The portion describing what I've written above begins at 3:20 of the second video. You'll need to get through the rape with broken bottles and the boiling of people alive that our government knew about or just skip that part and watch at 3 minutes 20 seconds of the second video.
http://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/former-uk-ambassador-cia-sent-people-to-be-%E2%80%98raped-with-broken-bottles%E2%80%99-2/