 |
||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serving you since 1998 | ||||||||||||
|
|
Karzai, Abdullah teams claim lead in Afghan vote
By Fisnik Abrashi And Heidi Vogt, Associated Press Writers
KABUL – President Hamid Karzai and top challenger Abdullah Abdullah positioned themselves Friday as the likely winner of Afghanistan's presidential election, one day after millions of Afghans braved Taliban threats and intimidation to cast ballots.
No sign of voters on election day in Afghanistan despite official claims
Tom Coghlan in Pul-e-Charki, Kabul The Times (UK) August 21, 2009
At 8am, an hour after the Afghanistan’s presidential polls opened, the polling station at the Haji Janat Gul High School, a dusty collection half-finished buildings designated for use by Kuchi nomads, was entirely empty of voters.
Afghans Vote, Against Backdrop of Threats
Low Turnout in Many Areas Could Raise Questions About Legitimacy of Election
By Pamela Constable and Joshua Partlow Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, August 21, 2009
KABUL, Aug. 20 -- Defying Taliban threats to bomb polling stations and maim voters, millions of Afghans cast ballots Thursday in a presidential election that was relatively peaceful and orderly despite widespread predictions of violence and fraud.
Vote Tally in Three Kabul Precincts Shows Karzai Leading
By VOA News 21 August 2009
Initial results from three voting districts in Thursday's presidential election in Afghanistan have incumbent President Hamid Karzai in the lead.
Afghan Officials Say Claims of Victory Are Premature
By VOA News 21 August 2009
The campaigns of the two top candidates in Afghanistan's presidential election are both claiming victory.
Pak congratulates Afghanistan on 'successful' vote
Islamabad, Aug 21 (AFP) Pakistan today congratulated Afghanistan for "successful holding of elections" and said it believed the Afghan vote would further strengthen democratic institutions in the country.
Militants set ballot boxes on fire in N Afghan district
KABUL, Aug. 21 (Xinhua) -- Taliban insurgents raided a polling center in the northern Balkh district of Balkh province of Afghanistan setting on fire over a dozen ballot boxes, a senior military officer said Friday.
Comparison of Afghan presidential elections of 2004 and 2009
By Abbas Ali
KABUL, Aug. 20 (Xinhua) -- Afghan voters are casting their ballots for the presidential and provincial council elections on Thursday for a second time since the fall of Taliban regime in 2001.
Majority Americans Say: Afghan War Is Not Worth Fighting
by John Nichols NPR - National Public Radio August 21, 2009
With record numbers of US troops being killed in Afghanistan, with Pentagon expenditures for the war skyrocketing and with little or no evidence that the US occupation is making the country more stable, safe, free or humane,
Obama Delivers Remarks on the Recent Afghanistan Elections
The Washington Post CQ Transcriptions Friday, August 21, 2009 2:15 PM [*] OBAMA: Good afternoon, everybody.
I want to say a few words about this week's election in Afghanistan. This was an important step forward in the Afghan people's efforts to take control of their future, even as violent extremists are trying to stand in their way.
Obama lauds Afghan vote, warns of more violence
By Robert Burns, Ap National Security Writer
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama congratulated the Afghan people Friday for pulling off a presidential election in the midst of violent intimidation by Taliban militants but cautioned that more difficult days lie ahead for the war-weary nation.
Obama Calls Afghan Election 'Important Step Forward'
Fox News
President Obama praised the Afghan people for turning out to vote in Thursday's election "in the face of intimidation" from the Taliban.
Afghan Election Poses New Tests for Washington
By HELENE COOPER and CARLOTTA GALL August 22, 2009 The New York Times
KABUL, Afghanistan — Obama administration officials hoped the Afghan election would demonstrate that eight years after the American invasion, the country was stable enough to justify an expanded commitment of money and troops from an increasingly skeptical American public.
World leaders praise Afghanistan
Aug. 21, 2009 at 6:10 PM
KABUL, Afghanistan, Aug. 21 (UPI) -- World leaders praised their forces for helping to secure the Afghan elections, while hailing the bravery of the Afghan people in the historic vote Thursday.
Awake for the victory day in Afghanistan
By Camelia Entekhabifard THE EGYPTIAN GAZETTE
KABUL – In the state of Qandehar and Jalalabad and even Kabul, the election fraud was beyond of everyone's expectation. Apparently huge numbers of ballot boxes were filed and sealed infavour of President Hamed Karzai
Despite election, U.S. troops in Afghanistan for long haul
(CNN) -- Americans shouldn't expect to see the 62,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan come home any time soon, no matter who is declared the victor in the country's presidential election.
Analysis: Afghan vote shows Taliban still potent
By Steven R. Hurst, Associated Press Writer – Fri Aug 21, 3:38 am ET
WASHINGTON – The violence-scarred elections in Afghanistan provided a stage for the Taliban to show war-weary Americans and Afghans that it has rebounded and can strike — even after eight years of war.
Information Blackout
In the absence of actual results, everyone has a different opinion about how Afghanistan's presidential election turned out.
By Ron Moreau and Sami Yousafzai | Newsweek Web Exclusive Aug 21, 2009
There are no results, no turnout statistics, and no victor from yesterday's presidential election in Afghanistan, but there are plenty of opinions. President Hamid Karzai is declaring victory. So is his nearest rival, Abdullah Abdullah.
Afghanistan, on the edge, but not over it
Friday, August 21, 2009 1:35 PM Richard Engel, NBC News Chief Foreign Correspondent
KABUL – When I saw the headlines today that both President Hamid Karzai and his rival Abdullah Abdullah are claiming victory in the Afghanistan election, I was somewhat surprised. I thought that this could be an issue of major
AFGHANISTAN: GOVERNMENT DECLARES ELECTIONS SUCCESS AMIDST MIXED TURNOUT
Aunohita Mojumdar 8/20/09 Eurasianet
Counting the ballots in Afghanistan’s second presidential and provincial council elections has begun. Despite some reports of attacks and election irregularities throughout the country, polls closed on August 20 without any major violent disruptions by insurgents.
Democracy in Afghanistan is wishful thinking
By Thomas H. Johnson And M. Chris Mason – The Christian Science Monitor via Yahoo! News - Aug 20 2:00 AM
Monterey, Calif.; and Washington – As the world watches today's presidential election in Afghanistan, Americans would do well to ponder the lessons of Vietnam.
U.S. officials eye hanging chads -- in Afghanistan
'From Dade County to Kabul, man,' said a bemused Richard C. Holbrooke, U.S. envoy for the region. But such problems are unlikely to influence the outcome, officials said.
Los Angeles Times By Paul Richter August 21, 2009
Reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan - Poll workers at a Kabul school didn't seem too alarmed Thursday to see voters struggling to mark their ballots by punching out the tiny paper circle called a chad.
Seven steps to peace in Afghanistan
By Syed Saleem Shahzad Asia Times UK - Aug 21 3:22 AM
KABUL - Election officials in Afghanistan on Friday began counting the votes cast in Thursday's presidential and provincial polls. In capitals from Kabul to Islamabad to Washington, officials are counting the days until they
US targets Taliban leader in latest missile strike
By Kay Johnson, Associated Press Writer
ISLAMABAD — A U.S. missile strike Friday targeted a Taliban commander blamed for masterminding ambushes on American troops in Afghanistan, the latest assault by unmanned aircraft in northwestern Pakistan, intelligence officials said.
Bomber targets Afghan city centre
Friday, 21 August 2009 18:54 UK BBC News
A man has been killed trying to mount a suicide bomb attack on a police station in the centre of the eastern Afghan city of Jalalabad, police say.
Afghanistan Bomb Blasts Kill Two U.K. Soldiers, One U.S.
By Caroline Alexander
Aug. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Three soldiers serving in the NATO- led force in Afghanistan, one American and two Britons, were killed by separate explosions.
Why Afghanistan Is Lost
By Stephan Richter | Friday, August 21, 2009 The Globalist
The Obama Administration, led by Vice President Biden and the equally hard-hitting special envoy Richard Holbrooke, is trying to do more to turn the tide in Afghanistan. Will the effort succeed? If not, why not
Fixing Afghanistan
Robert Dreyfuss – The Nation via Yahoo! News - Aug 21 8:44 AM
The Nation -- Some thoughts on Afghanistan, now that the election's come and gone.
How The Taliban Are Taking Control Of Kunduz
Free Internet Press - Thu Aug 20, 4:04 am ET
Six years ago, German soldiers came to Afghanistan's Kunduz province to carry out reconstruction work. Now they are engaged in a bitter struggle with the resurgent Taliban, who are trying to sabotage Thursday's presidential
German Party Calls for Plan for Removal of Troops From Afghanistan
New York Times By JUDY DEMPSEY August 20, 2009
BERLIN - After ignoring the issue of Afghanistan for much of the federal election campaign so far, the Free Democrats, an opposition party that hopes to join Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives in the next government,
Afghanistan: Taliban killed in Helmand, claims police chief
Kabul, 21 August (AKI) -Up to 40 Taliban fighters, including a commander, were killed during operations in various areas of volatile southern Helmand province during Afghanistan's presidential and provincial elections
Dear Mr. President: Please stop Afghan adultery
By Golnar Motevalli – Thu Aug 20, 12:07 pm ET
MAZAR-I-SHARIF, Afghanistan (Reuters) – Afghan poll workers made an unusual discovery among ballot papers from Thursday's election -- a hand-written plea from a woman asking the president to do something about her unfaithful husband.
US panel on wartime contracting to return to Afghanistan
Fri Aug 21, 4:35 pm ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) – A US commission investigating wartime contracting said it plans to return to Afghanistan on Sunday as part its effort to stem fraud and waste by private defense contractors.
Afghan Women's Vote Hindered by Taliban and More
By Aunohita Mojumdar WeNews correspondent 08/20/09
Afghan women's participation is expected to be low in Thursday's national elections. Security fears and conservative customs are expected to hinder female voters, candidates and poll watchers.
Fremont's Little Kabul eyes election with hope
Matthew B. Stannard, San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer Friday, August 21, 2009
Sam Saleh's Little Kabul Market off Fremont's Thornton Avenue offers a little piece of Afghanistan to its patrons: sweets, meats, and kites, their strings laced with glass to make them weapons in traditional Afghan kite fighting.
AFGHANISTAN: UNCERTAINTIES AND FEAR LOOM DAY BEFORE VOTE
Aunohita Mojumdar: 8/19/09 Eurasia Insight:
Polling for the second presidential and provincial council elections in Afghanistan will open early on August 20 in a milieu of competing hopes and fears, uncertain logistics and precarious security conditions. The 2009 polls also take place in a state of political flux unprecedented since the forced removal of the Taliban in 2001.
Back to Top
Karzai, Abdullah teams claim lead in Afghan vote
By Fisnik Abrashi And Heidi Vogt, Associated Press Writers
KABUL – President Hamid Karzai and top challenger Abdullah Abdullah positioned themselves Friday as the likely winner of Afghanistan's presidential election, one day after millions of Afghans braved Taliban threats and intimidation to cast ballots.
Partial preliminary results won't be made public before Tuesday, as Afghanistan and the dozens of countries with troops and aid organizations in the country wait to see who will lead the troubled nation for the next five years. The next president faces an agenda filled with crises: rising insurgent violence, rampant corruption and a huge narcotics trade.
Both sides said their candidate was ahead in the count. Officials with the country's Independent Election Commission said it was too early for any campaign to claim itself the winner. Counting at individual polling sites has been completed, but ballots are now being sent to Kabul, election officials said.
Abdullah's camp said it was investigating claims of fraud across southern provinces where Karzai would expect to do well.
"As far as my campaign is concerned, I am in the lead, and that's despite the rigging which has taken place in some parts of the country," Abdullah told The Associated Press. He claimed that government officials interfered with ballot boxes, and in some places blocked monitors from inspecting boxes or their contents.
Abdullah said there "is a likelihood" that neither he nor Karzai got more than 50 percent of the vote, a circumstance that would trigger a run-off. Though election officials previously said preliminary results would be announced Saturday, Daoud Ali Najafi, the chief electoral officer, said Friday that results won't be made public until Tuesday.
Karzai's campaign spokesman, Waheed Omar, said that the campaign believes "we are well ahead" in the vote count based on reports the campaign has received. Omar also said a second round would be "logistically, financially and also politically" problematic for the people of Afghanistan, though the election commission has said it is ready to hold a second round if needed.
"Our prediction is that the election will not go to the second round," Omar said. "Our initial information is that we will hopefully be able to win the elections in the first round."
A Times of London report Friday said election officials at a polling station near Kabul recorded 5,530 ballots in the first hour of voting Thursday, even though no voters were at the site when the Times' reporter arrived at 8 a.m.
Election workers said the area was pro-Karzai and was controlled by a lawmaker who said he had already voted for Karzai, even though his finger wasn't marked with indelible ink, a fraud prevention measure, the Times reported.
The International Republican Institute, a U.S.-based nonprofit organization that had about 30 election observers in Afghanistan, said the vote was at a "lower standard" than the 2004 and 2005 Afghan elections" but that "the process so far has been credible."
Richard S. Williamson, the IRI's delegation leader in Afghanistan and a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said the election "was defined by violence."
International officials have predicted that Afghanistan's second-ever direct presidential vote would be imperfect but expressed hope that Afghans would accept the outcome as legitimate — a key component of President Barack Obama's strategy for the war.
The country's chief electoral officer, Daoud Ali Najafi, said the commission had only started to receive partial results in Kabul on Friday morning.
"My advice is that all the candidates should be patient and wait until the results go through the proper channels and results are announced," Najafi said.
A U.S. Embassy spokeswoman, Fleur Cowan, said only the Independent Electoral Commission can announce official results.
"Anything else is speculation at this point," she said. "We will wait to hear from the IEC and electoral complaints commission."
Final official results weren't to be announced until early September.
As the counting continued, so did violence. A U.S. service member died Friday from wounds from an improvised explosive device in eastern Afghanistan, the NATO-led military alliance said. No other information was released. Two British troops in the south died on Thursday, officials announced.
Millions of Afghans defied threats to cast ballots, but turnout appeared weaker than the previous vote in 2004 because of violence, fear and disenchantment. At least 26 Afghans, including security forces, were killed in election-related violence. In much of the Taliban's southern strongholds, many people did not dare to vote, bolstering the hopes of Abdullah.
A top election official, Zekria Barakzai, told The Associated Press he estimated 40 percent to 50 percent of the country's 15 million registered voters cast ballots — far lower than the 70 percent who voted in the presidential election in 2004.
A low turnout and allegations of fraud could cast doubt over the legitimacy of the vote and raise fears that followers of defeated candidates might take to the streets.
Low voting in the ethnic Pashtun south would harm Karzai's re-election chances and boost the standing of Abdullah, who draws his strength from the Tajik minority. Turnout in the Tajik north appeared to be stronger, a good sign for Abdullah.
U.S. officials had hoped for a wide turnout as a symbolic rejection of the insurgency. The voting was seen partly as a test of the ability of U.S. forces to protect civilians — the new top military priority — and the willingness of voters to accept that help.
___
Associated Press writers Jason Straziuso, Rahim Faiez and Amir Shah contributed to this report.
(This version CORRECTS that neither Karzai nor Abdullah has claimed victory, just that each campaign has said its candidate is ahead.)
Back to Top
Back to Top
No sign of voters on election day in Afghanistan despite official claims
Tom Coghlan in Pul-e-Charki, Kabul The Times (UK) August 21, 2009
At 8am, an hour after the Afghanistan’s presidential polls opened, the polling station at the Haji Janat Gul High School, a dusty collection half-finished buildings designated for use by Kuchi nomads, was entirely empty of voters.
But the apparent lack of voter activity was deceptive, insisted election officials; the ballot boxes were already full almost to the brim. “The people have already come. They came here with lorries at 7 o’clock, now they have gone to the fields with their sheep” said Lawan Geen proudly.
The grey bearded election worker from the Independent Election Commission seemed rather less than happy at the unannounced arrival of two Times journalists at his polling centre just outside Kabul.
The absence of voters witnessed by The Times yesterday in this centre on the edge of the capital was replicated across the country, with fearful Afghans staying away from the polls after repeated threats from the Taleban.
But the polling station in Pul-e-Charki painted a suspiciously different picture. In total 5,530 votes had already been cast for the Presidential Elections, according to the records being kept by the election staff beside each ballot box. In each box there were an oddly uniform 500 to 510 votes. More impressive still, some 3,025 of the ballots were women’s votes.
Assuming that the last voter disappeared at least two minutes before the Times arrived at 7.55am, the staff working on the 12 separate ballot boxes at the site must have been processing at least 100 voters per minute since polling began.
There were no sign of any election monitors at the site and nor were there any female staff to oversee the women’s ballot boxes, as the electoral commission required.
For an hour The Times waited at the polling site. The polling staff fidgeted. But no one came to vote.
“This area is controlled by Haji Mullah Lewani Khan. He is the chief of the Tarokhail tribe and an MP,” said Lawan Geen, the election official. “He said that there is a threat from the Taleban to cut the fingers off the people. So people came early in the morning,” he added, hopping from one foot to the other, looking uncomfortable.
The tribal chief, he confided, was a supporter of President Karzai. “All the people here are Tarokhail, they are all voting for Karzai.” His co-workers were unhelpful. “You are not allowed to see these things, this is a woman’s area” said one male worker as The Times asked to see the lists of voter card numbers for ballots already cast.
Suddenly a lorry chugged into view. “Look there are voters!” shouted Lawan Geen, scampering towards the approaching vehicle. About thirty men were helped off the lorry, several were elderly and one was almost entirely blind. They trooped into the polling station and prepared to vote.
A burly middle-aged man called Lal Mohammad stepped forward and held out two voting cards. At the sight the election officials went into collective convulsion and shooed one back into his pocket.
After he had voted he explained that he had voted for President Karzai. Asked about the second voting card in his pocket he showed the contents of his several other pockets before finally pulling out the card. “It is my wife’s,” he said. “I will bring her later.”
Other voters also said they were voting for Mr Karzai. “If Doctor Abdullah wins it will be a shame on all Pashtun people because he is a Tajik,” said Haji Abdullah, a pistol-toting young man who looked about 16 but whose voter registration card put him at 21. He insisted that he was old enough to vote, pointing out that he had voted in 2004. “Maybe Afghanistan will be destroyed if he wins,” he added. “Certainly there will be fighting.”
As the thirty voters each made their way to the ballot box it became evident that the staff were able to process a maximum four voters every three minutes, or at best 80 voters per ballot box per hour, or 960 for the entire polling centre per hour. How was it possible then to process 5,530 in an hour, The Times wondered. Did the election officials suspect any sort of fraud?
Lawan Geen pursed his lips. “Maybe there has been a little bit by some people. Maybe 5 per cent,” he ventured.
Outside the polling station five policemen stood guard. They had been at the station since the night before and explained what they had seen. “At about 4am the IEC staff came to the polling station,” said one policeman named Iqbal. “Since then we haven’t seen a lot of people. Maybe four lorries of people and three or four Corolla cars. I have not seen any women here.” The other policemen corroborated the tale.
A mile away The Times found the tribal chief Haji Mullah Lewani Khan MP in his grand, high-walled compound. Thirty metres from his front door was another polling station in the Haji Janat Gul Madrassa. Both were buildings originally built by Mr Lewani in memory of his father.
Outside the madrassa polling centre stood half a dozen armed men, supporters of Mr Lewani. One of them wore a badge with Mr Karzai’s face on it.
Mr Lewani, a diminutive 35-year-old with a regal air, welcomed The Times with a large group of retainers at his shoulder, several of whom wore the blue armbands, meant to mark them out as Independent Election Commission workers. All such workers are supposed to be vetted for their impartiality.
“They are helping the IEC just for today,” said Haji Mullah casually. “They are not getting any wages.” His two phones rang continuously. “We need more ballot papers,” he shouted into one. “Call the election commission and tell them we need more.” Asked if he had voted, the MP replied: “Of course, for Karzai.” Oddly none of his fingers displayed any of the indelible ink used to identify those who had voted. “I washed my hands,” he said.
What did he think of suggestions that vote rigging might be taking place locally, wondered The Times. “These claims of corruption are just shit, maybe they are publicity against us by Dr Abdullah supporters,” he said without blinking.
An hour after voting closed last night sources from the Independent Election Commission admitted that an investigation had begun into allegations that up to 70,000 illegal votes had been cast in polling centres around the Haji Janat Gul polling centre, east of Kabul.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghans Vote, Against Backdrop of Threats
Low Turnout in Many Areas Could Raise Questions About Legitimacy of Election
By Pamela Constable and Joshua Partlow Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, August 21, 2009
KABUL, Aug. 20 -- Defying Taliban threats to bomb polling stations and maim voters, millions of Afghans cast ballots Thursday in a presidential election that was relatively peaceful and orderly despite widespread predictions of violence and fraud.
The day was marred by reports of low voter turnout in many areas, however, which could complicate efforts to declare the results legitimate. With no official tabulations expected for several weeks and a runoff likely between incumbent Hamid Karzai and his top challenger, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, Afghans face the prospect of a drawn-out period of political tension and uncertainty.
Officials said nine civilians and 18 members of the Afghan security forces were killed in scattered incidents of election-day violence, including a foiled attack on a police station in the capital. Officials said that they thwarted numerous suicide attacks planned for Kabul in recent days and that security was effective in major cities and towns.
In rural areas nationwide, more than 800 polling stations out of about 7,000 were closed because of security concerns, but there were no reports of major insurgent attacks. Taliban leaders had threatened to carry out suicide attacks against what they called a "sham" and "infidel" election, but the strikes did not materialize.
"The Afghan people dared rockets, bombs and intimidation to come out to vote," Karzai, who has led Afghanistan for 7 1/2 years, told reporters at his palace Thursday afternoon. "We regret the loss of civilian lives, but we are grateful for the sacrifices people made. It went very, very well."
International officials also expressed satisfaction with the election. "So far, every prediction of disaster has turned out to be wrong," Richard C. Holbrooke, the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, said during a tour of polling stations in Kabul.
U.N. spokesmen here congratulated Afghan officials for organizing the vote in an "extremely challenging environment" and said voters had clearly demonstrated their "desire for stability and development." More than 15 million people had registered to vote nationwide.
Nevertheless, a combination of fear and disillusionment with politics kept many people away from the polls, especially ethnic Pashtun voters in southern and eastern provinces where Taliban insurgents are a major presence.
There was much higher turnout and less violence in the northern provinces, which are dominated by other ethnic groups, potentially creating a regional imbalance in voting results and raising questions about the legitimacy of the election. Although there were no major complaints of fraud, international observers said it will take time to determine how many people voted and to what degree the voting was marred by fraud and violence.
"I think everyone has to guard against making judgments that 24 or 48 hours later may not hold," said Kenneth Wollack, president of the National Democratic Institute, speaking in Kabul late Thursday. He led a team of more than 100 Afghan and international election observers.
In some rural districts of Helmand, Kandahar and Logar provinces, which have been wracked by insurgent violence, very few people voted. In Kandahar city, however, officials said turnout was robust despite Taliban threats and the firing of 11 rockets. Zalmay Ayoubi, a spokesman for the provincial governor, said that one rocket killed three children but that most others did little damage.
In eastern Nangahar province, another heavily Pashtun region, several people waiting to cast ballots said their neighbors and relatives had refused to come out because the Taliban had threatened to cut off the purple-ink-stained finger of anyone who had voted.
"During the day, it's the government of Karzai, but at night, it's the government of the Taliban," said Hamidullah Mohmand, a villager from Nangahar who traveled to the provincial capital, Jalalabad, to vote because he thought it would be safer. Afterward, he said he was eager to wash the dark ink off his right forefinger before returning home.
Even in Kabul, where more than 10,000 police officers were deployed to protect voters and vehicles were searched at every corner, some high schools used as polling places had received only a trickle of voters by midday, and election monitors sat idle for hours in some classrooms reserved for female voters.
Some residents said they saw no point in voting because they had become disenchanted with politics; had found no champion among the dozens of presidential candidates; and were certain that Karzai would win, even though his government has steadily lost popularity and is widely accused of corruption and incompetence.
Yet many of those who did turn out expressed strong feelings about the need to strengthen Afghan democracy and to send Taliban insurgents a message that they could not frighten civilians with threats of retaliation.
"We are here to decide our future. This is a first chance for us as a family to vote for a peaceful Afghanistan with good leaders, and we are not going to allow the Taliban to scare us away," said Mohammed Ashraf, 37, a laborer who recently returned from a long exile in Iran and voted in a crowded high school gym in western Kabul, along with his wife.
Many polling agents and monitors seemed especially enthusiastic and proud of their roles, ushering local VIPs and bewildered villagers through the process with equanimity and flourish. Often they had to help voters make sense of the cumbersome paper ballot with its photos and symbols of 41 candidates for president, plus hundreds for provincial council seats.
"You see, this man cannot read, so I am going to guide him," Rahir Ahmad, a polling officer, said loudly to everyone waiting to vote in a high school classroom. Then he took a confused-looking elderly man by the elbow and led him behind a cardboard voting booth.
A few minutes later, Abdullah, the major challenger to Karzai, arrived to vote with a huge entourage of security guards and camera crews. Strolling through the scrum with his wife and young son at his side, Abdullah smiled as he left the school and repeatedly held up his ink-stained finger for the television cameras.
In another school across the city, Karzai came to vote with his wife, a doctor who has rarely been seen in public. Karzai and Abdullah, although English-speaking and modern in their outlooks, had campaigned without their wives in deference to conservative Afghan traditions that require women to be hidden from public view.
Many voters remarked that the lines seemed much thinner than in 2004, when the first presidential election was held after the 2001 overthrow of the Taliban regime. The national mood was extremely upbeat at the time, and Karzai was easily elected with 54 percent of the vote. This time, polls suggest he will garner less than half the vote, with Abdullah picking up a quarter and other candidates splitting the rest. If none of the candidates reaches 50 percent, the top two vote-getters will face off in a second round in early October.
"I came here to vote for a real Muslim who can help save our poor country," said Khair Mohmad, 55, a day laborer waiting to vote in Kabul. He said he had supported Karzai in 2004 and intended to do so again. "No one pressured me to come here today," he said. "I came to vote for peace and security."
Partlow reported from Jalalabad.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Vote Tally in Three Kabul Precincts Shows Karzai Leading
By VOA News 21 August 2009
Initial results from three voting districts in Thursday's presidential election in Afghanistan have incumbent President Hamid Karzai in the lead.
VOA on Friday visited three districts - all in affluent areas of the capital Kabul - where election officials were counting votes by hand to get a sampling of how the voting went.
The initial tally showed Mr. Karzai winning in two of the districts, including a district near the Kabul Zoo where he went to high school.
But in the third district, where Mr. Karzai's wife cast her ballot, the incumbent president lost to former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah.
Former Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani placed third in all three voting districts, while Ramazan Bashardost, a popular lawmaker from Kabul, was in fourth.
The count in the three districts also showed Mr. Karzai was short of the 50 percent of the vote needed to avoid a run-off election. Afghans voted in more than 6,000 polling stations.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghan Officials Say Claims of Victory Are Premature
By VOA News 21 August 2009
The campaigns of the two top candidates in Afghanistan's presidential election are both claiming victory.
Campaign officials for President Hamid Karzai say the president's lead is big enough that a run-off vote will not be necessary.
And a spokesman for Mr. Karzai's closest challenger, former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah, claim he has a definitive edge.
But Independent Election Commission Secretary-General Daoud Ali Najafi says not all the votes have been counted and that preliminary results will not be announced for several days.
In the first major assessment from election observers, the U.S.-funded International Republican Institute said Friday that the election has been "credible." But Richard Williamson, who led the observer delegation in Afghanistan, also said there were serious problems.
He said poor security had an impact on voter turnout, and that there are credible reports of voter registration cards being sold. Williamson also said there appeared to be problems with the indelible ink used to keep voters from casting more than one ballot.
Despite the threat of Taliban attacks, Afghan voters cast ballots Thursday in the country's second presidential election. Violence in Kabul, Kandahar and other major cities killed at least 26 people.
There are concerns that low voter turnout will damage the election's credibility and undermine support for the winner.
Officials in northern Afghanistan said Friday at least some of the ballots were intercepted by militants. Election authorities say they are investigating reports of ballot-stuffing and faulty voting equipment.
Also Friday, Britain said two of its troops were killed in an explosion in southern Afghanistan on Thursday.
Some information for this report was provided by AFP, AP and Reuters.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Pak congratulates Afghanistan on 'successful' vote
Islamabad, Aug 21 (AFP) Pakistan today congratulated Afghanistan for "successful holding of elections" and said it believed the Afghan vote would further strengthen democratic institutions in the country.
Contenders in the race to become Afghanistan's next president claimed today to be heading for victory in polls acclaimed by the West but undermined by complaints of ballot-stuffing and low turnout.
"Pakistan believes that these elections would further strengthen the democratic institutions in Afghanistan and infuse vitality and vigour to the political life in the country," the foreign ministry said in a statement.
"Pakistan expresses the hope that the electoral process will successfully culminate in an era of peace, progress and prosperity in Afghanistan."
US President Barack Obama, NATO and many other Western backers of Karzai's government welcomed yesterday's election, which although subject to sporadic attacks was spared a feared full-scale Taliban onslaught.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Militants set ballot boxes on fire in N Afghan district
KABUL, Aug. 21 (Xinhua) -- Taliban insurgents raided a polling center in the northern Balkh district of Balkh province of Afghanistan setting on fire over a dozen ballot boxes, a senior military officer said Friday.
"The insurgents attacked a polling station in Kamperak village of Balkh district Thursday night set ablaze 13 ballot boxes," commander of 205 Corps in north Afghanistan General Murad Ali Murad told Xinhua.
A driver was also killed in the attack, he added.
Voting for Afghanistan's provincial and provincial councils' election was held on Aug. 20 amid Taliban threat across the country.
Although the militants carried out series of rocket attacks and bombings in parts of the country, Afghans went to the polling stations and cast their votes.
The final result of the election held amid tight security would be announced on Sept. 17, officials said.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Comparison of Afghan presidential elections of 2004 and 2009
By Abbas Ali
KABUL, Aug. 20 (Xinhua) -- Afghan voters are casting their ballots for the presidential and provincial council elections on Thursday for a second time since the fall of Taliban regime in 2001.
Eligible voters in the polling centers were given two ballot papers, one for the presidential vote and the other for members of the provincial councils. However, the real fervor across the country and the focus of attention for the international community went to the presidential one.
In 2004, a total of 23 candidates filed their nomination including one historical woman contestant.
Over 70 percent of the registered voters used their right of franchise and some two million Afghan refugees voted in Pakistan and Iran.
Hamid Karzai was elected with 4,443,029 votes that made 55.4 percent.
At that time, the top rival of Karzai was Younas Qanooni, an ethnic Tajik and member of the Northern Alliance who secured 1,306,503 votes making 16.3 percent.
The third highest vote securing candidate was Muhammad Muhaqiq, a Hazara politician 935,325 votes, 11.7 percent.
Abdul Rashid Dostum, the Uzbek leader could gain 804,861 10.0 percent.
In the presidential elections of 2009, initially there were controversies over the date of the polling.
According to the Afghan Constitution, elections should be held 60 days before the term of incumbent ends.
The date was falling in May, but the Independent Election Commission said it is impossible to conduct polls in May due to security and financial reasons. After controversies, finally the date was announced for Aug. 20.
Nominations of 41 candidates were declared valid by the Election Commission. Among them, two were women, an increase from 2004.
Total nine contestants withdrew before the last day of the campaign, eight of them in favor of incumbent President Karzai and one in favor of his top rival, Abdullah Abdullah.
The Election Commission said there were 17 million registered voters, among whom 4.5 million were new registrations.
Compared to the presidential elections of 2004, this time many Afghans are confused with the large number of candidates.
For the mass illiterate population, it is confusing to choose their favorite with a clear margin of victory. Thus some opponents of President Karzai expect a second round of runoff polling.
Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran, who voted in 2004 in those countries, have criticized the government for not providing facilities to conduct polls in those countries they live.
Unlike 2004 when the elections were conducted under the United Nation's Assistance Mission for Afghanistan, the Afghan Independent Election Commission is solely responsible to conduct polls in 2009.
Due to lack of international funding, the Commission says it could not manage to conduct polls for refugees in Pakistan and Iran. Other than that, the military operation and in security in the tribal areas of Pakistan was another reason the polls could not be conducted for refugees.
There are four candidates of 2004 who are re-running for presidency in 2009. They are incumbent President Karzai, Abdul Latif Pedram of National Congress Party, Ghulam Farooq Nejrabi of Independence Party and Abdul Hasib Arian, an independent candidate.
The Afghan government and foreign troops with the help of Pakistan could persuade Taliban not to disrupt the elections in 2004. However, it would not happen in 2009.
Queues outside the polling centers were seen early in the morning at 6 a.m. in Afghan capital Kabul.
Nevertheless, compared to the previous elections, there is less enthusiasm this time and fear of security is the major reason.
But there are several reasons including a rise in insurgency and an increase in poverty in the country after the U.S. invasion.
The polling day went peaceful in 2004, but today residents of Kabul were scared with two blasts and an attack of three suicide bombers, who were killed after an hour of firelight in the district 8 of the capital.
In 2004, Afghanistan has seen a rush in the polling centers from early morning, but today fear is visible throughout the country.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Majority Americans Say: Afghan War Is Not Worth Fighting
by John Nichols NPR - National Public Radio August 21, 2009
With record numbers of US troops being killed in Afghanistan, with Pentagon expenditures for the war skyrocketing and with little or no evidence that the US occupation is making the country more stable, safe, free or humane, a majority of Americans now say the war is not worth fighting.
Fifty-one percent of those surveyed for a a new Washington Post-ABC News poll now say the human and economic cost of the war is too great.
Forty-four percent say it is worth its costs.
Perhaps most significantly, passionate opposition to the war now significantly outstrips passionate support for it.
Forty-one percent of those surveyed said they were strongly opposed to the occupation.
Just 31 percent say they were strongly supportive.
Barack Obama authorized surging 17,000 additional troops into Afghanistan at the start of his presidency, making a commitment to extend an occupation begun by George Bush and Dick Cheney as a supposed effort to track down those responsible for the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Now, as Afghanistan prepares for presidential elections Thursday, the fighting in many parts of the country is more intense than ever.
There is widespread speculation that General Stanley A. McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan, will request more troops in short order.
That escalation is not going to play well with the American people.
A striking 45 percent said they were opposed to dispatching more US troops to Afghanistan.
Only 24 percent of those surveyed expressed sympathy for McChrystal's scheme.
What these numbers add up to is an even stronger argument for Congress to check and balance the escalation of a war that should not be extended.
So far, 95 members, including a number of Republicans, have signed on as co-sponsors of Massachusetts Congressman Jim McGovern's call for the development of an Afghanistan exit strategy.
The August congressional recess provides an opening for antiwar activists to increase those numbers. Progressive Democrats of America is working the issue hard, pushing an "End Wars and Occupations: Redirect Funding" message that is spot on.
"August Recess is the time to act! Congress needs to know that their constituents feel strongly about halting the war in Afghanistan, withdrawing of US troops from Iraq, and reducing the overall size of the military budget," says PDA executive director Tim Carptenter. "They need to see concerned constituents taking action: Request a meeting with your senators and representative or their staffs, or simply stop by their offices and tell them to vote against further funding and to support the McGovern bill."
The question to ask of reluctant members of Congress is easy enough: Isn't it time to side with the majority of Americans in recognizing that this war is not worth fighting?
Back to Top
Back to Top
Obama Delivers Remarks on the Recent Afghanistan Elections
The Washington Post CQ Transcriptions Friday, August 21, 2009 2:15 PM [*] OBAMA: Good afternoon, everybody.
I want to say a few words about this week's election in Afghanistan. This was an important step forward in the Afghan people's efforts to take control of their future, even as violent extremists are trying to stand in their way.
This election was run by the Afghan people. In fact, it was the first democratic election run by Afghans in over three decades. More than 30 presidential candidates and more than 3,000 provincial council candidates ran for office, including a record number of women. Some 6,000 polling stations were open around the country. And Afghan national security forces took the lead in providing security.
Over the last few days, in particular yesterday, we've seen acts of violence and intimidation by the Taliban, and there may be more in the days to come. We knew that the Taliban would try to derail this election. Yet, even in the face of this brutality, millions of Afghans exercised the right to choose their leaders and determine their own destiny.
And as I watched the election, I was struck by their courage in the face of intimidation and their dignity in the face of disorder. There is a clear contrast between those who seek to control their future at the ballot box and those who kill to prevent that from happening. Once again, extremists in Afghanistan have shown themselves willing to murder innocent Muslims -- men, women, and children -- to advance their aims.
But I believe that the future belongs to those who want to build, not those who want to destroy. And that is the future that was sought by the Afghans who went to the polls and the Afghan national security forces who protected them.
The United States did not support any candidate in this election. Our only interest was the result fairly, accurately reflecting the will of the Afghan people, and that is what we will continue to support as the votes are counted and we wait for the official results from the Afghan independent electoral commission and the electoral complaints commission. Meanwhile, we will continue to work with our Afghan partners to strengthen Afghan security, governance and opportunity.
Our goal is clear: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaida and their extremist allies. That goal will be achieved, and our troops will be able to come home as Afghans continue to strengthen their own capacity and take responsibility for their own future.
Our men and women in uniform are doing an extraordinary job in Afghanistan. So are the civilians who serve by their side. All of them are in our thoughts and prayers, as are their families back home.
This is not a challenge that we asked for. It came to our shores when Al Qaida launched the 9/11 attacks from Afghanistan. But America, our allies and partners and, above all, the Afghan people share a common interest in pursuing security, opportunity and justice.
We look forward to renewing our partnership with the Afghan people as they move ahead under a new government. I want to, again, congratulate the Afghanistan people on carrying out this historic election and wish them a blessed month as they come together to welcome the beginning of Ramadan.
Thanks very much, everybody.
QUESTION: What about the hero's welcome in Libya, sir?
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
OBAMA: I think it was highly objectionable.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Obama lauds Afghan vote, warns of more violence
By Robert Burns, Ap National Security Writer
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama congratulated the Afghan people Friday for pulling off a presidential election in the midst of violent intimidation by Taliban militants but cautioned that more difficult days lie ahead for the war-weary nation.
"This is an important step forward in the Afghan people's efforts to take control of their future even as violent extremists are trying to stand in their way," Obama said at the White House before boarding Marine One for a flight to the presidential mountaintop retreat at Camp David, Md.
In Kabul, the government's chief electoral officer, Daoud Ali Najafi, said results from Thursday's balloting won't be made public until Tuesday.
Obama said it was the first democratic election run by Afghans in more than three decades. The 2004 election that put President Hamid Karzai in power was run by the United Nations. Karzai and top challenger Abdullah Abdullah each described himself Friday as the likely winner of Thursday's voting, although many believed they would be forced to compete in a runoff election in October.
The United States has been steadily increasing its military efforts in Afghanistan since Obama took office, arguing that that is a far more effective use of American troops than the Bush administration's emphasis on the war in Iraq.
Obama said it was obvious in advance of the election that the Taliban, who control substantial portions of the country, particularly in the volatile south, would attempt to disrupt the voting.
"Over the last few days, in particular yesterday, we've seen acts of violence and intimidation by the Taliban, and there may be more in the days to come," he said.
Regardless of the ultimate winner of the presidential election, the U.S. will continue to work with Afghans to stabilize the country, Obama said.
"Our goal is clear: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida and their extremist allies," he said. "That goal will be achieved, and our troops will be able to come home as Afghans continue to strengthen their own capacity and take responsibility for their own future."
With memories of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks dimming, Americans are growing weary of the conflict. New polling this week showed a majority — 51 percent — of those surveyed now believe the war is not worth the fight, an increase of 6 percentage points in a month.
Still, a White House strategy review is due in mid-September, and Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is expected to press for a further increase in forces for his counterinsurgency campaign.
Just three years ago the U.S. had about 20,000 forces in the country. Today, it has triple that, on the way to 68,000 by year's end when all of the extra 17,000 troops that Obama announced in March are to be in place. An additional 4,000 troops are arriving to help train Afghan forces.
Obama has not wavered from his campaign pledge to take the fight to the Taliban and their al-Qaida allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He argues that the true danger to Americans lies in the towering peaks and vast deserts of those countries, not in Iraq. The Bush administration, he asserts, wasted precious time, treasure and blood in toppling Saddam Hussein and getting caught up in an insurgency.
Independent U.S. analysts on Friday gave a generally upbeat assessment of the election process in Afghanistan.
"There's no question that more of the polling stations were open than one had anticipated, given the threats and the violence from the Taliban," said Mark Schneider, senior vice president of the International Crisis Group, which advises governments and international organizations.
James Dobbins, who was the Bush administration's special envoy to Afghanistan in the early years of the war, said that from available information it appeared the election should be considered successful in the sense that it was a genuine political contest between viable candidates.
"The playing field was as level as one could reasonably expect under the circumstances," said Dobbins, who is now director of international studies at the Rand Corp., a think tank.
Others cautioned not to overstate what the elections could do to advance political stability in Afghanistan.
"Just holding the election is an important sign — if not of progress, then at least of sustained effort toward that end state of a democratic Afghanistan," said Daniel Markey, a Central Asia expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. "But in the near term, the best that we can hope is that they don't prove to be even more disruptive and provide even more propaganda value to the insurgency."
Back to Top
Back to Top
Obama Calls Afghan Election 'Important Step Forward'
Fox News
President Obama praised the Afghan people for turning out to vote in Thursday's election "in the face of intimidation" from the Taliban.
President Obama congratulated the Afghan people Friday for pulling off a presidential election in the midst of violent intimidation by Taliban militants but cautioned that more difficult days lie ahead for the war-weary nation.
"This is an important step forward in the Afghan people's efforts to take control of their future even as violent extremists are trying to stand in their way," Obama said at the White House before boarding Marine One for a flight to the presidential mountaintop retreat at Camp David, Md.
In Kabul, the government's chief electoral officer, Daoud Ali Najafi, said results from Thursday's balloting wil not be made public until Tuesday.
Obama said it was the first democratic election run by Afghans in more than three decades. The 2004 election that put President Hamid Karzai in power was run by the United Nations. Karzai and top challenger Abdullah Abdullah each described himself Friday as the likely winner of Thursday's voting, although many believed they would be forced to compete in a runoff election in October.
The United States has been steadily increasing its military efforts in Afghanistan since Obama took office, arguing that that is a far more effective use of American troops than the Bush administration's emphasis on the war in Iraq.
Obama said it was obvious in advance of the election that the Taliban, who control substantial portions of the country, particularly in the volatile south, would attempt to disrupt the voting.
"Over the last few days, in particular yesterday, we've seen acts of violence and intimidation by the Taliban, and there may be more in the days to come," he said.
Regardless of the ultimate winner of the presidential election, the U.S. will continue to work with Afghans to stabilize the country, Obama said.
"Our goal is clear: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida and their extremist allies," he said. "That goal will be achieved, and our troops will be able to come home as Afghans continue to strengthen their own capacity and take responsibility for their own future."
With memories of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks dimming, Americans are growing weary of the conflict. New polling this week showed a majority -- 51 percent -- of those surveyed now believe the war is not worth the fight, an increase of 6 percentage points in a month.
Still, a White House strategy review is due in mid-September, and Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is expected to press for a further increase in forces for his counterinsurgency campaign.
Just three years ago the U.S. had about 20,000 forces in the country. Today, it has triple that, on the way to 68,000 by year's end when all of the extra 17,000 troops that Obama announced in March are to be in place. An additional 4,000 troops are arriving to help train Afghan forces.
Obama has not wavered from his campaign pledge to take the fight to the Taliban and their al-Qaida allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He argues that the true danger to Americans lies in the towering peaks and vast deserts of those countries, not in Iraq. The Bush administration, he asserts, wasted precious time, treasure and blood in toppling Saddam Hussein and getting caught up in an insurgency.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghan Election Poses New Tests for Washington
By HELENE COOPER and CARLOTTA GALL August 22, 2009 The New York Times
KABUL, Afghanistan — Obama administration officials hoped the Afghan election would demonstrate that eight years after the American invasion, the country was stable enough to justify an expanded commitment of money and troops from an increasingly skeptical American public.
Instead, the election did more to underscore the challenges Afghanistan faces, particularly if the election goes to a runoff, as seems increasingly likely, between President Hamid Karzai and his main challenger, Abdullah Abdullah.
Both men claimed to be winning as ballots were counted Friday, though officials said preliminary results would not be announced until Tuesday, and final results at least two weeks later.
In the meantime, complaints of fraud and specific episodes of ballot stuffing mounted, and they may assume increasing importance.
Western officials here expressed relief that many Afghans defied Taliban threats of reprisals and came out to vote. But they were clearly concerned on Friday that a second round of voting could extend the paralysis of a government that already barely functions and deepen ethnic tensions, in the worst case, to the point of a north-south civil war.
In addition, a runoff would leave up in the air many of the Obama administration’s Afghanistan policy initiatives — like fighting corruption and improving distribution of aid — for at least another two months, American officials said.
The new uncertainties come on top of the stiff military challenges facing the Obama administration as it sends thousands more troops to southern Afghanistan, where Taliban attacks and very low turnout on election day made clear the insurgents’ influence.
The southern province of Kandahar alone was hit by 122 Taliban rockets on election day, mainly aimed at the towns, according to one Western official. In a broad southern region — provinces like Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan and Zabul — turnout was as low as 5 percent to 10 percent, the official said, effectively disenfranchising the region viewed as the most crucial in the American-led military campaign.
Privately, American officials set out a number of possible ways that the election aftermath could affect their operations. During a meeting on Thursday, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the leader of American and NATO combat operations here, discussed how the military would have to adapt to each.
Particularly worrisome was the specter of a divisive ethnic presidential runoff between Mr. Karzai, whose power base is in the Pashtun south, and Mr. Abdullah, whose main support resides in the Tajik and Uzbek north, officials said.
Mr. Karzai himself has in the past raised the specter of ethnic violence, telling officials that if there was a runoff it could lead to a civil war, Western officials said.
“Ethnic violence is always a factor in this country,” one senior administration official said. “But,” she added, “it is not inevitable.”
“Everybody is jumping on that bandwagon looking at a Tajik leader and a Pashtun leader,” she said, referring to Mr. Abdullah and Mr. Karzai. “But this country has been through civil war, and at a time when it seemed that somebody in one of the campaigns had suggested there would be ethnic violence, it was Afghans who were the first out there saying, ‘We’re not going back to the 1990s.’ “
For all of their worry about the problems that a runoff could bring, administration officials have also made clear they are not enamored of the Karzai government, and the president’s re-election would not be risk-free, either.
Mr. Obama, during his first news conference as president, criticized the Karzai government as “detached.” And administration officials have complained of Mr. Karzai’s failure to crack down on corruption and the drug trafficking fueling the insurgency. Western officials have also criticized Mr. Karzai’s alliances with unsavory figures to try to secure re-election.
Should Mr. Karzai win, either outright or in a second round, Obama administration officials could find themselves with a president who has engaged in so much deal-making that he may well be even more beholden to warlords than before.
With potential shoals in just about every direction, American officials were taking pains to present a neutral public front.
“Our only interest was the result, fairly, accurately reflecting the will of the Afghan people,” Mr. Obama told reporters at the White House.
Richard C. Holbrooke, Mr. Obama’s special envoy to the region, who was in Kabul, described the administration as “agnostic,” although American officials took issue with statements Friday from Mr. Karzai’s camp that the president had won the vote already.
“We’ve seen these reports,” Mr. Holbrooke said. He added that only the Afghan election commission was is in a position to announce official results.
But he was braced for tensions. “We always knew it would be a disputed election,” he said. “I would not be surprised if you see candidates claiming victory and fraud in the next few days. For the United States and the international community, we’re going to respect the process.”
Mr. Holbrooke met privately on Friday with the leading candidates, he said: “We’re in a period where the outcome is unclear so everyone is kind of upbeat and spinning positively. Everyone said that they would respect the process. This is not dissimilar to an American election. I keep comparing it to Minnesota, because when an outcome is uncertain, people have different views of it. We don’t have a candidate and we don’t have a favorite outcome.”
Western diplomats said that if there was a runoff, it would be widely seen as a blow to Mr. Karzai and a boost for Mr. Abdullah. The election had more than 30 candidates, and the presumption was that many of those who did not vote for Mr. Karzai could now coalesce around Mr. Abdullah.
Mr. Abdullah’s campaign team said it had made official complaints about fraud in six provinces.
Election observers were varied in their early opinions, with some saying the low turnout was an indication of just how bad the situation is in southern Afghanistan, and others saying that just holding an election was a success.
“This was one of the most violent days witnessed in Afghanistan in the last eight years,” Rachel Reid, a researcher for Human Rights Watch in Afghanistan, said in a statement sent by e-mail.
But Western and Afghan officials avoided such bleak assessments, emphasizing the Taliban’s failure to thwart the vote, the first democratic elections ever staged by the government of Afghanistan. (Previous elections since 2001 were managed by the United Nations.)
“Before 2001, Afghan leaders were shooting each other out in the countryside and shouting at each other over the radio,” said Barnett Rubin, a senior adviser to Mr. Holbrooke. “Now they’re in Kabul, sometimes shouting at each other around the table, but working together to solve problems, and nobody wants to go back to the past.”
Back to Top
Back to Top
World leaders praise Afghanistan
Aug. 21, 2009 at 6:10 PM
KABUL, Afghanistan, Aug. 21 (UPI) -- World leaders praised their forces for helping to secure the Afghan elections, while hailing the bravery of the Afghan people in the historic vote Thursday.
Afghans took to the polls for their second-ever vote on Thursday, casting ballots for their next president and provincial council leaders. Despite a low voter turnout, the elections went by with few reports of major violence.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown praised the accomplishment of the Afghan people for organizing their own elections amid a looming Taliban threat while thanking his troops for "everything that they have done to make sure that these elections can take place."
U.S. President Barack Obama, for his part, pledged to continue the work in Afghanistan as the new leadership emerges, promising to "ramp up the pressure in Afghanistan" to eliminate the threat from al-Qaida and the Taliban insurgency.
Obama called for an early reform of the military strategy in Afghanistan, sending thousands of troops into the heart of the Afghan insurgency to ensure security ahead of the Thursday vote.
Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, lent his voice to the chorus of praises, praising "the dignity, courage and determination shown by the Afghan citizens who went to the polls."
Incumbent President Hamid Karzai and his closest rival, former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah, issued rival claims of victory Friday. Preliminary results out of Kabul show the race essentially tied, though official results are not expected for days.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Awake for the victory day in Afghanistan
By Camelia Entekhabifard THE EGYPTIAN GAZETTE
KABUL – In the state of Qandehar and Jalalabad and even Kabul, the election fraud was beyond of everyone's expectation. Apparently huge numbers of ballot boxes were filed and sealed infavour of President Hamed Karzai in the southern states. In the heavy Paston-dominated area, where mainly the drug traffickers have a hand in controlling those narcotic states, was easy for Karzi and his warlord friends to force people and the security personnel to change the ballots.
On the eve of election, Thursday night in Abdullah’s house in Kabul – Karzai’s main rival – people from Qandehar, Jalalabad, Faryab and other towns sent him reports of how election had been unfairly handled in those states. Peoplefrom Jalalabad who have been working in Abdullah’s campaign told me that the representatives of the Independent Election Committee hand not let Abdullah’s representatives stay near the field boxes and watch the counting process on Thursday night.
“The only way for Karzai to narrow the difference gap between pro-Abdullah’s stable north and anti-Karzai unstable south, was to bribe or cheat,” an elderly man from Nanghehar who preferred not to give his name told me.
“When the people of south had fear of their lives and didn’t cast their vote especially in Qandehar, Karzai would punish everyone in north and south if people lost their trust in the election and he couldn’t have an easy five- year presidency," he continued.
The chief of Karzai's campaign rushed to tell Reuters yesterday that Karzai was in the lead and would win in the first round. But with such a huge irregularity reported only a few hours after the polling stations closed, it’s hard to speculate what the public reaction would be in the next week or so.
“Upset and frustrated, people of Kabul who mostly support two candidates – Abdullah Abdullah and Ramazan Bashar Doost – said they wouldn’t accept the result if they are told that Karzai gets the highest vote in Kabul," a customer waiting in a bakery line told me yesterday. He believes that the result of the election would not be released if Karzi was not found a winner in the first round.
“He is not popular. He knows. How could he convince us that he was the winner like that? We would protest!” Sharif a resident of Kabul told me.
Younes Qanoni, the head of the Afghan parliament who met me on the eve of election, was also worrying about the possible fraud and irregularity in the election. He believed the turnout, compared to the previous presidential election, was low because ‘people are very frustrated’.
“Seven years ago, they had been very optimistic, but during these years when they saw how the opportunities provided by the outside world had been misused and corruption has become a daily issue, they lost their trust and didn’t turn out to cast their votes.” Qanoni added.
Qanoni, who is Abdullah Abdullah’s old friend and his ally in this election, had vied with Karzai himself for the top post back in 2004. Qanoni, who was not pleased with the result of the election back in 2004, always blamed the US and the UN for interfering in voting by favouring Karzai over other contenders. But he believes there isn’t any evidence in this election showing the US interfered or favoured one candidate over the other.
“In spite of all reports starting to reach us about the fraud and irregularity conducted by Karzai’s people, I am against violence. No matter of who will win or lose, finally after seven years clearly people can see the true face of their leaders and see who stands next to whom and they can judge what’s this government about," said Qanoni. "After seven years, Karzai again formed a coalition with those leaders and warlords who are hated by our people. His victory can raise people’s worries again as the nation will relapse to the same track of a collation government, which is not welcome by people.” He added.
While everyone right from top officials in the UN and representatives of the candidates in the poll stations up to the foreign diplomats and the donors who monitored the election, heard about the massive vote fraud, it’s not clear whether the Election Independent Commission, would admit these malpractices or not. Abdullah Abdullah, who called for a press conference on the eve of the election, with controlled tone and confidence told the reporters that, “in spite of wild report I’m receiving about violation in south especially in Qandehar, even if we received wilder reports about fraud, I believe still there is a chance to correct the mistake and regain the people's rights".
Night was falling down in Abdullah’s private courtyard, while his people aggressively worked on the computers and mobile phones talking to their representatives. I asked them if they were tired. A young man from Nanghehar, who joined his campaign from the beginning, smiled and said: “No. We would be awake until the victory day!”
Entekhabifard is an Iranian journalist specialised in the Iranian and Afghan affairs. She contributed this analysis from Kabul to The Egyptian Gazette.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Despite election, U.S. troops in Afghanistan for long haul
(CNN) -- Americans shouldn't expect to see the 62,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan come home any time soon, no matter who is declared the victor in the country's presidential election.
In fact, the Pentagon is planning to add 6,000 troops by the end of the year.
Ballot counting continued Friday, a day after Afghans went to the polls in the nation's second presidential election since the 2001 fall of the Taliban, the strict Islamic theocracy that emerged from the country's civil war in the 1990s. Pre-election polls showed President Hamid Karzai and his former foreign minister, Abdullah Abdullah, as the front-runners. U.S. policy would hold course under either, experts said.
Moreover, a senior U.S. military official said last month that Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, was expected to request even more U.S. troops be sent there. But Defense Secretary Robert Gates has signaled he'd like to wait and gauge the impact of the full 68,000 troops first.
Earlier this month, Gates said it would take "a few years" to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, the terror network behind the 9/11 attacks that was given haven under Taliban rule. Gates further said it was a "mystery" how long U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan.
Officials have told U.S. Senate investigators that any progress in Afghanistan will be "incremental" and could take between two and 10 years.
October 7 will mark the war's eighth anniversary.
Almost 800 U.S. troops have died in Afghanistan since the war began, including more than 110 this year.
The United States has spent more than $220 billion on Afghanistan since 2001. It is now spending about $4 billion a month.
U.S. troops in the country took a back seat to Afghan security forces during Thursday's balloting, but one U.S. soldier was killed in a mortar strike Thursday. Watch how Afghans went to the polls Thursday »
President Obama has made Afghanistan a centerpiece of his foreign policy, saying ignoring the country or leaving it to fend for itself poses a direct threat of another 9/11-style attack.
"This is not a war of choice; this is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again," Obama said this week.
Daniel Markey, a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations, put it in softer but similar terms.
"We should care about [U.S.] troops, but we should also care about stability in Afghanistan so we don't see a return to something that looks like pre-9/11 Afghanistan," he said.
Not everyone agrees. Stephen Walt, a professor of international affairs at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, said he's not convinced that ousting the Taliban from Afghanistan would make the U.S. safer. Terrorists will find other havens, he said, and there's no guarantee that a Taliban ouster from Afghanistan would be permanent.
"The military and police force we're trying to create is going to cost substantially more than the Afghan budget," Walt said.
Also, he said, the Taliban of today is not the Taliban of 2001. It's more a loose coalition of small groups than a broad, unified organization, he said.
In an article published this week in Foreign Policy, Walt drew parallels to the Soviet Union's departure from Afghanistan in 1989.
"The mujaheddin didn't 'follow them home,' " he wrote of the Afghan fighters who pushed out the Soviets. "Were the United States to withdraw from Afghanistan and the Taliban to regain power (or end up sharing power, which is more likely), going after the United States won't even be on their 'to do' list."
Back to Top
Back to Top
Analysis: Afghan vote shows Taliban still potent
By Steven R. Hurst, Associated Press Writer – Fri Aug 21, 3:38 am ET
WASHINGTON – The violence-scarred elections in Afghanistan provided a stage for the Taliban to show war-weary Americans and Afghans that it has rebounded and can strike — even after eight years of war.
For President Barack Obama's policies, the timing couldn't be worse.
With memories of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks dimming, Americans are tiring of the conflict. New polling shows a majority — 51 percent — of those surveyed now believe the war is not worth the fight, an increase of 6 percentage points in a month.
Obama's answer to the mounting skepticism is to say that, in a way, the war has just begun. The final push to wipe out America's Taliban and al-Qaida enemies is not 8 years old but really got started when he took office and ordered 17,000 more troops into Afghanistan.
In short order, he also installed a new commander and persuaded Pakistan to join the U.S. in what on Thursday he called a pincer movement to squeeze the enemy astride the common border.
Obama's ability to recast the public debate at home — to get people to look past the cost and the deadly violence there — may matter more in the long run than who won or lost the Afghan presidency.
Obama has not wavered from his campaign pledge to take the fight to the Taliban and their al-Qaida allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He argues that the true danger to Americans lies in the towering peaks and vast deserts of those countries. The Bush administration, he asserts, wasted precious time, treasure and blood in Iraq.
Before then, he argues, problems in both countries were allowed to fester. As a result, the Taliban retook huge swaths of Afghanistan, and al-Qaida was comfortably ensconced on the Pakistan side of the mountainous border.
"We've got to make sure that we are really focused on finishing the job in Afghanistan. But it's going to take some time," the president said on a talk-radio program Thursday. He gave a nod to the election, saying it "appears to be successful" despite the "Taliban's efforts to disrupt it." Initial reports show 26 Afghans were killed in Taliban attacks on Election Day.
The Bush administration used earlier elections in Afghanistan and Iraq as evidence of success of its war policies. This White House isn't getting that boost.
The White House has been particularly reticent to talk about the Afghan vote, where the turnout appears to have been significantly lower than in the first-ever direct election of a president there in 2004. The administration is deeply aware of the country's long history of bloody uprisings against past leaders who were seen as place men for foreign powers.
While Obama took office having publicly expressed disappointment in President Hamid Karzai over his ineffectiveness and a background noise of corruption surrounding his administration, he has not spoken of a preference for Thursday's outcome.
Karzai's strongest challenger is his former foreign minister, Abdullah Abdullah, who may show well when the votes are counted because of heavier turnout in the ethnically Tajik northern part of the country. The turnout was spotty in the Pashtun south where Karzai has major support. If neither Karzai, Abdullah nor any of the other 34 candidates wins 50 percent in the first round, there will be a runoff. Final results of the Thursday vote will not be known until Sept. 3.
Regardless of the Afghan vote or the diminishing support for the war back home, a White House strategy review is due out in mid-September, and Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is widely expected to press for a significant further increase in forces for his new counterinsurgency campaign.
Just three years ago the U.S. had about 20,000 forces in the country. Today, it has triple that, on its way to 68,000 by year's end when all of the 17,000 newly deployed are in place.
A Washington Post-ABC News poll this week showed, however, that only 24 percent of Americans support that move, with 45 percent saying the force should be decreased.
The domestic political course for Obama's overall Afghan strategy and for a further troop increase, thus, is growing ever more difficult to navigate.
And in a sparkling bit of political irony, backing for the war remains strongest among Republicans and conservatives who support the conflict by 70 percent and 58 percent, respectively.
___
EDITOR'S NOTE — Steven R. Hurst reports from the White House for The Associated Press and has covered foreign affairs for 30 years, including 12 visits to Afghanistan.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Information Blackout
In the absence of actual results, everyone has a different opinion about how Afghanistan's presidential election turned out.
By Ron Moreau and Sami Yousafzai | Newsweek Web Exclusive Aug 21, 2009
There are no results, no turnout statistics, and no victor from yesterday's presidential election in Afghanistan, but there are plenty of opinions. President Hamid Karzai is declaring victory. So is his nearest rival, Abdullah Abdullah. And a third candidate, Ashraf Ghani, is claiming vote theft. The only thing everyone—from President Barack Obama to Ghani—can agree on is that yesterday's Afghan presidential election was a success for the Afghan people. Even the Taliban, who threatened the lives and limbs of anyone who voted (and carried out some 76 attacks that killed nearly 30 people) are claiming a victory of sorts by having kept the voter turnout to a relatively low 40 to 50 percent, as opposed to the enthusiastic 70 percent in the presidential election five years ago.
With the ballot counting still underway—it might not be completed until Saturday—Karzai campaign manager Deen Mohammad says that, based on reports from more than 21,000 of the president's polling observers (an implausibly high number), the incumbent won more than 50 percent of the vote, scoring him an outright victory and allowing him to skip the runoff in early October. Abdullah's camp is spinning its own, perhaps fantastical, electoral scenario as well, claiming that the former foreign minister and ophthalmologist is blowing Karzai away 63 percent to 31 percent in the preliminary count. A senior official for the Independent Electoral Commission dismissed both men's claims, saying that not all votes had been counted and that even preliminary, unofficial results won't be released until next Tuesday.
Meanwhile, Ghani, Karzai's former finance minister—a cerebral anticorruption candidate likely to run a poor third—tells NEWSWEEK that both Karzai's and Abdullah's electoral machines may be engaged in vote rigging on a massive scale. "That's the allegation, and it's very widespread," he says. "The incumbent corrupt government is engaged in a massive fraud . . . In the north [where Abdullah's support was strongest] allegations have also been made about the abuse of official power to favor Abdullah in some provinces, such as voting boxes being removed to other locations and then stuffed."
Ghani further charges that the indelible ink used to stain voters' fingers—so that they can't vote twice—was not indelible and is easily washed off. He also cites credible allegations that some voting booths were closed by government authorities when they realized that people were not voting for the incumbent, and that ballot boxes are being stuffed with the names of nonexistent female voters, even in the suburbs of Kabul—where 150,000 women's ballots were reportedly stuffed into the box at one suburban polling station. Ghani says that he doesn't endorse the allegations himself; he's only reporting what he's heard. He has, however, lodged 111 complaints with the Electoral Complaints Commission in the past two days. "I'm not making any pronouncement on the validity of these complaints," he says. But they "need to be investigated to establish the truth."
Ghani's complaints may sound like the anguished cries of a sore loser, but they are not so farfetched. The International Crisis Group issued a paper last June pointing out that the voter-registration system—run by the government-appointed Independent Electoral Commission—is seriously flawed. The report said that in some provinces the number of voter cards that were issued exceed the province's entire population, let alone the number of eligible voters, opening the way for serious rigging. Nuristan province, for example, has 443,000 registered voters but only 130,000 inhabitants. In the Panjshir Valley, Abdullah's home, there are now 190,000 registered voters among a population whose top size is thought to be 137,000.
Just as surprising, in some conservative and relatively insecure Pashtun provinces in the east and south, where women play a very modest role outside the home, female registrations often outstrip those of men. In Logar province just south of Kabul, for example, there are 36,000 registered women and just 14,000 registered men. In Paktika and Khost provinces, 205,000 women registered compared with 167,000 males. In a practice called "proxy voting," used in 2004, men often gather as many voting cards as possible from female members of their family, as well as fictitious cards, and then cast multiple votes. "There are so many opportunities for fraud because of the way this election has been organized," says Candace Rondeaux, the senior analyst for the International Crisis Group in Kabul. "Seventeen million voter cards have been distributed around the country, but I don't think we can honestly say there are 17 million eligible voters out there." The International Republican Institute's observers say they have heard reports of voter cards being sold.
In the meantime, the Taliban are making their own unsubstantiated claims about the election. Their view is that their terror campaign seriously undermined the election's credibility by reducing the voter turnout to half of what it was in the last cycle. Mullah Sabir, a senior Taliban commander for Wardak, Logar, and Ghazni provinces just south of Kabul, sounded pleased, even excited, by the relatively low voter turnout in his area of operations yesterday. "What is the meaning of this election?" he asked rhetorically in a telephone interview with NEWSWEEK. "How can this election be called democratic when most voters stayed home, and it took place while foreign armies are occupying our land?" On Election Day, he says, he crisscrossed Ghazni province by motorbike and saw few if any voters outside the district towns and Ghazni's provincial capital. "People listened to Mullah Omar and didn't vote in this fraudulent election," he says. "In 2004 we were not strong enough to stop it, but now we are everywhere."
While he may be exaggerating the Taliban's success on Election Day, the low voter turnout in the south and east could eventually give the Taliban a victory of sorts. Many Pashtuns who were afraid to vote are bound to feel even more alienated than ever from the new government if it doesn't move quickly to improve their lives and local security. "We need to make sure that we have a process so that those who couldn't vote do not feel disenfranchised for the next five years, and that their voices and grievances will be heard and addressed," says Ghani.
Ghani is afraid the new government, which will probably be formed by Karzai, will simply offer the people of the war-torn east and south five more years of the same mismanagement by corrupt and abusive administrative officials he appoints. "In an area of insurgency where the stakes are so high, you want the most credible people to represent the government," he adds. "Instead, the government has sent the most despicable people to rule there."
That will be a major challenge for the new president and his team, bringing the many Afghans who have felt abused and neglected over the past five years back over to the government's side. If he fails, then the true winner of yesterday's election will not have been Karzai or Abdullah, but the Taliban.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghanistan, on the edge, but not over it
Friday, August 21, 2009 1:35 PM Richard Engel, NBC News Chief Foreign Correspondent
KABUL – When I saw the headlines today that both President Hamid Karzai and his rival Abdullah Abdullah are claiming victory in the Afghanistan election, I was somewhat surprised. I thought that this could be an issue of major concern because you don’t want to have a situation here like we had in Iran where there is a disputed election and both sides are claiming victory as the results are still coming in.
So I wanted to make sure what exactly the candidates were saying.
I went over to Abdullah’s house – he is the former foreign minister and main challenger in the race against the incumbent Karzai.
We spoke in English, and he speaks very good English, but I think some of the situation here has to do with language.
I asked him, "Do you think you’ve won the election?"
And he said, "Yes."
I asked him, "Are you claiming victory?"
He said, "No, the results are still coming in."
So I said, "Well then, what do you mean exactly? You think you’ve won, but the results are still coming in?"
He said, "Yes, exactly.
"But you’re not claiming victory?" I asked.
He said, "No."
So there is a big, big difference. I asked him to explain to me what he thinks the situation is now.
Abdullah said, "Indications are now that I’m in the lead and that I have won the elections outright and there will be no need for a run-off; but the final results are not in. But those are the indications we have at this point."
So, I called Karzai’s people because he is also quoted as saying he’s won and it’s over.
But his people said, "No, no, no. We are confident that we’ve won, but the results aren’t all in yet. But we think it will go our way."
So basically, you have both sides saying, "We think we’ve won" – but not quite claiming victory.
Now it’s a fine line. Could this escalate and tomorrow both sides harden their positions?
Yes, that could happen. So we are headed down a dangerous path here. But both sides at this stage are trying to not delegitimize the process and not put themselves onto a confrontational path.
Both sides are saying they’re confident and their own internal polling and fact-finding shows that they have won, but it’s not settled yet. They think they will have a much clearer idea by the end of the weekend.
Taking count
Here’s the way it works: There were 6,500 polling centers across the country, some of them in small villages and some in big urban centers like Kabul and Kandahar.
At each polling center, when the polling closed at 5 p.m. yesterday, the ballot boxes were opened, the boxes were turned over and the ballots were dumped onto the floor and counted – in public.
This morning the tally sheets with the results were stuck publicly on the door of the voting stations.
So if you are aggressive and you have people around the country, you can find the results just by sending someone to each of these 6,500 voting stations, reading what’s written on the wall, calling it back into your campaign headquarters and figuring out what happened. And that’s exactly what Abdullah and Karzai are doing.
They have supporters and volunteers calling in these results.
It’s an imperfect system, as you can imagine, because they are probably not getting to every polling station. But each campaign has its own monitoring system and they are telling their respective candidates that they are winning.
On a precipice
However, there could be a major sparring between the two candidates over the results, which would delegitimize the entire political system.
That is the biggest danger right now. We are not at that point, but we are on a precipice. Just a little bit more from either of these candidates, and we could have a serious situation.
So many U.S. soldiers and Marines have fought and died in this country to create a political framework to allow Afghans to vote. That is the U.S. mission here: to stabilize Afghanistan so that they can have a political process, so they can have a sovereign government.
If either of these candidates negates the entire political process by claiming victory – irrespective of the vote count – that delegitimizes the political process and undercuts the entire American mission. It would beg the question, why did so many U.S. soldiers and Marines fight and die to allow Afghans to have a vote?
Now, that hasn’t happened yet. But that’s the danger. That’s why you’re seeing people like U.S. Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke weighing in on the issue.
But if this process of counting the votes takes forever, people will get impatient.
For the time being, both candidates are playing by the rules. We’re on the edge, but we are not over it.
I don’t know what’s going to happen tomorrow, but that’s where we are now.
Back to Top
Back to Top
AFGHANISTAN: GOVERNMENT DECLARES ELECTIONS SUCCESS AMIDST MIXED TURNOUT
Aunohita Mojumdar 8/20/09 Eurasianet
Counting the ballots in Afghanistan’s second presidential and provincial council elections has begun. Despite some reports of attacks and election irregularities throughout the country, polls closed on August 20 without any major violent disruptions by insurgents.
At an evening news conference in Kabul, the Independent Election Commission and the Afghan government declared the process a success. Meanwhile, representatives of the international community rushed to offer congratulations on the completion of the process that many had feared would be disrupted by a much higher level of violence.
Voter turnout appeared to vary widely across the country, with some areas, especially the more volatile southern provinces, reporting low polling. No official polling figures were available and the country’s Independent Election Commission said the actual voter turnout would not be made public for three or four days.
Preliminary results of the counting process are expected to be available by August 25. The certified results will take much longer, however, and can be released only after the Electoral Complaints Commission has completed its investigation into any complaints it receives.
If no candidate clears 51 percent in the first round, a runoff will be held. Opinion on the advantages of a second round is sharply divided. While some feel that the best option is to complete the process as quickly and cleanly as possible, leaving no room for dissension and possible instability, others believe a second round would be a healthy precedent for a nascent democracy, demonstrating the complexity of their options to voters.
Sporadic complaints of electoral irregularities were reported. But in the absence of any definitive election-related data, it was difficult to judge the extent to which the voting -- the first to be led by Afghan institutions -- was free and fair. Moreover, an August 18 government directive that called on media organizations not to report on any incident of violence during the polling hours further hampered the flow of information.
In the Tajurbai High School in Charikar, about an hour north of Kabul, Zubaida Shaheeba a doctor in the local hospital arrived in a burkha and with three children to cast her vote. While she refused to say for whom she had voted, the area is a stronghold of the Tajik-led Northern Alliance and most voters were casting their ballots for Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, a former foreign minister.
Nearby, at the Mir Ali Ahmed Shaheed High School, 205 men and 88 women had voted by midmorning -- a reasonable turnout -- and election observers were closely monitoring the process.
While the ethnicity of the candidate appeared to be a primary motivation in these districts, voters also cited disenchantment with the President Hamid Karzai’s administration. In an indication of apathy, even polling staff in several polling stations in the area did not appear to have voted, with several telling EurasiaNet they were too busy or had lost their cards or had found it difficult to obtain one. In a mosque that was serving as a temporary polling station, and situated only 200 meters from the US military base at Bagram, Ismatullah and Mohammed Fahim said they had voted in the hope of peace.
Journalists visiting that station were prevented from asking questions about the polling process after initial difficulty in getting entry, despite being accredited to observe the electoral process.
Back in Kabul, the streets were deserted and most businesses closed. Some polling stations saw a brisk turnout, according to voters. Farid, a taxi driver, who had told EurasiaNet last month that he would vote for Karzai even though he didn’t like him, opted to vote for Abdullah instead. Though Ramazan Bashardost was his favorite candidate, he decided to back Abdullah who had a better chance of winning against Karzai, he said.
In addition to sporadic incidents reported around the country, violence hit the capital when two armed insurgents holed up in a building were reportedly shot dead by security forces.
Although journalists complained that security forces barred them from covering the Kabul clash, the government’s directive not to report on violence had a mixed impact. International media ignored it and some Afghan media outlets like the independent Pajhwok Afghan News opposed the ban with a strongly worded statement, saying such orders did not have any basis in the Afghan constitution or principles of democracy.
But many Afghan media outlets appeared to have bowed to official pressure. Outlets that followed the directive were praised by the head of the National Security Directorate, Amrullah Saleh, "for complying with the government’s rules and regulations." The head of the Independent Election Commission Azizullah Lodin -- who had supported the directive -- said the media were free to criticize in a positive way, as long as it did not interfere with the Commission’s work.
In a joint press conference during the evening of August 20, a phalanx of top government officials flanked Lodin and proclaimed the elections to be a success, describing election day as a government victory over the radical Islamic insurgency. At the event, the ministers of interior and defense and the head of the National Security Directorate described several instances where security forces had discovered and disrupted insurgent plants of attack.
Responding to the election process, the UN’s top man in Afghanistan, Kai Eide, said the fact that elections had taken place was itself an achievement since the possibility of holding elections in the current situation had itself been in doubt.
Some observers, however, disputed the notion that the relative calm on August marked a major triumph for the government. They pointed out that the Taliban and other insurgent groups had already demonstrated their capabilities in recent weeks, staging targeted attacks, showing they could have disrupted the elections if they wished. That they did not, the observers add, indicates that the opposition is growing more sophisticated and concerned for civilian casualties.
The UN envoy said the security situation was better than had been feared, that young Afghans had shown their confidence in the democratic process and that, overall, the day had been good for Afghanistan. He said the international community expected the political leadership and the other parts of the establishment to make sure there was no instability following the elections and to come together and unite behind a common agenda.
Editor's Note: Aunohita Mojumdar is an Indian freelance journalist based in Kabul. She has reported on the South Asian region for the past 19 years.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Democracy in Afghanistan is wishful thinking
By Thomas H. Johnson And M. Chris Mason – The Christian Science Monitor via Yahoo! News - Aug 20 2:00 AM
Monterey, Calif.; and Washington – As the world watches today's presidential election in Afghanistan, Americans would do well to ponder the lessons of Vietnam.
The similarities are striking. The Republic of South Vietnam also held elections during the US intervention there, despite an ongoing counterinsurgency. Before American troops got involved, both countries had won upset victories over European powers after a decade of fighting, only to slide into another decade of largely north-south civil war.
As historian Eric Bergerud has noted, the United States lost in Vietnam ultimately not because of its deeply flawed approach to counterinsurgency, as damaging as that was, but because South Vietnam never established a government seen as legitimate by a majority of its people. Experts agree that a government that 85 to 90 percent of the population perceives as legitimate is the sine qua non of counterinsurgency success. South Vietnam never came close to achieving such legitimacy, and neither, unfortunately, has post-2001 Afghanistan. In terms of incompetence and endemic corruption, Kabul is Saigon déjà vu.
That's why we shouldn't read too much into today's election. Even if it were to yield a high voter turnout, have relatively few irregularities, and produce a strong majority for the winner, it won't give the new government legitimacy.
The father of modern sociology, Max Weber, pointed out that governments draw their legitimacy from three basic sources: traditional, religious, and legal. The first two are self-explanatory; by "legal," Weber meant Western-style democracies based on popular representation and the rule of law. And in this sense, political failure in Afghanistan was baked into the cake in the 2001 Bonn Process.
In its rush to stand up an overnight democratic success story, the Bush administration overlooked Afghan history. Indeed, it was willfully ahistorical. That's tragic, because Afghan history demonstrates conclusively and beyond dispute that legitimacy of governance there is derived exclusively from Weber's first two sources: traditional (in the form of the monarchy and tribal patriarchies) and religious. Either there has been a king, or religious leadership, or a leader validated by the caliphate (or afterwards by indigenous religious polities).
Often in Afghan history, legitimacy thus derived has been reinforced by other means, usually coercive and often brutal. For example, the rule of Amir Abdur Rahman, "The Iron Amir," (1880-1901) and that of the Taliban (1996-2001) were predicated on accepted sources of legitimacy of governance (dynastic and religious, respectively), but reinforced by totalitarian methods. These two examples make the point that legitimacy should not be conflated with popularity: having the authority to rule is quite distinct from being a popular ruler. American presidents, for example, are always legitimate leaders but not always popular ones.
This historical reality poses a major problem for the US. Democracy is not a coat of paint. A feudal society in which women are still largely treated as property and literacy hovers below 10 percent in rural areas does not magically shortcut 400 years of political development and morph into a democracy in a decade. The current government of Afghanistan's claim to legitimacy is based entirely on a legal source – winning an election. Yet this has no historical basis for legitimizing Afghan rule. The winner of today's election will largely be seen as illegitimate because he is elected.
The tragic mistake, which we warned against, was in eliminating the Afghan monarchy from a ceremonial role in the new Afghan Constitution. Nearly two thirds of the delegates to the loya jirga in 2002 signed a petition to make the aging King Zaher Shah the interim head of state, and only massive US interference behind the scenes in the form of bribes, secret deals, and arm twisting got the US-backed candidate for the job, Hamid Karzai, installed instead.
The same US and UN policymakers then rode shotgun over a constitutional process that eliminated the monarchy entirely. This was the Afghan equivalent of the 1964 Diem Coup in Vietnam: afterward, there was no possibility of creating a stable secular government. While an Afghan king could have conferred legitimacy on an elected leader in Afghanistan, without one, an elected president is on a one-legged stool.
An American cannot declare himself king and be seen as legitimate: monarchy is not a source of legitimacy of governance in America. Similarly, a man cannot be voted president in Afghanistan and be perceived as legitimate. Systems of government normally grow from existing traditions, as they did in the US after the Revolutionary War, for example. In Afghanistan, they were imposed externally. Representative democracy is simply not a source of legitimacy in Afghanistan at this point in its development. This explains in no small measure why a religious source of legitimacy in the form of the hated Taliban is making such a powerful comeback.
As was the case in Vietnam after the Diem Coup, there is little likelihood today of establishing a strong central government in Kabul which is genuinely seen as legitimate in the eyes of the Afghan people and which has significant public support across the country's ethno-sectarian divides. As a revision of the Afghan Constitution to restore a ceremonial monarchy is now highly unlikely, the only remaining option is to move away from counterproductive efforts to "extend the reach of the central government," which further undermine traditional sources of local legitimacy and resistance to the Taliban, and work instead to re-empower legitimate local authorities in a more decentralized state.
Thomas H. Johnson is a research professor at the Department of National Security Affairs and director of the Program for Culture and Conflict Studies at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. M. Chris Mason is a retired foreign service officer who served in 2005 as a political officer on the provincial reconstruction team in Afghanistan's Paktika Province. He's currently a senior fellow at the Program for Culture and Conflict Studies and at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies in Washington.
Back to Top
Back to Top
U.S. officials eye hanging chads -- in Afghanistan
'From Dade County to Kabul, man,' said a bemused Richard C. Holbrooke, U.S. envoy for the region. But such problems are unlikely to influence the outcome, officials said.
Los Angeles Times By Paul Richter August 21, 2009
Reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan - Poll workers at a Kabul school didn't seem too alarmed Thursday to see voters struggling to mark their ballots by punching out the tiny paper circle called a chad.
For a group of U.S. officials, however, the snag summoned disconcerting memories of ballot failures in Florida in 2000 that threw the American presidential election into turmoil.
"From Dade County to Kabul, man," a bemused Richard C. Holbrooke, U.S. envoy for the region, said as he examined a ballot.
His comment was one of the lighter signs of the anxiety U.S. officials felt as they watched an election that could be a turning point in the massive effort to stabilize the country.
The Obama administration has spent $250 million to help Afghans organize the election and choose a government that it hopes the people will consider legitimate, officials said.
It was "a very important election under very difficult circumstances," Holbrooke said, and will "determine the legitimacy of the government for five years."
The election also has come at a time of intensifying debate in Washington about the wisdom of a continued U.S. commitment in Afghanistan.
U.S. officials saw positive signs in the fact that the election took place, but they also expressed some concerns about the process.
Holbrooke said the provincial ballots, which had tiny pictures of dozens of candidates, were difficult to read. At one of four polling centers visited by the group, some voters were clearly struggling to figure out which candidate they wanted to choose.
Chad problems probably will not influence the outcome, officials said; the Afghan Independent Election Commission ruled that poll officials could use scissors to cut out the circles.
U.S. officials, who set up a round-the-clock center to monitor the election, were watching for signs of fraud. The first important moment of risk, they said, will come when polling center officials mail out sealed envelopes with results.
There has been widespread voting fraud in previous elections in the country's south.
One U.S. official said that it was unlikely that individual attempts to cast faulty ballots -- known as "retail" vote fraud -- would have much cumulative effect. But he said that "wholesale fraud," where results are falsified for entire polling sites, could have a substantial effect.
Some of the officials and other observers spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the election.
Several countries have expressed concern about Afghan President Hamid Karzai inviting ethnic Uzbek warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum to campaign for him. The move was generally interpreted as a sign of Karzai's concern that his leading challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, was gaining on him.
One Western observer said that Karzai "hurt himself in the eyes of the international community by doing this." Dostum has been accused of human rights abuses, including the death of 2,000 Taliban prisoners early in the Afghan war.
U.S. officials say they have no preference in the election.
Military officials said they expected early returns and reports to favor Abdullah, in part because there were more international monitors and journalists in northern Afghanistan, where Karzai's rival has his political base. But as vote totals from the east and south trickle in, some military officials expect Karzai to capture more votes without garnering the majority needed to avoid a runoff.
Holbrooke said that whereas U.S. officials have been focusing for months on helping organize the election, the United States would turn its attention to trying to rid the Afghan government of its corruption, which has undermined its popular support.
After the election, corruption is "the most important subject that needs to be focused on," he said.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Seven steps to peace in Afghanistan
By Syed Saleem Shahzad Asia Times UK - Aug 21 3:22 AM
KABUL - Election officials in Afghanistan on Friday began counting the votes cast in Thursday's presidential and provincial polls. In capitals from Kabul to Islamabad to Washington, officials are counting the days until they can engage the Taliban and bring them into the mainstream political process.
Approximately 40%-50% of the 17 million registered voters made it to the 6,202 polling centers scattered across the country, according to a senior election official, Zekria Barakzai. This was in defiance of calls from the Taliban to boycott the vote, although at least 26 people were killed in election-related violence in 73 attacks in 15 provinces.
Preliminary results are expected within the next few days. Ahead of the vote, President Hamid Karzai led his main challengers - former foreign minister Dr Abdullah Abdullah, former planning minister Ramzan Bashardost and former finance minister Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai - by some way. It is not clear whether Karzai will win the 51% of the votes cast needed to avoid a second-round runoff.
Abdullah's team has already complained of "very large-scale" fraud in at least three of 34 provinces, according to the Associated Press.
Others have cast doubt on the credibility of the elections. But this is not so much the point. Whoever wins or loses, the shadow of the Taliban hangs across the country. After eight years since they were thrown from power, it is now accepted by American and European leaders that some form of reconciliation with the Taliban is the only way in which the insurgency can be defeated.
The head of the United States Central Command, General David Petraeus, told the BBC this week that "there would have to be talks with insurgents at a local level, though probably not at this stage with senior Taliban leaders". British Foreign Secretary David Miliband also indicated in a recent speech that the government should be prepared to talk to moderate tribal leaders associated with the Taliban.
Senior officials in Kabul have told Asia Times Online that the process of talking with elements of the Taliban is already underway. More substantial talks would most likely take place outside the country, with Turkey, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia possible venues.
The momentum for talks gathered pace in the few months before Thursday's elections with the realization that counter-insurgency operations alone are not the solution. This is despite the fact that tens of thousands of additional troops have been pumped into the country this year, bringing the total number to more than 100,000.
Multiple channels are being used to get the process moving. Some have involved senior American officials and military commanders and the Afghan government, which has roped in former Taliban leaders such as Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, Abdul Wakeel Muttawakil and Senator Moulvi Arsala Rehami (above).
A former British and European Union senior diplomat, Irishman Michael Semple, expelled from Afghanistan in 2007 for talking to the Taliban without approval from Afghan (read US) officials, has also been involved. He now lives in the Pakistani capital Islamabad and has been using his contacts with the Taliban on behalf of London. Semple is married to a Pakistani woman, spent 30 years in Afghanistan, speaks fluent Dari and is a self-declared Muslim.
Taliban sources recently told Asia Times Online that all backroom negotiations had ended a few months ago when Taliban leader Mullah Omar told Saudi Arabian intelligence chief Prince Muqrin bin Abdul Aziz, through the Taliban's supreme commander Mullah Bradar, that such talks were not possible.
"It would be wrong to interpret that message [from Mullah Omar] as stopping the talks," Rehami told Asia Times Online during an interview at his Kabul residence, while confirming that a message had been relayed.
Rehami should know.
He is from the Paktika tribe which originates along the border with Pakistan's South Waziristan tribal area. He was minister of religious affairs during the Taliban's regime in the late 1990s, but after the invasion of 2001 he severed his ties with the Taliban and moved to Islamabad. Rehami later returned to Afghanistan to throw his support behind the Karzai government. He is now a senator.
Although two other former Taliban officials are involved in the initiative to talk to the Taliban, Rehami enjoys some advantages. Mullah Zaeef is not trusted by the Americans as they see him as still sympathetic to the Taliban, while former foreign minister Muttawakil is not trusted by some of the Taliban.
Rehami uses his extensive tribal connections to create channels of communication with the Taliban. He is also in almost daily contact with the British Embassy in Kabul, as well as mixing comfortably with Western diplomats.
"I can confirm that seven stages have been agreed on by the Afghan government to deal with the Taliban, and at present the negotiations are in the first and primary phase," Rehami said, without mentioning the obvious inevitable involvement of certain Western governments.
"It would be incorrect to say that the talks have been terminated. You have to appreciate that this is a very complex situation on both sides. From the Afghan government side, several countries are behind [it] and everybody has their own agenda. The same on the Taliban side. There are several groups, like al-Qaeda, the Uzbeks and other nationals who often intervene and influence the process. Therefore, we need to deal with multiple factors from both sides," Rehami said.
"All previous manipulations of the past apart, I assure you that within a week of the election process being over, a major change in behavior is forthcoming from both sides. This is the result of our working with the Taliban.
"The Americans also don't have much choice but to show flexibility. It is because of their rigid behavior that the Taliban have not been suppressed, in fact, they increased [their activities]. Previously, they were only in Afghanistan, where they are a serious threat. But they are gearing their activities for the Central Asian republics of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The Americans realize that they have to move quickly," Rehami said.
"After last year [talks involving the Taliban in the Saudi city of Mecca] a regular dialogue process started and we opened up channels of communication with the Taliban. But suddenly, the new [Barack] Obama administration announced its review on Afghanistan and there were suggestions of new tactics to be implemented in the conflict against the Taliban. Mullah Omar's response to that was one of tit-for-tat. So he also announced a war strategy and informed Prince Muqrin that no more talks were possible. But that was more a political posture than anything real," Rehami said.
All the same, Rehami conceded that since that announcement, nobody had been able to hold direct talks with the Taliban at a senior level.
"Michael Semple tried to use his contacts, but these were at a low level. At the maximum, he could negotiate at the level of Gramser ulaswali [the Gramser district in Helmand province in Afghanistan] with very low-level Taliban commanders.
"I did not get the chance to directly hold talks with any senior-level Taliban commanders, but being a tribal leader, I have been communicating with the Taliban leaders through relatives and common friends. In that process, we have made progress. We have exchanged written messages in which we have put our demands. We have also succeeded in getting approval from the Americans and British for some concessions for the Taliban if they agree to reconciliation," Rehami said.
"We now have the mandate to bargain with the Taliban, as a first step, for them to stop attacks on Afghanistan's infrastructure, such as bridges, buildings and dams. They would also stop suicide attacks in public places. But this is a conflict, and it is not easy to implement demands.
"If the Taliban comply with this primary demand, then the next steps [out of seven] would begin and the Taliban would be more facilitated. For instance, the Taliban would be allowed to open offices in countries like Turkey, the UAE and Saudi Arabia from where regular rounds of talks could be held between the Taliban and the Afghan government.
"These talks would include issues like the withdrawal of troops and the setting up of a new political government with the participation of the Taliban and other insurgent groups," Rehami said.
Apart from talks with the Taliban, a channel of negotiations is still going on with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (see Holbrooke reaches out to Hekmatyar Asia Times Online, April10, 2009). Hekmatyar is the leader of the Hezb-i-Islami Afghanistan (HIA). The 61-year-old engineer from Kunduz province and his anti-government fighters are responsible for large numbers of attacks against Afghan and international forces, mainly in the northeast of the country.
Former members of the HIA who are now involved in the political process are in contact with Hekmatyar. Also playing a part is former interim prime minister and one of the pioneers of the Islamic movement from mid-1960s, Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai.
Ahmadzai confirmed to Asia Times Online that he had recently exchanged messages with Hekmatyar and that he was trying to pave the way for his peaceful return to Kabul.
Hekmatyar was a mujahideen commander in the fight against the Soviets in the 1980s and a key player in the bloody civil war that followed the withdrawal of the Soviets in 1989. He twice served as premier before the Taliban came to power in 1996.
"The case of reconciliation with Hekmatyar is far easier than that of the Taliban. His party is registered and present in parliament in big numbers. All important ministries are held by his men. Several governors of Afghanistan are his former loyalists. If he reconciles, there will be no difficulty in including him in the political mainstream. And also, we have now agreed to his viewpoint, that foreign troops should announce a schedule for withdrawal," Rehami said.
"The thing is, they are all Pashtuns who are part of the insurgency and we are trying to convince the Western forces that Afghanistan can only be ruled by Pashtuns. There is no solution possible without them. Hamid Karzai cannot be reckoned as a Pashtun leader as he does not have any following among the Pashtun. He is only an individual without influence. Statecraft simply does not work like that," Rehami said.
Rehami believes that all Taliban commanders are now in favor of reconciliation, the only problem being a very stubborn Mullah Omar.
"We are slowly spreading our communication, we are talking to all Taliban commanders, not just with Mullah Omar. Our emphasis, however, is to talk to members of the shura-e-Rahbari [leadership council of the Taliban]. If we convince them all, Mullah Omar will have to follow their advice because he cannot fight alone."
All the same, Mullah Omar has a habit of getting his way. In 2001, the Taliban shura, looking down the barrel of a gun following the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, wanted to expel al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, who was a guest in Afghanistan and the main reason the US wanted to "bomb Afghanistan back to the Stone Age".
To a man, the shura - which included Rehami - wanted bin Laden out, but Mullah Omar prevailed. Bin Laden stayed, and the Taliban were driven from power.
Ultimately, this will be the man who has to be persuaded, and the first steps towards realizing this are well under way, regardless of which way Thursday's votes add up.
Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com
Back to Top
Back to Top
US targets Taliban leader in latest missile strike
By Kay Johnson, Associated Press Writer
ISLAMABAD — A U.S. missile strike Friday targeted a Taliban commander blamed for masterminding ambushes on American troops in Afghanistan, the latest assault by unmanned aircraft in northwestern Pakistan, intelligence officials said.
It was unclear if Siraj Haqqani, who also has close ties to al-Qaida, was among the 12 people killed in the house in North Waziristan near the Afghan border, the officials said, adding that three women were among the dead. Haqqani is known to have sometimes visited the house.
The strike on the Haqqani network suggests a return to the original aim of the covert missile program — to kill al-Qaida and Taliban leaders who use the lawless northwest as a base to plot attacks on NATO troops in Afghanistan or terrorist attacks around the world. A drone apparently killed Pakistan's most-wanted militant, Baitullah Mehsud, on Aug. 5.
The program now appears to have greater Pakistani cooperation than before, thanks to an agreement between the U.S. and Pakistan to target each other's main foes along the remote frontier, officials and analysts say.
Friday's early morning missile strike was the third in three weeks in Pakistan, which officially protests the drone assaults as a violation of its sovereignty. The United States is believed to have launched more than 40 such attacks in the northwest since last year.
The missile hit a housing compound in Dande Darpa Khel, a village in North Waziristan, four intelligence officers said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media. None of the dead has been identified, but local informants told the officers that all those in the house were Afghans.
The U.S. launched the strike based on information that Haqqani was in the compound, according to two of the local intelligence officials based in North Waziristan. However, Pakistani authorities have not been able to confirm that he was there at the time, they said.
Dande Darpa Khel is the Pakistani stronghold of Haqqani, who operates on both sides of the border and has a powerful network in eastern Afghanistan. He has a large Islamic school in the village that was hit by a suspected U.S. missile in October 2008, killing about 20 people.
Siraj is the son of senior Taliban leader Jalaluddin Haqqani, who was supported by U.S. and Pakistani aid when he fought in the 1980s against Soviet troops occupying Afghanistan. Now, American commanders count him as a dangerous foe. Both father and son are alleged to have close connections to al-Qaida and to have helped funnel foreign Islamist fighters into Afghanistan to fight NATO troops.
The Haqqanis have been linked to an attempt to kill Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a suicide attack on a hotel in Kabul, both last year. Haqqani network operatives also plague U.S. forces in Afghanistan's eastern Khost province with ambushes and roadside bombs.
Pakistan's border region is remote, mountainous and there is little government or military control there. Al-Qaida's top leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are believed to be hiding in the area and militants move freely across the border.
The U.S. occasionally fired missiles into the region beginning in 2006, but dramatically stepped up the attacks last year. The missiles are fired from CIA-operated drones believed to be launched from across the border in Afghanistan or from secret bases inside Pakistan. They are reported to be piloted by operatives inside the United States. U.S. officials rarely — if ever — acknowledge the airstrikes.
Pakistan has always publicly denounced the American missiles, and many in the Muslim country of 170 million people see the United States and its allies as conducting an unjust war against fellow Muslims in Afghanistan. However, analysts have long speculated there must be some tacit agreement between the governments.
American and Pakistani commanders have been working more closely together in recent months, sharing intelligence and coordinating attacks, officials from both countries have said.
The drones had for years focused only on high-priority al-Qaida leaders such as Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. But last year, American and Pakistan military officials met in a secret session in which Pakistani leaders agreed to target al-Qaida operatives in return for greater U.S. action against militant tribal leaders such as Mehsud who were a more significant threat to Pakistan, U.S. officials told the AP shortly after Mehsud's reported death.
Mahmood Shah, an analyst and former security chief for Pakistan's northwestern tribal regions, said Friday that cooperation between Pakistan and the U.S. has increased dramatically since February, when Washington agreed to begin hitting Mehsud's network in South Waziristan. Before that, the two sides had "separate lists" of potential targets, and the U.S. refused to listen, he said, to the Pakistani view.
"It was only six months ago that the Americans agreed to what Pakistan was saying," Shah told The Associated Press. "And then Pakistan also included Siraj Haqqani as a huge target."
Shah would not speculate if Friday's strike was coordinated or assisted by Pakistani intelligence, but he expressed enthusiasm for the attack on Haqqani. "I think it is a good thing they are targeting him, and when they get him, that will be good."
___
Associated Press writers Munir Ahmed in Islamabad and Hussain Afzal in Parachinar contributed to this report.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Bomber targets Afghan city centre
Friday, 21 August 2009 18:54 UK BBC News
A man has been killed trying to mount a suicide bomb attack on a police station in the centre of the eastern Afghan city of Jalalabad, police say.
The attacker reportedly shot dead two police officers and injured four more in a gun battle near the station before being shot himself.
It is the first time such an attack has been mounted in Jalalabad, the largest city in eastern Afghanistan.
Militants fired rockets in the city on Tuesday, injuring 10 civilians.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghanistan Bomb Blasts Kill Two U.K. Soldiers, One U.S.
By Caroline Alexander
Aug. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Three soldiers serving in the NATO- led force in Afghanistan, one American and two Britons, were killed by separate explosions.
The U.S. soldier died today from wounds caused by a homemade bomb in eastern Afghanistan, NATO’s International Security Assistance Force said in an e-mailed statement.
The U.K. soldiers were killed yesterday while on patrol in Afghanistan’s southern Helmand province, the Ministry of Defence in London said in an e-mailed statement.
The U.K. patrol near Sangin was routine and unconnected to security surrounding Afghanistan’s presidential election, the MoD said. One of the soldiers was from the 3rd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment and the other from the 2nd Battalion The Rifles, the ministry said. Their families have been informed.
Before the latest deaths, a total of 204 U.K. service personnel had died in Afghanistan since operations began in 2001, according to an Aug. 16 tally by the military. A total of 783 U.S. service personnel have died in the war, according to the Department of Defense Web site.
To contact the reporter on this story: Caroline Alexander in London at calexander1@bloomberg.net
Back to Top
Back to Top
Why Afghanistan Is Lost
By Stephan Richter | Friday, August 21, 2009 The Globalist
The Obama Administration, led by Vice President Biden and the equally hard-hitting special envoy Richard Holbrooke, is trying to do more to turn the tide in Afghanistan. Will the effort succeed? If not, why not — and what are the broader lessons for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy? The Richter Scale explores.
Perhaps the biggest cultural change that is fathomed only very slowly among Washington’s policy elites is that the “old world” in which they live is no more.
What that means specifically is the demise of the longstanding belief that the global and regional agendas move forward on Washington’s timetable. Today, the world very much moves on its own clock — not Washington’s.
Nowhere is the pain of that reality more acutely felt than in Afghanistan. After the removal of the Taliban in 2001, there was a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get things right in a territory that for many centuries has been known as either the originator or the locus of military aggression.
However, instead of focusing its mission on Afghanistan, and taking the opportunity to deal with neighboring Pakistan — and, in turn, improving its own tumultuous relations with India — the Bush Administration suffered from outright mission creep and utter delusion when instead it changed its focus to Iraq.
To this day, his successor, Barack Obama, still struggles with accepting the lesson that an opportunity missed can sadly mean an opportunity lost.
To succeed in the critical and extremely worthy Afghanistan-turnaround mission would have required relentless focus. By turning Afghanistan into a sideshow to the war in Iraq, the execution of that vital mission could not succeed.
In addition to military action, where necessary, that would have required an early and unrelenting focus on building Afghan institutions, concentrating on governance and persuing related strategies to establish a dependable civic backbone to the country.
After all, this was one rare moment in history when Afghanistan, rightfully termed the “burial ground of empires,” was really in flux — and when hearts and minds could indeed have been won.
What happened instead is that, in setting up Hamid Karzai, the U.S. government banked on an Afghan leader who seems to be even less effective than Pakistan’s Musharraf ever was — even though Karzai is certainly equipped with a trustworthy face that could have been provided by central casting for a happy-ending movie on Afghanistan.
Only it won’t be so. Whatever maneuvers Vice President Joe Biden, Afghanistan/Pakistan envoy Richard Holbrooke, General McChrystal and others will try to engage in, the reality on the ground is that the Taliban, like a cancer, has been allowed to re-infect Afghanistan, including even the country’s capital, Kabul.
That cancer is likely to be chronic — and the only real question is whether it is terminal (and, in that case, just how lethal it would be).
Despite some cooperation from Russia, the supply lines for the troops deployed in the field are brittle — never mind the further strain that adding troops would bring. In all likelihood, plenty of shady characters are lining up to obtain rent-seeking payments in order to acquiesce to U.S. requests.
The character of the region, however, is such that even while they will be glad to take the money, they can also be relied upon to play a double-con game.
Under these circumstances, it becomes an exercise in finding proper arrangements with the Taliban in order to seek to stabilize Afghan society.
In that particular mission, Dick Holbrooke could succeed rather splendidly. Probably, there isn’t even another person in the entire Western world who has more talent to deal with unsavory characters.
The urgent issue before President Obama, though, is to manage expectations right. Hence, he has to abandon his overpromising on Afghanistan — if for no other reason that it’s not 2003 anymore.
However, it appears he is doing precisely the opposite. Indeed, in a recent speech, he essentially channeled George W. Bush, proclaiming that Afghanistan “is not a war of choice,” but rather “a war of necessity.”
However, as U.S. troop deaths continue to mount — and as ever-larger numbers of soldiers are committed to the country — it appears the U.S. public’s patience with the war is wearing thin.
An August 2009 poll found that 51% of Americans believe the war is no longer worth fighting — an increase of six percentage points from the previous month. In addition, only about a quarter of Americans think more U.S. troops should be sent to the country — an increase of 16 percentage points since January 2009.
Rather than seeking, ex post facto, to save Afghanistan, Washington’s collective efforts should be focused on avoiding the next issue on the global agenda on which Washington has punted for way too long already — Israel as a linchpin for the Middle East.
True, the inclination of U.S. policymakers will likely be to blame other nations for not following Washington’s lead on renewed efforts in Afghanistan — and hence blame them for failure.
To preempt this predictable — and fruitless — scenario, the Western allies, as true allies do, should exert open pressure on Washington to come to terms with a workable and active policy on the Israel/Palestine issue.
While there is never a good time to tackle the Mideast peace issue, waiting has only made things worse. Washington just has to learn to tackle issues on the world clock — because it can no longer afford to follow its own clock, as was the case in the past.
President Obama, who is understandably so keen on reflecting — and even refracting — himself in the thrust of illustrious predecessors in the Oval Office, ought to take Harry Truman’s bottom line: “The buck stops here.”
Back to Top
Back to Top
Fixing Afghanistan
Robert Dreyfuss – The Nation via Yahoo! News - Aug 21 8:44 AM
The Nation -- Some thoughts on Afghanistan, now that the election's come and gone.
I don't usually find inspiration in the pages of the Washington Times, are rarely if ever in the writings of Tony Blankley, the former spokesman for Newt Gingrich, but his recent column on the mess in Afghanistan struck me as intelligent and provocative. It's called "Empower the local tribal chiefs," and it makes sense to me. Blankley says that the United States is fast making enemies in Afghanistan of the very tribesmen who expelled the USSR, and he makes this essential point about the faulty thinking behind US strategy there:
"It would appear that a policy that calls for substantially increased troop strength for both the American and Afghan forces implies a policy that aspires to build a strong central government in Kabul capable of permanently suppressing the Taliban. But the long history of Afghanistan suggests that, unlike Iraq (or Japan and Germany after World War II), Afghanistan is not likely to accept a strong central government."
Blankley, whose right-wing credentials are impeccable, adds:
"We are not hated quite yet. But we need to leave soon, or we will be."
He suggests that we simply buy up the poppy crop (cost: $2 billion to $3 billion), stop "trying to prop up an inevitably corrupt and feeble Kabul central government," and "support the tribes that have cheerfully and courageously driven out all foreign intruders for thousands of years, not try to build a national government that they will equally cheerfully massacre." I'm not sure what Blankley means by "support" them, since it appears to me that the most effective thing we can do is leave them to their own devices. But he's on the right track that if the choices are either to spend decades, and hundreds of billions of dollars, creating a democratic Valhalla based in Kabul, or start winding down our presence while allowing some sort of province-by-province, warlord-based (and in the south, Taliban-leaning, Pashtun) local fiefdoms to emerge, then I'd pick Option Two.
Over at the AfPak Channel, an interesting debate between Steve Walt and Peter Bergen is underway. A few days ago, Walt -- the ultimate, thoughtful realist and co-author of The Israel Lobby -- made the admirable point that there is reason to question the almost universally acceptable notion that we have to fight in Afghanistan because that country would otherwise become a "safe haven" for terrorists and Al Qaeda, who would then attack us again. (His piece was called "The Safe Haven Myth," and you read the whole thing.) In it, Walt suggests that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are not the same thing, that the Taliban has no interest in "following us home" or attacking targets abroad, and that even in Al Qaeda could reestablish itself in Afghanistan, it would still have to operate underground, under constant threat of US attack. And he adds:
"The 9/11 plot was organized out of Hamburg, not Kabul or Kandahar, but nobody is proposing that we send troops to Germany to make sure there aren't "safe havens" operating there. In fact, if al Qaeda has to hide out somewhere, I'd rather they were in a remote, impoverished, land-locked and isolated area from which it is hard to do almost anything."
That piece was lambasted by Peter Bergen, and then Walt replied. Bergen, who's grown increasingly hawkish on Afghanistan, says that indeed the Taliban and Al Qaeda are two sides of the same coin, and he endorses President Obama's "Do It Seriously approach" -- otherwise, Al Qaeda will be back in the saddle and plotting attacks against us again. In fact, he argues that the Taliban itself has changed from an Afghan-only group to a terrorist-with-global-reach organization:
"The Taliban were a quite provincial group before 9/11 but since then they have adopted Al Qaeda's worldview and tactics and see themselves as part of a supposedly global jihadist movement."
So the alternative, for Bergen and for supporters of the president's policy, is to spend huge amounts of blood and treasure over decades to extirpate the sprawling Taliban movement and its allies, not just Al Qaeda. Obama, of course, has sometimes tried to stress that America's goal in Afghanistan is to root out and destroy Al Qaeda, and he's proposed some form of dialogue with the Taliban, at least with its "reconcilable" elements. But if the Taliban and Al Qaeda are both worldwide terrorist plotters, then America's goal in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) means eliminating not just a terrorist band with a few hundred members but a massive, and growing, movement of tens of thousands.
As Walt says, in response:
"Bergen thinks the threat is very, very serious, and he is admirably candid about his willingness to spend hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade or more to try to ward it off. He also believes that a large U.S. presence in Afghanistan is the best way to do that, while skeptics tend to think that reducing the U.S. military role is a better long-term bet."
And his conclusion:
"The real questions to ask are: 1) how much blood and treasure are the United States and its allies willing to invest in Afghanistan, and 2) is the way we are currently investing those lives and money are going to make things better or make them worse? Bergen thinks the danger is bigger than I do -- so he's willing to spend a lot more -- and he thinks a combination of counter-insurgency against the Taliban and massive external assistance to strengthen the central government is the best way to head his nightmare off. I have no objection to our using special forces and other assets to go after al Qaeda wherever it might be, and I don't object to foreign aid programs designed to repair or improve Afghanistan's woeful infrastructure (building roads and expanding electrical grids is something we do know how to do, whereas designing a legitimate and minimally effectve central government are tasks we seem singularly ill-prepared for). So I'm with those who believe that trying to 'defeat' the Taliban and create a strong central state in Afghanistan is a fool's errand."
Ultimately, we all have to face the fact that we're going to have to sit down and talk turkey with the Taliban. Ugly as it seems, we might have to sit across the table from some fairly unpleasant characters, from Gulbuddin Hekmatyar to, perhaps, one-eyed Mullah Omar himself. Even if those top-level commanders prove impossible, we'll be chatting amicably with other, lesser chieftains who are nonetheless equally unpalatable. For all his faults, President Karzai seems prepared to do exactly that. His brother, along with Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan, did in fact spend a fair amount of time talking to top-level Taliban officials in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, in talks that were facilitated by Great Britain and France. Kai Eide, the UN representative in Kabul, has said explicitly that talking with the Taliban's top leadership is critical. Earlier this week, Eide told the New York Times:
"You have different views, those who believe you can do it locally, from province to province, district to district. I don't think that is the case. I think you have to have a wider process."
It seems like Karzai gets this, and it seems like his US backers don't get it. Karzai has come under criticism from right-wingers and lefties alike for his alliances with warlords, chieftains, thugs and thieves, but I'm not sure I get the point of that criticism. Who else is left in that godforsaken country but folks like that? The Wall Street Journal, in its editorial this week on the Afghan election, blasted Karzai for his "political dalliances with religious extremists" and his "feckless denunciations of coalition forces." On both cases, though, I'm with Karzai. His "dalliances" with Pashtun thugs and pro-Taliban chiefs may be exactly what saves Afghanistan from unending civil war, provided that Karzai (or his successor) can get Uzbeks, Hazaras, and Tajiks to buy in to a deal with the Pashtuns and the Taliban.
I can't read Karzai's mind, and I don't know what his strategy really is. Certainly, because his electoral base is centered on the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan, his support for talks with the Taliban and his "dalliances" with the religious right may be mere electoral posturing. Of course, it's unlikely that Karzai, with all his erudition, sophistication, and Westernized modernism, can be the rallying point for a brutalized nation with no functioning economy, no middle class, and a perverse allegiance to warlordism. If he can't, he'll fall. But as Blankley says, there may be no real alternative to a vastly decentralized Afghanistan. In the end, it may be ruled by the likes of Muhammad Qasim Fahim, the Tajik warlord; Haji Muhammad Moheqiq, a Hazara chieftain; the thuggish Abdul Rashid Dostum, an Uzbek militia leader responsible for the murder of hundreds of Taliban; and people like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a pro-Taliban Pashtun hiding in Pakistan who operates a network of fighters in east Afghanistan near Kabul. Or, in what would be a better outcome, Afghanistan's tribal elders -- some of whom are just as bloody-minded, others just self-interested -- might come up with a loose federation of Afghan districts and provinces that can forge enough stability to allow for economic rebuilding. (Actually, it's just "building," since there's little to "rebuild.")
It's incredibly depressing, and hugely complicated. But I'm still waiting for the political strategy for Afghanistan to emerge from Washington. So far, all the talk is about counterinsurgency.
Back to Top
Back to Top
How The Taliban Are Taking Control Of Kunduz
Free Internet Press - Thu Aug 20, 4:04 am ET
Six years ago, German soldiers came to Afghanistan's Kunduz province to carry out reconstruction work. Now they are engaged in a bitter struggle with the resurgent Taliban, who are trying to sabotage Thursday's presidential election. Many local people no longer believe the Europeans can help them.
The war in Afghanistan now revolves around men like Khanzada Gul. The West is fighting for him, and so are German soldiers. They want to prevent people like Gul from changing sides and joining the enemy - the Taliban.
Gul, who is dressed in jeans and a striped T-shirt, is leaning against a railing in front of the city of Kunduz's only ice cream parlor, which is on the same street as the main bazaar. The 26-year-old's face is clean-shaven and his hair hangs over his forehead in carefully gelled curls.
Until recently, Gul was earning a good living and could still afford the stylish casual jeans he is wearing. He was the security chief for an orphanage in Kunduz operated by a Korean aid organization.
But then, four weeks ago, Gul's life was turned upside down. As he was driving home to the village of Chawkandi, 20 minutes by car from downtown Kunduz, Gul was stopped by half a dozen men on motorcycles. They were members of the Taliban and warned him that they would kill if he didn't quit his job with the foreigners.
He recognized residents of his village among the group of Taliban, men his age and younger. A few days later, Gul was stopped again. This time the Taliban destroyed the music cassette in his car stereo. "This is your last chance," they said threateningly.
Gul was so afraid that he quit his job. But now he doesn't know what to do with himself, and he spends most of his time walking around aimlessly in the city. "Anyone who works for the foreigners is punished with death, and the same applies to those working for the government. How am I supposed to make a living?" he asks, shrugging his shoulders. "Maybe I'll join the Taliban soon."
An Afghan Spa
Part of the reason the Germans came to the northern Afghan province of Kunduz six years ago was to help men like Gul. They wanted to help the Afghan population rebuild their shattered country. The Taliban was far away, and the conditions were right for the mission.
At first, many soldiers nicknamed their base in northern Afghanistan "Bad Kunduz," a play on the names of German spa resorts like Bad Munstereifel or Bad Wimpfen ("Bad" being the German word for bath). The location, in a valley between spurs of the Hindu Kush mountain range, is unusually lush for Afghanistan. And it was a quiet place, back then at least, and the war was far away.
Today the region has turned into a battleground, and the Germans, who never wanted to get involved in combat, are in the thick of it. The Taliban have returned, and they are gaining more and more support among the local population. Gul could be the next to join them.
Ironically, it is in Kunduz, where the Germans set out to prove - to themselves and to the rest of the world - that the war against terror could also be conducted with peaceful means, that fierce battles are now being waged. The province has become a dangerous place for German soldiers.
Shooting Back
The situation in northeastern Afghanistan has deteriorated dramatically in the last two years. "We are involved in gun battles every other day. We are being shot at and we are shooting back, and we are killing a few of them," says Sergeant Major Wolfgang Marx, a spokesman for the German military, the Bundeswehr, in Kunduz.
German soldiers have also begun deploying heavier weapons. They go into battle in Marder ("marten") infantry fighting vehicles or request air support from the allied bombers thundering through the skies above Kunduz. The Bundeswehr must now come to terms with a fact that Germans have previously found difficult to accept: Winning the war in Afghanistan requires engaging in active combat.
The upcoming elections in Germany and Afghanistan serve as a new source of motivation for the enemies of Afghanistan's young democracy. This Thursday, an estimated 15 million registered Afghan voters will elect a new president, in a vote that will determine whether the incumbent, the pro-Western President Hamid Karzai, will remain in office for another five-year term.
The Taliban also have Germany's parliamentary election in mind as they seek to escalate the situation in Kunduz, the province where German troops are stationed. They hope that a rising death toll will rob the Bundeswehr of political support at home.
When Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung, a member of Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU), talks about Afghanistan, it usually sounds as if he were discussing a potential candidate for European Union membership. He consistently portrays the situation as everything but dramatic and paints the current mission as a success. But the situation on the ground in Kunduz tells a different story.
'I Would Crush Him with My Own Hands'
Abdul Razak Yakubi, the police chief in Kunduz, is feeling extremely upset on this particular morning. A suicide bomber has just blown himself up on the road heading south out of the city. Aside from the suicide bomber, no one was killed. But Razak, who is known in the region as "General Razak," knows that the incident will only spark the usual talk, namely that he doesn't have the city and the surrounding province under control. The problem is that the gossip is true.
Razak has stopped counting how often this year his mornings have begun with attacks. The brawny police chief, with his carefully parted hair, always seems slightly tired, yawning frequently and closing his eyes while on the telephone, as if he were about to doze off.
"If we ever caught one of the Taliban beforehand, I would crush him with my own hands," he says, clenching his fists. Razak is about to leave on a trip to Chahar Dara. It's the district where the Taliban are the strongest, a region of small villages over which the Afghan government and the Bundeswehr have lost control. Razak has lost more than two dozen police officers to booby traps and attacks in Chahar Dara in recent months.
Eight dark-green Ford Explorers pull up to the police station in Kunduz, each carrying six police officers armed with machine guns and a rocket launcher. Razak puts on his Ray-Ban sunglasses and his cap.
He gets into the third vehicle, holding his radio to his mouth. "Drive in the middle of the road," he shouts, "the bombs are always along the edge." He instructs the men at the rear to open fire on any car they see approaching the convoy at high speed. "Shooting first," says Razak, "often saves lives." He speaks from experience.
A Reign of Fear
The town of Chahar Dara is 20 minutes from Kunduz. The men at the market wear long beards and the traditional Afghan outfit: baggy trousers and a loose shirt. The few women out in public are dressed in burqas and are always accompanied by a man. To avoid possible punishment for engaging in "un-Islamic behavior," most citizens already abide by the dictates of the Taliban.
Within the past year, the Taliban here have grown in strength from a small group to a force to be reckoned with, imposing a reign of fear over entire communities. They are quick to discover which residents work for the government or foreign aid organizations. This has prompted local employees of international organizations to delete contact details from their mobile phones, travel in unmarked vehicles and leave any documents tying them to foreign organizations at home before traveling to the district.
Teachers who teach girls run the risk of having their noses and ears cut off. Sufi Mohammed, a farmer, was shot to death for drinking tea with foreign soldiers. The Taliban in Chahar Dara have announced that they will cut off all fingers stained with the indelible ink used to prevent multiple voting in the presidential election.
In the night before July 19, the Afghan army, together with police units and 300 German soldiers, launched operation "Adler" ("Eagle") in Chahar Dara. The combined force of 1,200 men drove the Taliban out of the town and conducted house-by-house searches.
Now the German troops are gone, and the Afghan army has also withdrawn. The Taliban are waiting in the surrounding area, planning their return.
Waiting for Attacks
"We do what we can," says Razak, getting out of his SUV. He maintains three small outposts in Chahar Dara district, each manned with 10 police officers and 10 soldiers. The men saddled with this dangerous job stand at attention in the scorching heat, on a small hill that rises above the surrounding rice fields, as they greet their commander. They are wearing sandals and ragged uniforms, and most of their weapons seem older than they are.
Mohammed Ibrahim, 40, the commander of one of the three small outposts, speaks quietly to prevent Razak from hearing him. "All we can do is wait for attacks," he says. "If we're lucky, we can defend our lives." He and his men have only one hope: to be relieved soon.
As improbable as it seems, Razak and his men are the hope of the West and of the Bundeswehr. The German soldiers will only withdraw from the Hindu Kush region once Afghan forces are strong enough to keep the Taliban under control.
Both the Afghan police and army are still a long way from being ready to take over from the Germans. In the last two years, the government in Kabul has slashed Razak's "tashkil," or personnel list. Some 500 police officers were sent to other regions of Afghanistan, forcing Razak and his men to abandon many areas in the Kunduz region, leaving them to the Taliban.
'German Mothers Will Have to Send More Coffins for Their Sons'
Mullah Salam, the leader of the Taliban in Kunduz, is the Germans' main adversary. Salam is about 40, has medium-length brown hair and usually wears a shiny embroidered cap on his head. He also has a large potbelly.
An intelligence photo depicts the Taliban member with an almost mild expression on his face, sitting cross-legged on a mat with a mobile telephone in his hand. However, to avoid being tracked he rarely makes calls and he travels in various disguises. Even in Kunduz, he never sleeps in the same house for two nights in a row.
For the Taliban, Kunduz is the strategic heart of the north. About 40 percent of the province's inhabitants are Pashtuns, the ethnic group from which the Taliban recruits most of its members. Fighters can go into hiding easily and are able to turn to old supporters in Kunduz. They are tightly organized into small units, which are activated for individual missions. The Germans are their preferred targets.
Salam's forces have fired rockets at the German camp in Kunduz many times. The Bundeswehr holds Salam responsible for the roadside bombs used against their convoys and for the murders of three German soldiers on the city's market square on May 19, 2007, and for all other subsequent attacks. Most recently, on June 23, three German soldiers drowned when their armored vehicle crashed into a water ditch after an attack. Further bloody attacks are planned to coincide with this week's election.
Salam's strong connections to the Taliban Shura council in the Pakistani city of Quetta, the insurgents' most senior decision-making body, make him a particularly insidious threat. Only this spring, Mullah Baradar, the second-in-command in the Taliban hierarchy next to Mullah Omar, who has gone almost completely underground, issued a decree code-named "Nusrat," or "The Victory." In the directive, Baradar ordered his commanders to ramp up their activities in northern Afghanistan, including Kunduz.
It is now up to Mullah Salam to implement Baradar's plan and make life a living hell for the Germans. "The Germans, together with the Afghan army, have not managed to gain the upper hand over our fighters," Qari Bashir, one of Salam's commanders, scoffs in a telephone conversation. "We have far fewer men, but we are more courageous. German mothers will have to send many more coffins to Afghanistan for their sons."
A Reputation for Being Cowards
Before May 19, 2007, the day on which a suicide bomber targeted and killed three Bundeswehr soldiers who were at the bazaar to buy refrigerators, the Germans felt exceedingly comfortable in Kunduz.
The soldiers had long joked about serving in what they called "Bad Kunduz," because nothing resembling war was happening there. German paratroopers drove out of their camp smiling and waving, met with the village elders, known as maliks, and drank large quantities of green tea. They also repaired bridges and dug wells.
This cozy prologue to the current situation is probably the reason that the Germans have a reputation among many Afghans for being cowards who shirk real combat. The governor of Kunduz, Mohammed Omar, shares that opinion.
Omar is sitting on a red floor cushion. He wears his dark-blonde beard shortly trimmed, and the shirt under his vest is freshly ironed. But his eyes are red from crying: His brother, a local police chief, was killed the night before.
The Taliban attacked his police station to free supporters being held there. The police chief and his bodyguard were killed, a police officer was seriously injured, and the Taliban supporters were freed. "We will find the culprits," the governor says quietly.
Mohammed Omar, known locally simply as Engineer Omar, has nothing good to say about the Bundeswehr soldiers today. In fact, he is deeply disappointed. He complains that the Germans are not willing to seriously challenge the Taliban. "The last operation against the Taliban in Chahar Dara was unsuccessful, because the soldiers were hardly prepared to stage air strikes. They are overly cautious, and they don't even get out of their vehicles. They should leave, and the Americans should replace them. The Americans would finally provide security."
Guests enter the governor's house to offer their condolences. They kiss Omar's hands, mumble a few words and sit down on the floor cushions without saying anything. "The anti-government resistance in Kunduz is controlled from Pakistan," says Omar. At first, he says, only a few local residents supported the movement, but in the run-up to the election, Pakistan's intelligence service has activated its sources in Kunduz. "What kind of a response do the Germans have to that?"
The governor is beginning to sound agitated. A man hands him an old photo of him and his brother. His eyes fill with tears. He excuses himself, saying that it is time for him to pray.
'If I Don't Shoot, They'll Kill My Soldiers'
"Sure, Kunduz has changed," says Colonel Georg Klein. He is sitting in his office at the reconstruction team headquarters in Kunduz, adjusting his glasses. Kunduz has also changed him, says Klein. "I really don't want to shoot at other people. They're people, too, after all. But if I don't shoot, they'll kill my soldiers." His words reflect the logic of the war.
Four soldiers have died since Klein became the commander of German forces in Kunduz. He is deeply troubled by the deaths, he says, but adds that it is now time to "look forward." The people of Kunduz deserve the Germans' help, he says, noting that they are proud and hardworking, and are making a genuine effort to get back on their feet.
Klein sips his tea. He knows that the coming years will be even more difficult than the past few years. He wants to see the peaceful conditions of the past return to the region, and yet he finds himself caught in the midst of the violence of the present.
He says that the Germans have already chalked up some successes in Afghanistan. Countless roads and bridges have been built in Kunduz, and 1,800 households now have access to clean water. In the troubled Chahar Dara district, says Klein, employees of the German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) have built a tomato paste factory, which now sells its entire production to Kabul's only five-star hotel, the Serena.
Germans, he says, have financed an auto repair academy and are helping beekeepers establish a livelihood. Why doesn't anyone mention these achievements, Klein asks?
Progress is the Germans' most powerful weapon, which is why the Taliban detest the reconstruction efforts. Afghans want electricity and roads but, most of all, they want to survive.
Bad for Business
The police patrol the streets by day, and the Taliban are in control at night, says Muallim Kabir, an elderly man with a long white beard and a mustard-colored turban. He is standing in a clothing shop in downtown Kunduz, examining a blue-green silk chapan coat.
Prices have dropped now that the security situation in Kunduz has deteriorated. Less security is bad for business. Instead of the 3,500 afghanis (about €50, or $71) the coat would normally cost, Kabir offers the shopkeeper 2,500 afghanis. In the end he buys the coat for 2,800 afghanis.
Kabir is a Pashtun and a member of several village councils. He says that he plans to bide his time to see who gains the upper hand - the government and the foreign troops, or the Taliban. In the end, he says, he doesn't want to be on the side of the losers. In a country like Afghanistan, that's a dangerous place to be.
Back to Top
Back to Top
German Party Calls for Plan for Removal of Troops From Afghanistan
New York Times By JUDY DEMPSEY August 20, 2009
BERLIN - After ignoring the issue of Afghanistan for much of the federal election campaign so far, the Free Democrats, an opposition party that hopes to join Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives in the next government, have called for a plan to bring home the 4,500 German troops serving in the NATO force there.
In doing so, the party has broken ranks with most of the major parties, which have tried to keep the issue of Germany’s controversial Afghan presence out of the public eye.
“The next government must formulate a precise plan that spells out how a pull-out of the German Army over the coming years would look,” Jürgen Koppelin, a federal legislator and defense expert for the Free Democrats, said in a newspaper interview Wednesday. “Our soldiers in Afghanistan and their families need to know that the mission will end.”
By raising the issue now, the Free Democrats may be trying to show their foreign policy credentials, particularly since they hope to take over the Foreign Ministry if they win enough votes to form the next coalition with Mrs. Merkel, who is favored to retain the chancellery. So far, foreign policy issues have played no role in this campaign, which has yet to get going in force.
The Free Democrats have also tapped into the public mood, which may win them more votes.
According to opinion polls, the majority of those asked say they are opposed to German soldiers remaining in Afghanistan. That view reflects the anti-war attitude that has been ingrained in the populace since 1945.
Mrs. Merkel and her governing partner, the Social Democrats, have not engaged the Afghan issue in any substantive way during the campaign, hoping to avoid having it become the topic of an incendiary debate that could significantly affect the voting.
Only the opposition Left Party, a relatively new grouping of former East German communists and West German trade unionists, has been consistently outspoken about Afghanistan, demanding the immediate end of the mission. But it is viewed as a strident voice on the subject, and its calls have been ignored by the government and other opposition parties.
Internationally, Germany has been the target of much criticism from its NATO allies — particularly Britain, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands and the United States — whose troops have borne the brunt of the fighting in southern Afghanistan.
German troops are based in the northern province of Kunduz, which had been relatively peaceful until the Taliban established a foothold there. The government in Berlin has refused to send any troops to join NATO and U.S. forces in the south on the grounds that their presence in the north is needed.
The Free Democrats’ stance on the issue just as the election campaign takes off caught Mrs. Merkel’s coalition of conservatives and Social Democrats off guard.
On Thursday, Franz Josef Jung, the conservative defense minister, who has refused to use the word “war” to describe the operations of the German contingent, told ARD, the public television channel, that it was possible the army could remain in Afghanistan for 10 more years, until that nation’s security forces have been trained.
Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the Social Democrat foreign minister who will run against Mrs. Merkel for the chancellery, echoed that sentiment.
He told the Leipziger Volkszeitung that he believed German soldiers could be in Afghanistan for 10 more years “or longer.” That will not go down well with his party, which has a strong pacifist wing that opposes the Afghan mission.
Critics of the government’s policy say it has never adequately explained to the public the strategy and goals of the mission.
Among those critics is the Federal Armed Forces Association, a politically independent institution that represents more than 210,000 soldiers.
“What is needed more than ever is public support for our men and women serving in Afghanistan,” said Wilfried Stolze, the association’s spokesman. “But the politicians, including the chancellor, have shown no courage in explaining to the public why our troops are there in the first place.”
Mrs. Merkel, who has made two visits to Afghanistan since becoming chancellor nearly four years ago — in late 2007 and last April — has never broached the subject during a prime-time television interview, a speech or a public rally, nor has she suggested that the foreign affairs or defense committees of the Bundestag, or Parliament, hold hearings on the issue.
Mr. Stolze said that his group had reservations about the Free Democrats’ call for a withdrawal plan, but that it approved of the question being put forward publicly so that it could be debated.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghanistan: Taliban killed in Helmand, claims police chief
Kabul, 21 August (AKI) -Up to 40 Taliban fighters, including a commander, were killed during operations in various areas of volatile southern Helmand province during Afghanistan's presidential and provincial elections, a police chief said on Friday, quoted by Afghan news agency Pajhwok.
Asadullah Sherzad told Pajhwok seven insurgents were killed on Thursday while planting bombs on a road in Musa Qala district, a Taliban stronghold.
Eight militants were killed in Sangin district and a dozen others in an air strike carried out by the NATO-led Internal Security Assistance Forces in the Tarkha Nawar area.
Mullah Sattar, a rebel commander, was among eight fighters killed in Khan Nashin district, added Sherzad, who claimed five others were killed in Chanjeer area of Nad Ali district.
A police officer and four civilians were injured in the clashes. Col. Sherzad said five civilians were killed on Thursday when a landmine exploded in Nad Ali district.
Taliban spokesman Qari Yousuf Ahmadi claimed they blew up several tanks belonging to foreign forces and killed dozens of Afghan and international soldiers in Greshk, Nawa, Sangin and Musa Qala districts.
Eleven election workers were killed in armed attacks across Afghanistan during polling, the Independent Election Commission said on Friday in a statement received by Pajhwok.
Eight Afghan soldiers were killed and 25 others wounded in 135 rebel attacks and bomb explosions throughout the country, Afghan defence minister Abdul Rahim Wardak told journalists.
Nine police officers and nine civilians were also killed and more than a dozen wounded in the latest attacks, according to the interior ministry.
Afghan intelligence foiled 29 attacks planned by the insurgents to disrupt the elections, Amrullah Saleh, chief of the National Directorate of Security (NDS), said.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Dear Mr. President: Please stop Afghan adultery
By Golnar Motevalli – Thu Aug 20, 12:07 pm ET
MAZAR-I-SHARIF, Afghanistan (Reuters) – Afghan poll workers made an unusual discovery among ballot papers from Thursday's election -- a hand-written plea from a woman asking the president to do something about her unfaithful husband.
The note to President Hamid Karzai, written in blue pen on a sheet of lined note-paper, was found tucked among voting slips in ballot boxes at a polling station in a small school in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif.
"With warm greetings to the president," it began.
"I am a woman whose husband disappears during the day every day and wanders around the town and through parks with different types of women, while my children and I sit at home hungry, waiting for him," it read.
The unidentified woman accused her husband of ignoring his family and of taking all their money for himself.
"I want to ask you, Mr. President, to notice how much adultery there is among men," the letter read.
"I don't know the right language to tell you, I'm asking you to please get rid of this, for all the hatred and damage it brings upon families."
Sanbileh-jan, head of the team of electoral officers at the polling station, folded up the note and put it in her pocket.
She said she didn't know what to do with it, but was pretty sure that it would not reach Karzai's inbox.
(Editing by Paul Tait)
Back to Top
Back to Top
US panel on wartime contracting to return to Afghanistan
Fri Aug 21, 4:35 pm ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) – A US commission investigating wartime contracting said it plans to return to Afghanistan on Sunday as part its effort to stem fraud and waste by private defense contractors.
Set up in 2008 after audits found rampant abuse in Iraq, the Commission on Wartime Contracting is charged by Congress with reviewing US contracting related to reconstruction, logistics for the military and security operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"This trip is an important part of carrying out our study mandate from Congress, and it?s especially important given that we?re intensifying our efforts in Afghanistan," commission co-chair Michael Thibault said in a statement Friday.
"Among other things, we?ll be looking to see whether and how contracting lessons from the Iraq involvement are being applied to Afghanistan," he said of the week-long trip.
The commission members will have a chance to share their findings from the Afghan visit at congressional hearings scheduled in September.
More than 200,000 contract employees work to support US military operations and reconstruction work in Iraq and Afghanistan, performing a range of jobs from guarding diplomats to washing uniforms and building hospitals.
In their first appearance before Congress in June, panel members presented an initial report pointing out waste and serious "problems" in how the US government oversees its vast army of contractors.
The commission cited the construction of a 30-million-dollar dining hall at the Camp Delta military base southeast of Baghdad as an example of poor oversight. Replacing the existing mess hall with a larger facility was unnecessary as US troops have to leave the country by the end of 2011.
The commission's visit to Afghanistan comes as US commanders weigh cutting back on desk jobs and other support staff to free up troops for combat, a move that could require more private contractors to fill the gap.
Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, has warned the United States risks repeating the same mistakes in Afghanistan that have led to billions of dollars being squandered in Iraq on reconstruction.
Bowen told lawmakers in March that he estimates between three and five billion dollars have been wasted in the US effort to rebuild Iraq since 2003.
The panel's final report is due in July 2010, but Congress could extend the bi-partisan commission's mandate by another year.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghan Women's Vote Hindered by Taliban and More
By Aunohita Mojumdar WeNews correspondent 08/20/09
Afghan women's participation is expected to be low in Thursday's national elections. Security fears and conservative customs are expected to hinder female voters, candidates and poll watchers.
KABUL, Afghanistan (WOMENSENEWS)--On a hot summer's day early this month, the loya jirga, or grand council, here in the capital was buzzing with activity.
Women--students, professionals and activists--milled around, exchanging stories, ideas and laughter, readying themselves for the fusion of two voter turnout efforts: The 5 Million Women Campaign and the 50 Percent Campaign.
The two campaigns, one focused on demanding the government secure women's right to vote and the other on ending discrimination and ensuring women's participation, came together in the face of worries that few women would make it to their polling places.
The activists face what are widely considered extreme difficulties.
While Thursday's elections are sometimes hailed as another step in Afghanistan's slow march towards democracy, a large section of the country's women stand in danger of being disenfranchised through a combination of increasing violence and a resurgence of conservative attitudes inhibiting women's political involvement.
The elections occur in the bloodiest phase of an eight-year conflict. The war has caused a 24 percent increase in the number of civilian casualties in the first seven months of 2009 compared with the same period a year ago, according to July 31 U.N. report that says actual deaths may be much higher due to difficulties collecting information.
Large Areas Off Limits
Large areas of the country are categorized as either under enemy control or at high risk for attack by insurgents. An official map obtained by Reuters in April showed half the country in this situation. Since then security has worsened, especially in the week before the elections with militants carrying out several targeted strikes in Kabul, including a suicide-bombing on Tuesday that killed seven.
Voter registration could not take place in several districts because of the presence or control of the Taliban. The government officially admits to 8 of the country's 364 districts being under Taliban control, but polling may not take place or may be severely compromised in many more.
While the increasing insecurity affects all voters, women are likely to be far more severely impacted, says Leeda Yaqoobi, deputy director of Afghan Women's Network, the umbrella organizations of over 70 women's groups that organized the loya jirga meeting.
"Security is one of the major problems that prevents women from voting on election day," she told Women's eNews.
In addition to the generally violent atmosphere, women's rights advocates worry about targeted attacks on women in the public sphere.
"Women participating in public life face threats, harassment and attacks," a July 8 U.N. report on violence in Afghanistan found, and contributed to an effective imprisonment of women in their homes.
Local Traditions Also Blamed
Despite a tendency to blame violence against women on the Taliban, the July report says women in public life have also been targeted by "local traditional and religious power holders, their own families and communities and, in some instances, by government officials."
In Thursday's provincial council elections, not enough female candidates were found to fill the 25 percent quota for women.
In Kandahar, for example, three women are running for the four reserved seats. None of these candidates was able to either live or campaign in the province because of the threats to them, according to the chairperson of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission.
A joint verification exercise of political rights carried out by this commission and the U.N. mission in Afghanistan found "women's right to vote appears to be at risk in insecure areas."
Within days of the election, despite several months of preparatory time, the country's Independent Election Commission had not been able to locate women to staff many of the polling booths in at least 8 of the 34 provinces in the country. It was sending out desperate appeals.
Without female staff at polling booths to assist and frisk women voters--a necessary security precaution--many women are likely to be unable to cast their votes.
Dangerous Travel Required
Polling booths in many of the insecure areas are also likely to be moved, forcing voters to traverse large distances through insecure territory, a hurdle more likely to discourage women.
In culturally conservative parts of Afghanistan women still are still required to have permission from their families to leave their home; participation in the polling exercise is not considered appropriate.
In some parts of the country this has been legally enshrined by the new Shia Personal Status Law signed by President Hamid Karzai in mid-July. Among other things, that law--governing the minority Shia Muslim community--makes it illegal for a woman to vote without her husband's permission, if custom dictates.
Vote tallies are unlikely to reflect the full extent of women's disenfranchisement. In conservative areas, men cast the votes of the women in their families, a practice that is accepted by polling staff in deference to the conservative attitudes.
"We will of course give our votes (voter registration cards) to the men," a young Pashtun woman in the eastern province of Nangarhar, bordering Pakistan, recently told Women's eNews. "We do not have permission to go out to vote."
Firebrand parliamentarian Shukria Barakzai fears such "proxy voting' may be widespread. "This is a concern, that in the name of women, men may vote," she said in an interview in Kabul.
In some areas the registration of women did not require photographic identity cards, creating the opportunity for massive forgery of registration cards, says Martine van Biljert, an analyst with the Afghan Analysts Network, a think-tank based in Berlin.
Biljert, who has spent several years working in Afghanistan, says "the absence of a credible voter registry, or any other reliable form of registry, and the lack of effective safeguards against multiple registrations has greatly facilitated the widespread incidence of multiple and proxy voting."
In the parliamentary elections of 2005, high female turnout was initially hailed as a sign of progress, but later attributed to the kind of fraud that may be repeated on Thursday.
Women's ability to vote is expected to depend on the local conditions.
In the village of Langarkhel in the Pashtun belt of Nangarhar province, for instance, no women were visible in the campaign rallies when presidential candidate Abdullah Abdullah came to visit. However the provincial council candidate Abdullah Arsala, said a meeting of male village elders had decided that women could be allowed to vote.
Aunohita Mojumdar is an Indian journalist who has reported on the South Asian region for 18 years.
Women's eNews welcomes your comments. E-mail us at editors@womensenews.org.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Fremont's Little Kabul eyes election with hope
Matthew B. Stannard, San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer Friday, August 21, 2009
Sam Saleh's Little Kabul Market off Fremont's Thornton Avenue offers a little piece of Afghanistan to its patrons: sweets, meats, and kites, their strings laced with glass to make them weapons in traditional Afghan kite fighting.
As Afghans went to the polls Thursday to elect the next president of the troubled nation, Saleh and his customers reflected politically on their ancestral home as well, with hope and disappointment, divided loyalties and united goals for a peaceful future.
Like others in Fremont, home to the largest population of Afghan Americans in the United States, Saleh hoped the election in Afghanistan - marked by low turnout and marred by violence - would usher in new leadership.
He expected incumbent President Hamid Karzai to win, but Saleh said he wished another candidate would pull off an upset - perhaps Ashraf Ghani, the former Afghanistan finance minister and former UC Berkeley professor seen by several Afghans in Fremont as a well-educated, less corrupt technocratic alternative to Karzai.
"It looks like Karzai is going to win," Saleh said. "I don't know if it's going to make any difference - it's been seven years, and he's done nothing."
But a customer buying meat and vegetables at his shop, Gulsoma Ayebzai, disagreed, saying she supported Karzai's re-election.
"Karzai came at a bad time - he's trying to get the country back on track," she said, as Saleh helped her with occasional translation through a rueful smile. "At least he's doing something for the country ... When people support him, they say he works hard. When they don't support him, they say he does nothing."
That diversity of viewpoint - but shared interest in the outcome of an election in which they cannot vote - reflected the opinions of many people in Fremont's Little Kabul neighborhood, said Rona Popal, executive director of the Afghan Coalition, a community organization.
Sense of community
Fremont's Little Kabul does not stand out as a distinct region like San Francisco's Japantown or Oakland's Chinatown - the halal butcher shops, kebab houses and markets selling sweets and Afghan music sit side by side with liquor stores, martial arts studios and Chinese restaurants.
But the community has a cohesive identity, and while many Afghans in Fremont left their homeland decades ago, Popal said, they continue to follow the news through relatives and satellite television.
"The body is here, but their soul, their attention, is in Afghanistan," she said.
Like Saleh, Popal said she supported Ghani. But more important than who wins, she said, is that the process is fair - and that the future brings progress, particularly for women in Afghanistan, whose status, she added, has stalled or fallen in recent years.
People had hope in Karzai when he won the last election in 2004, but lost it when he was accused of corruption and cronyism, said Waheed Momand, president of the coalition. Now people in Afghanistan have hope in President Obama, he said, but don't feel they have seen dramatic change.
Under Karzai, "the powerful are becoming more powerful, the needy are becoming more needy," he said. "For Obama, there is still hope, because it's the beginning."
Dad coming home
At Maiwand Market on Fremont Avenue, past the shelves of Baklava and Afghan songbooks, Nila Andish, 24, watched her toddler daughter Lily scamper through aisles as she waited for her mother to buy naan for Saturday, when her father comes home from his job as a translator in Afghanistan.
Saturday is also when preliminary results are expected in the Afghan election, and Andish - who has never been to Afghanistan - said she will be paying close attention.
"It's still my country - even though I wasn't born there," she said. "I still care what happens."
E-mail Matthew B. Stannard at mstannard@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page D - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Back to Top
Back to Top
AFGHANISTAN: UNCERTAINTIES AND FEAR LOOM DAY BEFORE VOTE
Aunohita Mojumdar: 8/19/09 Eurasia Insight:
Polling for the second presidential and provincial council elections in Afghanistan will open early on August 20 in a milieu of competing hopes and fears, uncertain logistics and precarious security conditions. The 2009 polls also take place in a state of political flux unprecedented since the forced removal of the Taliban in 2001.
How many polling stations will open, where they will be located and how much of the electorate will be able to access the ballots remains as uncertain as the level of anticipated violence. Equally uncertain is the extent of expected electoral malpractice, how much this will compromise the vote's legitimacy, and the tolerance of ordinary Afghans to fraud.
Less than 48 hours before polls open, the Election Complaints Commission said on August 18 that it was "possible that irregularities may occur during polling, and the counting and tallying of votes," and ruled out setting a final date for the results to be released. Reacting to the increase of targeted violence from anti-government elements, including rocket attacks and suicide bombings in Kabul this week, the Foreign Ministry called for censorship on Election Day, urging a blackout of all reporting on violence. "All domestic and international media agencies are requested to refrain from broadcasting any incident of violence during the election process," a statement from the ministry read, in order to "ensure the wide participation of the Afghan people."
Local conditions, interests and security, rather than media coverage, are more likely to determine voting conditions, however.
Unlike the previous elections where a positive outcome for incumbent President Hamid Karzai appeared a fait accompli, this time voters approach a real contest with a widespread appetite for change. One opinion poll, a US government-commissioned survey conducted in July by Glevum Associates, gave Karzai 36 percent support among registered voters, well below the 51 percent mark he needs to stave off a second round of voting. While polls indicated a fair number of undecided voters could change these figures, former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah has emerged as a strong contender at the head of a fragmented opposition.
The four top presidential contesters -- running in a field of 41 candidates, including two women -- represent both the complex wishes and the competing interests of Afghan voters. Karzai exemplifies the Afghan penchant for deal making by appearing to have secured the support of major power brokers, including a catalog of former warlords. However, the campaign of Dr. Abdullah, who has inherited the Northern Alliance's political movement -- the foremost anti-Taliban faction before the US invasion -- is challenging the expectation that votes will be delivered solely by strongmen. Another contender, Dr. Ashraf Ghani, represents an alternative facet of Afghan politics today: the western-returned technocrat with strong links to the donor community. The fourth major contender, Ramazan Bashardost, a former planning minister, has made a name for himself by tapping into the public mood of disenchantment with violence, lack of development and corruption.
When Afghans go to the polls, they will do so with a mixture of hope and fear of change. While disenchantment with lack of economic development, delivery of services, increasing insecurity and high civilian casualties has shaped opinion in favor of change, the ongoing conflict also makes voters fearful that the situation could deteriorate further, pushing many to conclude that a known devil is better than an unknown one.
Whatever the outcome, change is unlikely to start merely with a new president. The current administrative and political structure has concentrated all decisions in the office of the president, marginalizing the role of the parliament and depriving provincial councils of any authority. Over the past eight years, the internationally supported central government has set up structures that bypass local decision making in an attempt to administer this large, unwieldy and varied country from a single seat in Kabul. The result has been a powerful presidency that is a source of patronage -- by the central appointment of governors and dishing out of development projects -- rather than legitimate authority, in the eyes of many Afghans.
Abdullah, calling for a parliamentary democracy more suited to Afghanistan's diverse and disparate population, has presented the most formidable opposition platform. But even if elected, he would find it difficult to dislodge powerbrokers embedded and strengthened through a combination of government backing and international support.
The major difference any of the candidates could bring to office immediately would be in the approach to negotiations with the armed opposition, often lumped together misleadingly under the rubric of the Taliban. A significant section of the international community and the Afghan polity view negotiations with armed groups as the sine qua non of any progress in Afghanistan, and pressure for the resumption of talks is likely to resume soon after the elections.
For the international community, desperate for some sign of progress in an engagement that is becoming increasingly unpopular back home, the elections are a needed signal of the legitimacy of their intervention. To that end, it is unlikely that foreign policy makers will make any significant criticism on the credibility of the vote, even if it is marred by lack of inclusiveness or electoral fraud. However an unquestioning endorsement of the electoral exercise could also be counterproductive. Afghans, who have been repeatedly asked to understand and adopt democracy and eschew conflict, have higher expectations of the democratic process today than in 2004.
Of course, the biggest question before the polling remains: How will the Afghan electorate react? The perception of legitimacy will be even more important than the actual legitimacy of the polls. In a context of growing public disenchantment and low tolerance for fraud, public anger could increase support for violence and other non-peaceful means of changing the status quo. If the August 20 elections and the response both lack legitimacy, those voting with the ballots for the building of Afghanistan's democracy today may vote against it with bullets tomorrow.
Editor's Note: Aunohita Mojumdar is an Indian freelance journalist based in Kabul. She has reported on the South Asian region for the past 19 years.
Back to Top
Disclaimer:
This news site is mostly a compilation of publicly accessible articles
on the Web in the form of a link or saved news item. The news articles
and commentaries/editorials are protected under international copyright
laws. All credit goes to the original respective source(s).