Forostar said:
I quietly disagree with this.
Afghanistan
- Thread starter Forostar
- Start date
I quietly disagree with this.
No...it's hard to prove.
And let me explain why it's hard to prove.
1. The Taliban is a hard-line Islamic regime who's prime fighting force has been recruited not from Afghanistan but from Pakistan.
2. The average Afghan doesn't care enough to join the Taliban. They are more loyal to their individual villages than anything else.
3. Most Afghans will never hear of this event because of the nature of media in the Kharzid regime. In that, there isn't any and people in Kabul are generally pro ISAF.
And let me explain why it's hard to prove.
1. The Taliban is a hard-line Islamic regime who's prime fighting force has been recruited not from Afghanistan but from Pakistan.
2. The average Afghan doesn't care enough to join the Taliban. They are more loyal to their individual villages than anything else.
3. Most Afghans will never hear of this event because of the nature of media in the Kharzid regime. In that, there isn't any and people in Kabul are generally pro ISAF.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
People from Afghanistan/Pakistan (does it matter where they are recruited? I guess not) are angry about the civilian losses. They know about it.
This growing anger (inceased after every attack where civilians die) towards foreign troops is the main reason for NATO to have changed the approach.
Karzai is actually very much against civilian losses and has often complained when it happened. This time again.
I am curious about the outcome of the German political debate. The research of this particular bombing is not finished yet, so it won't be easy.
This growing anger (inceased after every attack where civilians die) towards foreign troops is the main reason for NATO to have changed the approach.
Karzai is actually very much against civilian losses and has often complained when it happened. This time again.
I am curious about the outcome of the German political debate. The research of this particular bombing is not finished yet, so it won't be easy.
Okay, now before we dig our trenches, let us consider that both sides may be right and both sides may be wrong.
The fact of the matter is that we don't know for sure what is happening there in Afghanistan. Most Afghans do not have access to the same type of media we do. They don't read newspapers, they don't read twitter, they don't watch TV, in fact, the least of them will have even a cell phone. Hence, just as so little information that reaches the common Afghan, we can't be sure of the credibility of any information that comes out of a war zone. It can take a long time until the credibility is verified, especially in an ongoing conflict.
I find it wholly believable that the Taleban will use this attack as recruitment propaganda. That does of course not mean they will spread the objective truth. I don't see them mentioning fuel tankers, or if they do, they probably won't tell the truth about what they were intended to be used for. And they don't need to: Even if they have only two dead civilians, and a picture of it, it's enough.
It is war. Information gets distorted, willingly or unwillingly. We have the luxury of being able to look at two or three sides of a story, and wait for official reports to confirm the exact events and number of dead people. The people in Afghanistan don't. Most will believe the next best bit of information, and if there is only one innocent dead, it's enough for them anyway.
There is hot-headed talk right now, especially from the Leftist Party who have posters reading "Bundeswehr out of Afghanistan" anyway. They target Jung, Steinmeier and Merkel and so on. But most credible politicians are waiting until the final reports are in, even if they massively criticise the information policy.
The fact of the matter is that we don't know for sure what is happening there in Afghanistan. Most Afghans do not have access to the same type of media we do. They don't read newspapers, they don't read twitter, they don't watch TV, in fact, the least of them will have even a cell phone. Hence, just as so little information that reaches the common Afghan, we can't be sure of the credibility of any information that comes out of a war zone. It can take a long time until the credibility is verified, especially in an ongoing conflict.
I find it wholly believable that the Taleban will use this attack as recruitment propaganda. That does of course not mean they will spread the objective truth. I don't see them mentioning fuel tankers, or if they do, they probably won't tell the truth about what they were intended to be used for. And they don't need to: Even if they have only two dead civilians, and a picture of it, it's enough.
It is war. Information gets distorted, willingly or unwillingly. We have the luxury of being able to look at two or three sides of a story, and wait for official reports to confirm the exact events and number of dead people. The people in Afghanistan don't. Most will believe the next best bit of information, and if there is only one innocent dead, it's enough for them anyway.
Forostar said:
There is hot-headed talk right now, especially from the Leftist Party who have posters reading "Bundeswehr out of Afghanistan" anyway. They target Jung, Steinmeier and Merkel and so on. But most credible politicians are waiting until the final reports are in, even if they massively criticise the information policy.
Yes, Foro, it actually does matter, because they are different countries, and the opinion of the Taliban in Pakistan is much different to the opinion of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Pakistan opinion has very much swung against the Taliban in the last few years, and recruiting has become much harder. While civilian deaths surely do provide a cause for the Taliban to extol, they are not happening in the numbers they occured during the Soviet occupation, which has made their recruitment efforts progressively more anemic. That is why the Taliban are fighting harder now - to try and generate more PR so they can get more soldiers.
NATO's approach has always been to be cautious, but it is more cautious now because of course they don't want to anger people that much. NATO's approach will likely change more if the Americans add more troops, which will help stabilize the situation.
Karzai may be against losses, I think we all are, but that doesn't mean he disseminates media information appropriately throughout Afghanistan.
NATO's approach has always been to be cautious, but it is more cautious now because of course they don't want to anger people that much. NATO's approach will likely change more if the Americans add more troops, which will help stabilize the situation.
Karzai may be against losses, I think we all are, but that doesn't mean he disseminates media information appropriately throughout Afghanistan.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Forgive me, but I want to set something straight:
Public protests over civilian deaths:
On July 4, 2002, in the first anti-American protest since the overthrow of the Taliban, about 200 Afghans marched through the streets of Kabul to express their outrage over attacks by U.S. forces which killed scores of civilians, including many children and 25 members of one family. According to Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah, 44 people were killed and 120 wounded in the U.S. attacks on about a half dozen villages in Uruzgan province, which villagers said included an attack on a pre-wedding party.[45][46]
On May 29, 2006, large-scale rioting, fueled by anti-U.S. anger, swept through Afghanistan's capital, Kabul, after a U.S. military truck crashed into a crowd of Afghan pedestrians. Afghan President Hamid Karzai's office said five people were killed in the vehicle crash. The U.S. military, in a statement issued earlier, had said at least one person was killed in the crash and six wounded, two of them critically. Afghan officials called it the worst day of rioting in Kabul since the overthrow of the Taliban regime. At least 8 people were killed and 109 wounded in the widespread anti-U.S. protests through the capital. Video from one rioting site after the crash showed a U.S. military vehicle firing in the direction of a crowd of Afghans. Dozens of protesters outside the U.S. Embassy screamed "Death to Americans!" while embassy personnel retreated to bunkers. "We want America out of this country! We hate America! They have no responsibility!" said protester Ajmal Jan.[53][72]
On April 30, 2007, thousands of Afghans staged a protest accusing USA-led coalition and Afghan troops of killing civilians in the western province of Herat. The protesters stormed a government district headquarters in Shindand, south of Herat city, where Western troops have a large base. The anti-U.S. protest came a day after an angry demonstration in eastern Nangahar province over the killing of civilians by coalition and Afghan forces there.[73]
On May 2, 2007, about 500 Afghan university students protested in the eastern province of Nangarhar alleging six civilians had been killed by US-led coalition troops a few days before. On that same day, Afghan and UN teams announced that their investigations had found that around 50 civilians were killed in days of ground fighting and bombing in a remote valley in the western province of Herat.[58]
On September 26, 2007, following a raid by foreign troops that left two religious leaders dead, about 500 Afghan protesters shut down the main highway out of Kandahar city with some chanting "Death to Canada" and "Death to foreigners" and calling on foreign troops to leave their country. The protesters accused American and Canadian soldiers of killing the two religious leaders during night raids on houses in Senjaray, a community on the outskirts of Kandahar city. Anger was also directed at Afghan President Hamid Karzai for allowing the foreign military presence in their country.[74]
On August 23, 2008, about 250 Afghan villagers gathered in angry demonstration to protest the deaths of 76 civilians, most of them children, killed in U.S.-led airstrikes near the village of Azizabad, about 120 kilometres south of Herat city in western Afghanistan.[66][75]
On September 1, 2008, hundreds of citizens in the Afghan capital Kabul rushed into the streets and burnt tires on the Kabul-Jalalabad highway protesting the killing of three members of a Kabuli family, including two children, by U.S.-led troops. Residents said the U.S.-led troops, carrying out a pre-dawn raid in Hud Kheil area in the eastern quarter of Kabul, threw hand grenades into a house, killing Noorullah and two of his sons, one of whom was eight months old. Their deaths were the latest in a string of incidents that have angered Afghans and caused a split between the Afghan government and foreign troops.[65][76]
On October 16, 2008, protests by crowds condemning British forces and the Afghan government took place in Lashkar Gah, capital city of Helmand province, after a NATO airstrike killed as many as 18 women and children.[77]
On December 26, 2008, a crowd of hundreds of Afghans protested in Maywand district in Kandahar province following overnight raids by U.S. military forces, claiming that innocent people were killed in the attack. Local villagers, angered by the military raids, blocked the main highway for three hours and burned tires.[13][78]
On March 7, 2009, hundreds of Afghan demonstrators in eastern Afghanistan blocked the path of a U.S. military convoy to condemn an early morning raid in Khost province that killed four people and wounded two. Tahir Khan Sabari, the deputy governor of the province, said the four people killed were civilians, but the American military claimed they were militants. Demonstrators in Khost city threw rocks at the American military convoy, shouted "Death to America", and burned tires, sending up dark plumes of smoke.[79]
On May 7, 2009, thousands of Afghan villagers shouting "Death to America" and "Death to the Government" protested in Farah city over American bomber air strikes on May 4 that killed 147 civilians. Clashes with police started when people from the three villages struck by US B1-bombers brought 15 newly-discovered bodies in a truck to the house of the provincial governor. Four protesters were wounded when police opened fire. Going by the account of survivors, the air raid was not a brief attack by several aircraft acting on mistaken intelligence, but a sustained bombardment in which three villages were pounded to pieces.[80] An Afghan government investigation concluded on May 16, 2009 with the Afghan Defense Ministry announcing an official death toll of 140 villagers. A copy of the government's list of the names and ages of each of the 140 dead showed that 93 of those killed were children, and only 22 were adult males.[81]
Public protests over civilian deaths:
On July 4, 2002, in the first anti-American protest since the overthrow of the Taliban, about 200 Afghans marched through the streets of Kabul to express their outrage over attacks by U.S. forces which killed scores of civilians, including many children and 25 members of one family. According to Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah, 44 people were killed and 120 wounded in the U.S. attacks on about a half dozen villages in Uruzgan province, which villagers said included an attack on a pre-wedding party.[45][46]
On May 29, 2006, large-scale rioting, fueled by anti-U.S. anger, swept through Afghanistan's capital, Kabul, after a U.S. military truck crashed into a crowd of Afghan pedestrians. Afghan President Hamid Karzai's office said five people were killed in the vehicle crash. The U.S. military, in a statement issued earlier, had said at least one person was killed in the crash and six wounded, two of them critically. Afghan officials called it the worst day of rioting in Kabul since the overthrow of the Taliban regime. At least 8 people were killed and 109 wounded in the widespread anti-U.S. protests through the capital. Video from one rioting site after the crash showed a U.S. military vehicle firing in the direction of a crowd of Afghans. Dozens of protesters outside the U.S. Embassy screamed "Death to Americans!" while embassy personnel retreated to bunkers. "We want America out of this country! We hate America! They have no responsibility!" said protester Ajmal Jan.[53][72]
On April 30, 2007, thousands of Afghans staged a protest accusing USA-led coalition and Afghan troops of killing civilians in the western province of Herat. The protesters stormed a government district headquarters in Shindand, south of Herat city, where Western troops have a large base. The anti-U.S. protest came a day after an angry demonstration in eastern Nangahar province over the killing of civilians by coalition and Afghan forces there.[73]
On May 2, 2007, about 500 Afghan university students protested in the eastern province of Nangarhar alleging six civilians had been killed by US-led coalition troops a few days before. On that same day, Afghan and UN teams announced that their investigations had found that around 50 civilians were killed in days of ground fighting and bombing in a remote valley in the western province of Herat.[58]
On September 26, 2007, following a raid by foreign troops that left two religious leaders dead, about 500 Afghan protesters shut down the main highway out of Kandahar city with some chanting "Death to Canada" and "Death to foreigners" and calling on foreign troops to leave their country. The protesters accused American and Canadian soldiers of killing the two religious leaders during night raids on houses in Senjaray, a community on the outskirts of Kandahar city. Anger was also directed at Afghan President Hamid Karzai for allowing the foreign military presence in their country.[74]
On August 23, 2008, about 250 Afghan villagers gathered in angry demonstration to protest the deaths of 76 civilians, most of them children, killed in U.S.-led airstrikes near the village of Azizabad, about 120 kilometres south of Herat city in western Afghanistan.[66][75]
On September 1, 2008, hundreds of citizens in the Afghan capital Kabul rushed into the streets and burnt tires on the Kabul-Jalalabad highway protesting the killing of three members of a Kabuli family, including two children, by U.S.-led troops. Residents said the U.S.-led troops, carrying out a pre-dawn raid in Hud Kheil area in the eastern quarter of Kabul, threw hand grenades into a house, killing Noorullah and two of his sons, one of whom was eight months old. Their deaths were the latest in a string of incidents that have angered Afghans and caused a split between the Afghan government and foreign troops.[65][76]
On October 16, 2008, protests by crowds condemning British forces and the Afghan government took place in Lashkar Gah, capital city of Helmand province, after a NATO airstrike killed as many as 18 women and children.[77]
On December 26, 2008, a crowd of hundreds of Afghans protested in Maywand district in Kandahar province following overnight raids by U.S. military forces, claiming that innocent people were killed in the attack. Local villagers, angered by the military raids, blocked the main highway for three hours and burned tires.[13][78]
On March 7, 2009, hundreds of Afghan demonstrators in eastern Afghanistan blocked the path of a U.S. military convoy to condemn an early morning raid in Khost province that killed four people and wounded two. Tahir Khan Sabari, the deputy governor of the province, said the four people killed were civilians, but the American military claimed they were militants. Demonstrators in Khost city threw rocks at the American military convoy, shouted "Death to America", and burned tires, sending up dark plumes of smoke.[79]
On May 7, 2009, thousands of Afghan villagers shouting "Death to America" and "Death to the Government" protested in Farah city over American bomber air strikes on May 4 that killed 147 civilians. Clashes with police started when people from the three villages struck by US B1-bombers brought 15 newly-discovered bodies in a truck to the house of the provincial governor. Four protesters were wounded when police opened fire. Going by the account of survivors, the air raid was not a brief attack by several aircraft acting on mistaken intelligence, but a sustained bombardment in which three villages were pounded to pieces.[80] An Afghan government investigation concluded on May 16, 2009 with the Afghan Defense Ministry announcing an official death toll of 140 villagers. A copy of the government's list of the names and ages of each of the 140 dead showed that 93 of those killed were children, and only 22 were adult males.[81]
Yes, you agree with me that people don't like civilian losses, as that's not the point. The question is whether or not it seriously bolsters Taliban recruiting, which you didn't answer. I am glad that Afghans are protesting, and exercising their newfound right to free speech.
Forostar said:
Foro's opinion do not equal fact, though. Foro's opinion = Foro's opinion.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Anyway, what I think about this topic seems logical, and what I state is certainly not Foro's opinion only. It's no rocket science. I don't know what media you guys are consuming but basically everyone agrees with me.
I guess it's both directions but certainly the Talibs will be on the move. The Afghans are aware of what's going on, and I wouldn't think of a single reason why it would not increase Taliban recruitment.
But if the current elections will come out as bad as they look... that will also bolster recruitment.
Perun said:
I guess it's both directions but certainly the Talibs will be on the move. The Afghans are aware of what's going on, and I wouldn't think of a single reason why it would not increase Taliban recruitment.
But if the current elections will come out as bad as they look... that will also bolster recruitment.
Forostar said:
Heh, what else is new.
Anyway, I'd like to sum this up, since my initial fears proved true. The problem that is being addressed is whether the Taleban actually recruit their fighters among Afghan locals or not. Foro maintains a staunch "yes" while Loosey argues a careful "no". Foro believes the (former) NATO strategy drove and drives locals to the arms of the Taleban one way or the other, while Loosey thinks the Taleban are recruiting most of their followers in Pakistan and elsewhere.
Now the thing is, both arguments are logical. I don't pretend to know which one is right, if one is right and one wrong, or if both are wrong. But I do see that both of you are accusing the other of not being objective and voicing their own opinion: But how about you both provide some evidence to confirm your ideas. I'm sure it will result in a much more civil debate.
Genghis Khan
Ancient Mariner
I've been looking for an article such as this for some time now. Despite the differences between the Vietnam War and the current on in Afghanistan, I believe the policy is ominously similar.
It's not Vietnam, but parallels are growing
September 26, 2009
The Independent
Two conflicts, a generation apart, in some ways so similar, in others so different. But the question gnaws, ever harder to dismiss. Will Afghanistan prove Barack Obama's Vietnam?
Despite the growing American casualties, Afghanistan is a far smaller conflict. Some 60,000 US troops are currently deployed there. At the height of the Vietnam War, US forces in the field topped half a million.
Afghanistan has cost an estimated $185 billion. Vietnam, in today's dollars, cost $600 billion.
That cost would have been higher still had the US not had a largely conscript army. The fact that there is no longer a draft is a major reason that public protest at the Afghan war is virtually non-existent. Casualties in Afghanistan have been a fraction of those in Vietnam, where 58,000 U.S. servicemen died. As of yesterday, 842 Americans have died in Afghanistan.
The justifications for the two conflicts are very different too. Vietnam was fought in the name of the "domino theory" n that if one country in South-east Asia went Communist, the rest would follow. Afghanistan is a post-Cold War conflict, in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
But the similarities are disquieting. Both wars have officially lasted eight years: Vietnam from 1965 to 1973, Afghanistan from 2001 to 2009 (and counting.) Both have unfolded in far-away Asian countries. As in the former South Vietnam, Washington is propping up a corrupt regime in Afghanistan that does not command the allegiance of much of its people. In both, the U.S. is trying a "hearts and minds" campaign to win the loyalty of civilians n and failing. Finally, in Afghanistan as in Vietnam, the goal of the conflict is not clear.
In short, the similarities are not only disquieting. They are also growing.
Canadian led UN confirms suspicions: electoral fraud was indeed the case. The worst part about this is that neither Afghan camp can decide where to go from here. Re-election does not seem to be a reality and least not right now.
Afghan election fraud confirmed
Uncertainty clouds possible runoff
October 19, 2009
Jonathan Montpetit
The Canadian Press
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — Hundreds of thousands of votes cast in Afghanistan’s presidential election will be thrown out of the final count after a Canadian-run United Nations panel confirmed today the August contest was marred by widespread fraud.
The Electoral Complaints Commission, which is headed by Ottawa resident Grant Kippen, submitted a report that sources say pushes incumbent Hamid Karzai’s share of the vote below the 50 per cent threshold needed to prevent a runoff.
“We found a significant amount of fraud in the sample we looked at,” Kippen said in an interview.
It’s up to the Independent Election Commission, however — a body over which Karzai wields a fair degree of influence — to decide whether or not to order a second round of balloting between the incumbent and his challenger, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah.
Abdullah’s campaign accused Karzai of attempting to stall the decision on holding a runoff.
“We call upon the IEC, and Mr. Karzai’s supporters as well, to respect the decisions made by the ECC,” said Ahmad Zia Kechkenni, who headed Abdullah’s delegation before the commission.
Abdullah’s campaign staff members believe a second round is now inevitable and are preparing to return to the campaign trail.
“The Karzai campaign was trying to delay the announcement, but there is not much that Karzai can do now,” said Kechkenni.
Speculation has been rampant that Karzai may not accept the ECC’s conclusions. His campaign team refused to immediately endorse the ECC report, saying it would take time to study the decision.
However, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the suspense would end Tuesday.
“(Karzai) is going to announce his intentions,” Clinton told reporters at the State Department after meeting with Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki. “I am going to let him do that, but I am encouraged at the direction the situation is moving.”
Clinton, who was among several world leaders who have been in touch with Karzai in recent days, declined to say whether the Afghan president has decided to accept the ECC’s recommendation and agree to a runoff.
“I am very hopeful that we will see a resolution in line with the constitutional order in the next several days.”
Prime Minister Stephen Harper also spoke today with Karzai and urged him to “maintain an unqualified commitment to the constitutional democratic process in Afghanistan,” spokesperson Dmitri Soudas said in an email.
“The prime minister noted that Canada and the international community have strongly supported the rebuilding of Afghanistan under President Karzai, the fist democratically national leader in the country’s history.”
Karzai asked Harper “to convey to Canadians his continuing gratitude for the sacrifices made by Canada for the future of his country,” Soudas added.
Kippen refused to say outright whether his report took away enough of Karzai’s votes to drop his support below 50 per cent.
“We simply have communicated our orders to the IEC, now it’s up to them to follow them,” he said.
Canadian diplomatic officials, meanwhile, were pushing the two campaigns to avoid interefering with the ECC directives.
“With the release of the ECC findings we now look to the IEC to implement these findings and come to a swift resolution in accordance with Afghan electoral law,” the Canadian embassy’s chargé d’affaires, Cindy Termorshuizen, said in a statement to the Canadian Press.
Two unnamed international officials familiar with Kippen’s investigation told the Associated Press that the panel’s findings had indeed shown Karzai falling below the 50 per cent threshold.
The AP cited an independent calculation by an election monitoring group, Democracy International, that showed Karzai with 48.3 per cent, or about 2.1 million votes, after more than 995,000 of his votes were thrown out for fraud.
Overall, about 1.3 million votes of the more than 5 million ballots cast were voided. Abdullah lost more than 201,000 votes, but his percentage rose to 31.5 per cent from 27.8 per cent previously.
The prospect of a second round of balloting is deeply unpopular in areas of southern Afghanistan where support for Karzai runs high and where 2,700 Canadian troops are stationed as part of an international force attempting to quell a growing Taliban insurgency.
In Kandahar, many remain unconvinced by suggestions Karzai was the principal beneficiary of whatever fraud took place.
“Yes, there was fraud in election,” said Kandahar city Mayor Ghulam Hayder Hamidi, who is close to Karzai. “But if there was fraud then everybody committed fraud, not only Karzai.”
Hundreds of Karzai supporters protested in the president’s native southern province over the weekend, calling for the electoral commission to release results quickly and pledging to reject a second round of balloting.
There is also an overriding concern in Kandahar that another vote could further destabilize the province’s already fragile security situation.
Several media personalities in Kandahar are suggesting holding a runoff would invite increased attacks by the Taliban, whose threats of violence managed to limit participation in the first round.
The ECC only released the raw data of its findings on Monday, offering a coefficient to determine how many votes each candidate should lose because of fraud.
“The IEC should now review the operational requirements to hold that election and set a date for the earliest possible polling,” said Democracy International.
Afghan law declares Kippen’s UN-backed panel the final arbiter on fraud allegations. However, Karzai supporters on the IEC have argued they must have a say in whether the findings are accepted.
Afghan law requires that a run-off election be held within two weeks of the results of the first round being finalized.
Such a circumstance would require voters to go to the polls on the eve of the Afghan winter.
But once the traditionally heavy snow falls in the high Afghan mountain passes, such an event becomes all but impossible.
Western diplomats have urged the two presidential candidates to reach a power-sharing agreement in order to avoid a new vote and bring an end to the crisis. Both sides have expressed a willingness to talk, but are said to be far apart.
It's not Vietnam, but parallels are growing
September 26, 2009
The Independent
Two conflicts, a generation apart, in some ways so similar, in others so different. But the question gnaws, ever harder to dismiss. Will Afghanistan prove Barack Obama's Vietnam?
Despite the growing American casualties, Afghanistan is a far smaller conflict. Some 60,000 US troops are currently deployed there. At the height of the Vietnam War, US forces in the field topped half a million.
Afghanistan has cost an estimated $185 billion. Vietnam, in today's dollars, cost $600 billion.
That cost would have been higher still had the US not had a largely conscript army. The fact that there is no longer a draft is a major reason that public protest at the Afghan war is virtually non-existent. Casualties in Afghanistan have been a fraction of those in Vietnam, where 58,000 U.S. servicemen died. As of yesterday, 842 Americans have died in Afghanistan.
The justifications for the two conflicts are very different too. Vietnam was fought in the name of the "domino theory" n that if one country in South-east Asia went Communist, the rest would follow. Afghanistan is a post-Cold War conflict, in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
But the similarities are disquieting. Both wars have officially lasted eight years: Vietnam from 1965 to 1973, Afghanistan from 2001 to 2009 (and counting.) Both have unfolded in far-away Asian countries. As in the former South Vietnam, Washington is propping up a corrupt regime in Afghanistan that does not command the allegiance of much of its people. In both, the U.S. is trying a "hearts and minds" campaign to win the loyalty of civilians n and failing. Finally, in Afghanistan as in Vietnam, the goal of the conflict is not clear.
In short, the similarities are not only disquieting. They are also growing.
Forostar said:
Canadian led UN confirms suspicions: electoral fraud was indeed the case. The worst part about this is that neither Afghan camp can decide where to go from here. Re-election does not seem to be a reality and least not right now.
Afghan election fraud confirmed
Uncertainty clouds possible runoff
October 19, 2009
Jonathan Montpetit
The Canadian Press
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — Hundreds of thousands of votes cast in Afghanistan’s presidential election will be thrown out of the final count after a Canadian-run United Nations panel confirmed today the August contest was marred by widespread fraud.
The Electoral Complaints Commission, which is headed by Ottawa resident Grant Kippen, submitted a report that sources say pushes incumbent Hamid Karzai’s share of the vote below the 50 per cent threshold needed to prevent a runoff.
“We found a significant amount of fraud in the sample we looked at,” Kippen said in an interview.
It’s up to the Independent Election Commission, however — a body over which Karzai wields a fair degree of influence — to decide whether or not to order a second round of balloting between the incumbent and his challenger, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah.
Abdullah’s campaign accused Karzai of attempting to stall the decision on holding a runoff.
“We call upon the IEC, and Mr. Karzai’s supporters as well, to respect the decisions made by the ECC,” said Ahmad Zia Kechkenni, who headed Abdullah’s delegation before the commission.
Abdullah’s campaign staff members believe a second round is now inevitable and are preparing to return to the campaign trail.
“The Karzai campaign was trying to delay the announcement, but there is not much that Karzai can do now,” said Kechkenni.
Speculation has been rampant that Karzai may not accept the ECC’s conclusions. His campaign team refused to immediately endorse the ECC report, saying it would take time to study the decision.
However, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the suspense would end Tuesday.
“(Karzai) is going to announce his intentions,” Clinton told reporters at the State Department after meeting with Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki. “I am going to let him do that, but I am encouraged at the direction the situation is moving.”
Clinton, who was among several world leaders who have been in touch with Karzai in recent days, declined to say whether the Afghan president has decided to accept the ECC’s recommendation and agree to a runoff.
“I am very hopeful that we will see a resolution in line with the constitutional order in the next several days.”
Prime Minister Stephen Harper also spoke today with Karzai and urged him to “maintain an unqualified commitment to the constitutional democratic process in Afghanistan,” spokesperson Dmitri Soudas said in an email.
“The prime minister noted that Canada and the international community have strongly supported the rebuilding of Afghanistan under President Karzai, the fist democratically national leader in the country’s history.”
Karzai asked Harper “to convey to Canadians his continuing gratitude for the sacrifices made by Canada for the future of his country,” Soudas added.
Kippen refused to say outright whether his report took away enough of Karzai’s votes to drop his support below 50 per cent.
“We simply have communicated our orders to the IEC, now it’s up to them to follow them,” he said.
Canadian diplomatic officials, meanwhile, were pushing the two campaigns to avoid interefering with the ECC directives.
“With the release of the ECC findings we now look to the IEC to implement these findings and come to a swift resolution in accordance with Afghan electoral law,” the Canadian embassy’s chargé d’affaires, Cindy Termorshuizen, said in a statement to the Canadian Press.
Two unnamed international officials familiar with Kippen’s investigation told the Associated Press that the panel’s findings had indeed shown Karzai falling below the 50 per cent threshold.
The AP cited an independent calculation by an election monitoring group, Democracy International, that showed Karzai with 48.3 per cent, or about 2.1 million votes, after more than 995,000 of his votes were thrown out for fraud.
Overall, about 1.3 million votes of the more than 5 million ballots cast were voided. Abdullah lost more than 201,000 votes, but his percentage rose to 31.5 per cent from 27.8 per cent previously.
The prospect of a second round of balloting is deeply unpopular in areas of southern Afghanistan where support for Karzai runs high and where 2,700 Canadian troops are stationed as part of an international force attempting to quell a growing Taliban insurgency.
In Kandahar, many remain unconvinced by suggestions Karzai was the principal beneficiary of whatever fraud took place.
“Yes, there was fraud in election,” said Kandahar city Mayor Ghulam Hayder Hamidi, who is close to Karzai. “But if there was fraud then everybody committed fraud, not only Karzai.”
Hundreds of Karzai supporters protested in the president’s native southern province over the weekend, calling for the electoral commission to release results quickly and pledging to reject a second round of balloting.
There is also an overriding concern in Kandahar that another vote could further destabilize the province’s already fragile security situation.
Several media personalities in Kandahar are suggesting holding a runoff would invite increased attacks by the Taliban, whose threats of violence managed to limit participation in the first round.
The ECC only released the raw data of its findings on Monday, offering a coefficient to determine how many votes each candidate should lose because of fraud.
“The IEC should now review the operational requirements to hold that election and set a date for the earliest possible polling,” said Democracy International.
Afghan law declares Kippen’s UN-backed panel the final arbiter on fraud allegations. However, Karzai supporters on the IEC have argued they must have a say in whether the findings are accepted.
Afghan law requires that a run-off election be held within two weeks of the results of the first round being finalized.
Such a circumstance would require voters to go to the polls on the eve of the Afghan winter.
But once the traditionally heavy snow falls in the high Afghan mountain passes, such an event becomes all but impossible.
Western diplomats have urged the two presidential candidates to reach a power-sharing agreement in order to avoid a new vote and bring an end to the crisis. Both sides have expressed a willingness to talk, but are said to be far apart.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Looks like we're heading into a new phase where countries are more and more looking at the intentions of the Afghan government. More than ever. Also the UN are becoming sharper now. Excellent, I'd say.
It's time for harder language. If the Afghan government doesn't like it, too bad.
It's time for harder language. If the Afghan government doesn't like it, too bad.
No, I agree there. The Afghan gov't has to stop being a half-hearted partner. They really need to pitch in if they want the help from the West.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Germany's first political casualties of Afghan raid
The highest general in the German army, Schneiderhan, has resigned. The same goes for deputy defence minister, Peter Wichert. Looks like Germany is taking its job serious and takes responsibility when something goes wrong. I haven't seen much of that when I look at other countries.
More in the link.
The highest general in the German army, Schneiderhan, has resigned. The same goes for deputy defence minister, Peter Wichert. Looks like Germany is taking its job serious and takes responsibility when something goes wrong. I haven't seen much of that when I look at other countries.
More in the link.
Perun said: