AFGHANISTAN ... and the august election

Reply Wed 19 Aug, 2009 01:48 pm
so i turn on the television news ... i open the newspaper ... i visit an on-line news site ... and what catches my eye : how important the upcoming election in afghanistan is for the western powers .

will the outcome of the election - which seems to be pretty well known already - really change much of the afghan situation , will afghans be safer in their own country ? i'm not really so sure ... ...

quite a number of retired commanders of western troops in afghanistan have expressed serious doubts about any real change in the afghan "war" - or whatever we want to call it .
might those former commanders know something we usually don't read in the headlines ?

as the taliban commanders say : "They have the watches, but we have the time,” - and the taliban seem to have plenty of recruits ready to join up .

so what will the endgame be : " a strategic withdrawel " - or what ?


Gwynne Dyer: Afghanistan's August election won't change anything
By Gwynne Dyer
Publish Date: August 13, 2009

They have the watches, but we have the time,” say the Taliban commanders in Afghanistan, and it’s perfectly true. The election on August 20, 2009 is not going to change that.
The foreign forces"U.S., Canadian, and European"are well-trained, well-equipped troops who can inflict casualties on amateur Taliban fighters at a ratio of 10-to-one or worse. But the Taliban have an endless flow of fresh fighters, and much popular support among the Pashtuns of the south and southeast"not to mention all the time in the world.

The Taliban were and are almost exclusively Pashtuns, so it was really the Pashtuns, 40 percent of the population and traditionally Afghanistan’s dominant ethnic group, who were driven from power by the U.S. invasion in 2001. They are fighting foreign, non-Muslim invaders, and the government the foreigners put in is corrupt, incompetent, and mostly non-Pashtun. Why wouldn’t the Taliban have support among the Pashtuns?

Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, is a Pashtun, because the United States understood that it needed a Pashtun figurehead. The regime’s most powerful people, however, are non-Pashtun warlords from the various ethnic minorities of the north and centre: Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras.

Now we are asked to believe that an election will restore confidence in the government. It is nonsense: this election has no more relevance than the ones that the United States used to stage in Vietnam. Colonel David Haight, commanding the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the U.S. 10th Mountain Division in Logar and Wardak provinces near Kabul, was helpfully indiscreet about it in a recent interview.

“I think that apathy is going to turn into some anger when the administration doesn’t change, and I don’t think that anybody believes that Karzai is going to lose,” Haight told an embedded reporter from the Guardian. “There is going to be frustration from people who realise there is not going to be a change. The bottom line is they are going to be thinking: 'Four more years of this crap'?”

Unless bribery, blackmail, and threats no longer work in Afghanistan, Karzai is going to win. He isn’t even bothering to run a conventional campaign: he bailed out of a televised debate with the other presidential candidates at the last moment, and leaves it to them to hold election rallies in provincial towns. He has made his deals with the warlords and the traditional ethnic and tribal powerbrokers, and is counting on them to deliver victory.

Karzai and the United States are shackled to the warlords because those were the allies that the U.S. recruited to fight the Taliban on the ground when it invaded Afghanistan in 2001. The Taliban, being exclusively Pashtun, never controlled all of the country; Tajik, Hazara, and Uzbek militias continued to hold out all across the north. So the U.S. made deals with their leaders, showered them with weapons and money, and helped them into power instead.

It made good sense militarily, but it meant that the non-Pashtun warlords would dominate the post-Taliban government. They don’t live in the hills any more, but in the wealthy Kabul neighbourhood of Sherpar. Two of them, Mohammad Qasim Fahim, a key Tajik warlord, and Karim Khalili, a Hazara warlord, are Karzai’s choices as vice-presidents.

The West’s government in Kabul is not going to get any better"and it cannot, given its origins. There will be “four more years of crap,” and by the end of that the American, Canadian, and European voters whose governments sent their troops to Afghanistan will be ready to bring them home. What will happen then?

Nothing particularly dramatic. Afghanistan was invaded in revenge for 9/11, but the U.S. could have been played it differently from the start. Right after 9/11, a thousand-strong shura (congress) of Muslim clerics in Kabul declared its sympathy with the dead Americans and voted to expel Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda from the country.

The Taliban regime had just made a lucrative deal with the United States to eradicate poppy growing in the country, and most younger Taliban commanders wanted to maintain the deal and expel the Arab crazies. Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, barely managed to overrule them, and if the United States had spread some serious money around it could easily have gone the other way.

Washington wasn’t interested in that outcome because after 9/11 the American public wanted blood. Understandable enough, but invading Afghanistan is always a bad idea (although it is always temptingly easy). Once the invaders have left, however, the Afghans never follow them home. It won’t happen this time either.

Western rhetoric insists that the hills of Afghanistan are directly connected to the streets of Manhattan, London, and Toronto. But no Afghan, not even any member of the Taliban, was involved in the planning or execution of 9/11, nor in the later, lesser attacks elsewhere in the West. Nor would the Taliban sweep back into power if all Western troops left Afghanistan tomorrow; the other players are still in the game.

Everybody who dies in this conflict is dying for nothing, because it will not change what happens when the foreign troops finally go home. As they eventually will.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,222 • Replies: 6
No top replies

Reply Wed 19 Aug, 2009 01:53 pm
It won't be health care reform that brings down Obama; it will be Afghanistan.
Reply Wed 19 Aug, 2009 02:04 pm
dys :
won't just be obama who'll suffer from this "expedition" if he persists .

many other western nations are preparing for an "exit strategy " .
successive canadian governments - both liberal and the curent conservative government have said that candian troops will be leaving by the end of 2011 - though some "assistance" groups (engineering , police ... might stay on a little longer) .
there isn't much "appetite" for staying longer and keeping karzai on his throne (wonder where he will be going eventually - he seems very well protected from the taliban - though "his people" are not . always seem to be the "ordinary" people who will suffer most ) .
Reply Wed 19 Aug, 2009 02:23 pm
part of an interview with general mcchrystal .

see link for full text :

... Afterwards I asked him, if the situation was so serious, was he going to win?

"We are," he replied. When? There was a faint pause, then he said it was difficult to predict.

"We'll win it when we connect with enough of the Afghan people, where they have finally said, 'Enough.'"

Gen McChrystal is planning to apply a new broom to the complicated mess he has inherited in Afghanistan.
He has said publicly that he is giving himself from 18 months to two years to see if this new approach works.

good thinking to leave an escape hatch open ... "18 months to 2 years " ... - that's really an awfully short time in afghanistan imo - not even enough time to call for tribal meetings - and have many cups of tea .

of course , others have tried too ... ... he isn't the first one , is he ?

(an unanswered question : will the other western allies join in ? )
0 Replies
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 02:21 am
It won't be health care reform that brings down Obama; it will be Afghanistan.

Yes, I think so, too. No one can really satisfactorily explain what, exactly, NATO & countries allied to the US are attempting to achieve there.

To me, our (joint) involvement in Afghanistan seems a sad & sorry throw-back to aggressive Bush Politics. It seems oddly out of place in 2009, especially following Obama's inspiring Cairo speech, months ago ... dialogue with the Muslim world to find mutually desired solutions between "the west" & Muslims. But once again the US & its allies are the unwelcome invaders. This is so disappointing!

And the current election? The "leader" we are backing in Afghanistan has sold out women to gain support, has made deals with the hated war lords, is implicated in corrupt activities related to the heroin trade. Does supporting more of the same in Afghanistan justify the loss of NATA & other troop lives? Or justify yet more misery & more deaths 0f innocent Afghan people caught up (yet again) in a war zone? I don't think so. The likely outcome of this election will do little for them & it will achieve little for us.
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2009 09:40 am
The likely outcome of this election will do little for them & it will achieve little for us.

i'm sure it will be called a "free and democratic election" .
there must be some money/political advantages in this ill-fated war - never mind the casualties on all sides .
unfortunately most of us have really become tired even talking about it - and the talking likely won't do any good anyway - might as well talk about the weather .
since it's all "volunteers" fighting on the side of the west , some people (in canada) seem to think that if they get maimed or killed : "well , they volunteered ; they have no reason to complain ! " . (makes me shiver) .
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2010 10:43 am
just having a look at the past - and what do i find :

It won't be health care reform that brings down Obama; it will be Afghanistan.

( just scroll back a few posts . )

seems to me that afghanistan has disappeared from the radar-screen of most americans .

anyone care to comment ?
0 Replies

Related Topics

  1. Forums
  2. » AFGHANISTAN ... and the august election
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/27/2022 at 05:45:06