Taliban Capitalizes on Afghanistan's Election Controversy
Taliban Capitalizes on Afghanistan's Election Controversy
By Craig Whitlock
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, September 20, 2009; 12:43 PM
Quote:
KABUL, Sept. 20 -- The big winner in the fraud-ridden, never-ending Afghanistan elections is turning out to be a party not even on the ballot: the Taliban.
A stream of revelations about systematic cheating during last month's vote has given the Taliban fresh ammunition in their propaganda campaign to portray President Hamid Karzai's administration as hopelessly corrupt. Infighting among U.S., U.N. and European diplomats over whether to accept the results with Karzai the winner or force a new round of voting has also fed the Taliban line that the government in Kabul is merely a puppet of foreign powers.
Mullah Omar, the Taliban's reclusive leader, broke his silence Saturday to denounce "the so-called elections which were fraught with fraud and lies and which were categorically rejected by the people."
In a statement released on the Internet to mark the end of Ramadan, Omar also railed against what he called "the rampant corruption in the surrogate Kabul administration, the embezzlement, drug trafficking, the existence of mafia networks, the tyranny and high-handedness of the warlords," according to a translation by the NEFA Foundation, a terrorism research group.
The problem for the Afghan government and its chief benefactor, the Obama administration, is that the Taliban's rhetoric has been echoed in recent days by U.S. and European officials, as well as some Afghan leaders, who have characterized the Aug. 20 election as a debacle and Karzai's government as inept.
Who's Afraid of A Terrorist Haven?
Via an IT security blogsite ( http://www.schneier.com/blog/ ) an article on terrorist havens in US strategy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...src=newsletter The author Paul Pillar is ex-CIA.
davidbfpo
Dostum, Northern lliance and warlords
Accoring to this odd article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...es-aid//print/ these warlords are offering their help against the Taliban. Rhetoric aside - is this a "quick fix" to the lack of Afghan troops i.e. ANA?
I can hear the critics already on relying once more on the warlords, let alone the Northern Alliance and it's human rights record. Plus the presentation aspect of non-Pashtuns campaigning in the south and east.
Could a re-mobilised "temporary ANA" deployed in the north, even around Kabul, enable ANA units re-deployment and enable R&R for those in the south? Not a "quick fix", but IMHO a good fix.
On reflection and assuming Karzai retains the presidency, which Dostum supported, could Karzai use that re-mobilisation himself and show NATO / ISAF that he can provide more ANA troops.(Note I am aware that the ANA is a mixture, but has a large core fom the North and few Pashtuns).
davidbfpo
Stewart: The Irresistable Illusion
I keep looking for some convincing way to punch holes in Rory Stewart's arguments, but I'm still waiting to hear it. Lots of ways, means, sub-ways, and sub-means.
Isn't targeting UBL a mission, not a war?
Steve
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n13/stew01_.html
Building on sand (Part Two)
Steve and others,
Within a long article by Micheal Yon on other matters (UK PR in Helmand) he says (dated 25th):
Quote:
This dispatch is being written in downtown Kandahar City and I have not seen a soldier in days. The Taliban is slowing winning this city. There have been many bombings and shootings since I arrived in disguise.
Cited from: http://www.michaelyon-online.com/bull####-bob.htm
Perhaps my first posting (above and now edited ) was wrong - when I said Kandahar was 'out of control', but Yon suggests there is no real ANA / ANP activity nor as expected any ISAF presence in the city.
Apologies now as an "armchair" observer. What is going on in Kandahar city? I read about a population-centric approach and this is happening. Despair.
davidbfpo
Nation building for professionals ...
The WP article has this:
Quote:
McChrystal's 66-page confidential assessment makes the case for a far more expansive counterinsurgency mission, one that would involve sending more troops and civilian reconstruction personnel to Kandahar and other key population centers to improve security, governance and economic opportunities for Afghans. Although the general never used the term in the assessment, his strategy amounts to a comprehensive nation-building endeavor.
He wants U.S. and NATO personnel to expand training programs for Afghan soldiers and policemen, reform the justice system, promote more effective local administration and ramp up reconstruction. If that occurs, he and other counterinsurgency experts contend, then Afghans who have sided with the Taliban out of fear or necessity will eventually switch sides and support the government. Building an effective state, in McChrystal's view, is the only way to defeat the insurgency.
I don't necessarily see the GEN's report as a call for "a comprehensive nation-building endeavor"; but as more of a call for enhancing the security sector according to what are presently considered "best COIN practices". That will be difficult enough.
For those who accept the WP's author's view of the report - "a comprehensive nation-building endeavor" - they should plow through James Dobbins, Seth G. Jones, Keith Crane, Beth Cole DeGrasse, The Beginner’s Guide to Nation-Building (2007) - RAND download here. They should pay particular attention to the (other than military) constituent elements that make up any nation-building mission: police, rule of law, humanitarian relief, governance, economic stabilization, democratization, and development. And, those should be considered in light of the size, topography and population of Astan.
To conclude, I steal a thought from Taiko (in another thread and in another context):
Quote:
I think that's worth repeating, without a viable and functioning 'state' there is no security. South Vietman during the late 60's-70's perfect example. Again, this is CvC's paradoxical trinity at work. You can surge all you want, 100 000-200 000 soilders but it is important to remember that the military is only one side of the trinity, there is also the people and the government. At the end of the day if you do not have a stable government as the head of state then you are heading into a protracted war which will cost blood and treasure without a necessarily beneficial outcome for the people.
Regards to all
Mike