La crisi delle elezioni afghane entra in una nuova fase + vari artt./KARZAI DEVE SOTTOMETTERSI AD UN BALLOTTAGGIO

Aumenta tra i Democratici la divisione sull’Afghanistan

●    Per aumentare il numero dei soldati in Afghanistan l’Amministrazione Obama deve chiedere maggiori stanziamenti al Congresso, e i due presidenti delle commissioni spesa di Camera e Senato (entrambi Democratici) devono essere d’accordo.

●    Così non è:

o   il presidente della commissione del senato appoggia le richieste di McChrystal di 40 000 soldati in più contro l’insorgenza;

o   quello della Camera ribadisce i propri dubbi per la guerra stessa, gli Usa non avrebbero alleati affidabili (governo pakistano e afghano); risvolti negativi ad una presenza di lungo termine sia sulla popolazione afghana che sulle finanze americane.

–   Il precedente presidente, Democratico, della commissione del senato: nel corso degli otto anni (di occupazione) si è persa la ragione della missione militare americana, diluita in un più ampio progetto di “costruzione nazionale” … Se c’è bisogno di più soldati per la missione internazionale in Afgh. che la comunità internazionale fornisca più soldati e più soldi.

–   Le due versioni di Camera e Senato della legge sulla spesa per la Difesa per il 2010 prevedono un finanziamento di $128 MD per le guerre in Irak e Afghanisan, cifra che però non comprende il costo di truppe aggiuntive,

o   per ogni 1000 soldati in più inviati in Afghanistan occorrerebbero $1 MD l’anno, per 40 000 soldati in più $40 MD in più.

La crisi delle elezioni afghane entra in una nuova fase James Cogan/

Gli USA accrescono la pressione su Karzai per i brogli elettorali in Afghanistan /Bill Van Auken

Il vice di Karzai dice che è probabile un ballottaggio

●    La controversia sulle elezioni afghane acuisce la crisi a Washington sull’escalation della guerra in Afghanistan, con un massiccio aumento delle truppe americane, che richiede “un partner afghano credibile”.

●    Emergono divergenze sulla strategia da seguire anche tra i Democratici USA;

●    l’alto diplomatico USA nella missione ONU in Afghanistan e stretto amico dell’inviato speciale Richard Holbrooke, Peter Galbraith, contrario ad un maggior impegno militare diretto USA.

o   se l’amministrazione Obama consente a Karzai di dichiararsi vincitore alimenta i sentimenti antibellici negli USA, aggrava la frattura tra le fazioni favorevoli all’occupazione della classe dominante afghana:

o   Abdullah Abdullah e il governatore della provincia settentrionale di Balkh, suo seguace; si temono scontri aperti tra i sostenitori di Abdullah e la milizia del comandante uzbeko Dostum, che appoggiava Karzai, e tra i tagiki delle province di N-E pro Karzai e quelle pro- Abdullah.

o   Nel Sud Pashtun il riconoscimento della rielezione di Karzai farebbe accrescere l’appoggio ai talebani, soprattutto se arrivassero migliaia di nuovi soldati, a sostenere il regime fantoccio di Karzai.

●    Tra le alternative emerse nel dibattito USA:

o   un accordo con i talebani, a condizione che pongano fine alla resistenza e riconoscano il regime di Kabul sostenuto dagli USA. Allo scopo è in atto gli USA stanno cercando di far marcia indietro su anni di propaganda che non distingue tra la rete dei talebani e quella di al-Qaeda.

o   I talebani hanno oggi poco interesse a scendere a patti, essendo in una posizione di forza militare e politica maggiore rispetto a tutto il periodo di occupazione dal 2001.

o   Un’altra opzione sarebbe una conferenza tra i rappresentanti [delle potenze] e i capi tribali – una loya jirga, per creare un governo di unità nazionale, opzione che si coinciderebbe con quanto si suggerisce all’interno dell’Amm. Obama di offrire denaro a fazioni talebane perché entrino nel governo, in cambio della loro accettazione e cooperazione con il regime fantoccio, anziché di aumentare il numero dei soldati.

●    Altra opzione l’eliminazione di Karzai, come avvenne nel 1963 con il corrotto presidente sud-vietnamita, Ngo Dinh Diem, assassinato nel 1963.

●    Le decisioni finali sul risultato elettorale sono nelle mani di USA e UE, e saranno determinate da cosa serve di più per reprimere i ribelli e consolidare la presa sull’Afghanistan.

o   Il capo di gabinetto della Casa Bianca, Rahm Emanuel, ha minacciato implicitamente che non ci saranno aumenti di truppe (come vorrebbe Karzai) finché la disputa elettorale non sarà risolta; posizione analoga a quella del senatore dem. John Kerry, che preside la commissione del senato per le relazioni estere.

o   Spola tra i due contendenti afghani anche del ministro Esteri francese, Bernard Kouchner si è detto preoccupato perché non tutti accettano i risultati (della commissione ONU). Kouchner vuol fare riconoscere da Karzai i risultati elettorali reali, e spingere ad un programma di riforme urgenti, che avrebbero l’appoggio di tutti i partiti in lizza.

o   Hanno discusso con Karzai e Abdullah, anche il primo ministro britannico, Gordon Brown, la segretaria di Stato americana, Hillary Clinton, e l’inviato speciale di Obama per Afg-Pak, Richard Holbrooke.

o   Il British Telegraph riporta la proposta di un diplomatico occidentale: raggiungere un accordo con il riconoscimento della vittoria di Karza, in cambio di pulizia contro i corrotti nella sua amministrazione. Figure importanti, tra cui il fratello di Karzai sono implicati nel commercio di droga.

– Per ora sembra che Karzai respinga le conclusioni della commissione ONU, e di conseguenza un ballottaggio, oppure come preferirebbero Washington ed alleati la condivisione del potere con Abdullah, che avrebbe già proposto le condizioni per un patto di questo tipo: 10 posti ministeriali e 20 in ambasciate; sembra che Karzai non le voglia accettare.

– Anche Zalmay Khalilzad, il diplomatico americano di origini afghane, ambasciatore per Bush nel paese occupato e poi per l’ONU è in Afghanistan come mediatore di un accordo di questo tipo, il risultato più probabile sarebbe a suo avviso un governo di unità nazionale, che richiederà del tempo per essere formato, sarà poco forte e non potrà essere un partner molto efficace, date le divergenze interne.

– Lo scorso maggio Khalizad avanzò la proposta di divenire il “funzionario capo esecutivo” del governo afghano, mantenendo la cittadinanza americana, e relegando Karzai ad una funzione per lo più cerimoniale.

– Proposta alternativa a quella del gen. McChrystal (sul forte aumento di truppe) quella del colonnello Davis, ufficiale di collegamento tra le forze Usa in Afghanistan e il comando centrale: gli USA devono imporre un controllo più diretto di stile coloniale sul regime afghano, per condurre operazioni militari efficaci. Con un’insorgenza diffusa su centinaia di migliaia di miglia quadrate su un terreno inospitale anche 40mila soldati in più non basterebbero a contenere la marea. Ce ne vorrebbero almeno 100mila, e con tutti i problemi logistici che ne deriverebbero ci vorrebbero almeno 12 mesi per dispiegarli, i 12 mesi ritenuti decisivi da MacChrystal per tentare di soggiogare l’Afghanistan …

o   Se USA ed Europa chiedono il ballottaggio, probabilmente possibile solo dopo l’inverno, permettono ai talebani di rafforzare la propria influenza.

o   In entrambi i casi è un fallimento per la propaganda americana di aver portato la “democrazia” in Afghanistan.

–   L’elezione presidenziale del 20 agosto è stata una sconfitta per l’occupazione Usa: secondo gli osservatori ONU[1] 1,5/1,3 mn. voti a favore di Karzai sono fraudolenti, i votanti sarebbero stati solo il 30%, e Karzai avrebbe ricevuto non più del 46/48%; Abdullah Abdullah il 31%nel sud Pashtun avrebbero votato solo il 10% [solo il 5%] degli elettori, per appoggio a o timore dei talebani, che hanno chiesto di boicottare le votazioni.

o   Secondo i risultati provvisori, 16 sett. 2009: Karzai al 54,6% su 5,5 milioni di voti validi (15 milioni gli elettori registrati); Abdullah Abdullah al 27,8%.

– La commissione elettorale afghana, controllata da uomini di Karzai, ha bloccato la trasmissione delle conclusioni della commissione dell’ONU, e nelle province di Kandahar e Ghazni sono state organizzate manifestazioni contro “l’ingerenza straniera”.

–   In caso di decisione di aumento delle truppe americane per Obama si pone il problema da dove prendere i soldati aggiuntivi; sono disponibili per i prossimi sei mesi solo 15 000, dei 60 000 in più richiesti dal generale McChrystal. I 120 000 ancora in Irak vi devono rimanere fino a dopo le elezioni di gennaio.

●    Le forze di occupazione USA e Nato, 100 000, continuano a subire perdite ad un ritmo inedito, causa l’intensificazione della insorgenza guidata dai talebani;

●    i militari americani calcolano che negli ultimi quattro anni i ribelli che appoggiano i talebani sono aumentati da 7000 a oltre 25000, cifra che includerebbe migliaia di guerriglieri sotto il comando dei signori della guerra pashtun (in particolare nelle provincie del Sud e dell’Est) e dei leader mujaheddin, in precedenza anti-sovietici e finanziati dagli USA Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani.

o   Ad ottobre i caduti sono stati già 29, 408 da inizio anno. Tra i caduti più recenti americani, britannici, polacchi, spagnoli, svedesi e australiani.

o   I polacchi hanno 2000 soldati in Afghanistan, gli australiani 1550 (nei due scorsi anni ne sono morti 10, oltre 80 i feriti);

o   9000 i soldati britannici, 221 i caduti finora, 84 nel solo 2009.

o   430 i soldati svedesi, 130 i finlandesi.

–   I talebani avrebbero cellule di guerriglieri che operano nell’80% dell’Afghanistan e in tute le principali città;

●    Secondo il ministro della Difesa afghano, combatterebbero con i talebani almeno 4000 islamisti provenienti dalle ex repubbliche sovietiche centro-asiatiche e dal Nord Africa.

●    La possibilità di un ballottaggio, come voluto dalla diplomazia occidentale, ed ora riconosciuta da Karzai, potrebbe complicare il dibattito USA sull’invio o meno di altre truppe in Afghanistan.

o   Una commissione elettorale dovrebbe annunciare sabato che Karzai ha ottenuto solo il 48% dei consensi.

o   Il ballottaggio potrebbe doversi tenere solo in primavera, il che creerebbe una difficile situazione di incertezza per la Casa Bianca,

o   e richiede di nuovo importanti misure di sicurezza.

– I consiglieri di Obama sono divisi sull’opportunità di annunciare l’invio di nuove truppe in Afghanistan senza sapere chi sarà il nuovo presidente, o se aspettare finché la situazione si chiarisca. Le decisioni a riguardo sarebbero attese entro poche settimane; 12-18 mesi il tempo disponibile per fare progressi in Afghanistan, secondo funzionari dell’Amministrazione e il gen. McChrystal, alto comandante Nato in Afgh.

●    Ulteriore complicazione la possibilità di una coalizione di governo tra Karzai e il suo contendente Abdullah Abdullah, possibilità già segnalata dai due.

Un altro aumento delle truppe – Obama invia 13 000 soldati in Afghanistan

–   Dopo i 21 00 dello scorso marzo, autorizzato da Obama l’invio di altri 13 000 uomini in Afghanistan, , più di quanti finora si sapeva; sarebbero soprattutto unità di appoggio, personale sanitario, ingegneri e polizia militare.

–   Oggi in Afghanistan ci sarebbero circa 65 000 soldati USA, secondo il Washington Post.

Operazioni chirurgiche definiscono il dibattito sull’Afghanistan

–   La serie di recenti operazioni “chirurgiche” – che hanno consentito di eliminare 11 dei 20 leader di al-Qaeda obiettivo degli USA, fortemente ridotto la capacità operativa di al-Qaeda, soprattutto nelle aree tribali del Pakistan, e impedito gran pare del suo finanziamento – danno fiato alla richiesta di forte incremento del numero dei militari in Afghanistan.

o   Obama non sembra però più prossimo di Bush alla cattura di Bin Laden, del suo vice Ayman al-Zawahiri o del leader talebano, il mullah Muhammad Omar.

–   Gates ed altri hanno criticato le dichiarazioni del gen. McChrystal sulla necessità di un aumento delle truppe rese pubblicamente.

–   La Casa Bianca: Obama non intende ritirare i 68 000 soldati dall’Afghanistan, che vengano o meno aumentate come chiesto da McChrystal;

–   il vice-presidente J.R Biden propone: mantenere il numero attuale ma concentrare maggiormente le azioni sugli attacchi con aerei senza pilota Predator e Reaper e sulle operazioni delle forze speciali.

o   secondo i critici – tra cui McChrystal che ha diretto il comando congiunto delle operazioni speciali – tale proposta non tiene conto che le operazioni speciali dipendono da una forte presenza di soldati sul terreno che forniscono informazioni e riducono lo spazio di operazioni per al-Qaeda.

o   Inoltre sconfiggere al-Qaeda significa combattere anche i talebani; si aggiungono le difficoltà delle relazioni con il Pakistan spesso avute in caso di attacchi con droni sul suo territorio.

Democratic Split on Afghanistan Deepens

By Ben Pershing

–   The House and Senate Democratic leaders already appear to have their differences on the way forward in Afghanistan. Now the two men who control the purse strings for the federal government have also parted ways on the subject.

In the span of just a few hours Tuesday, the chairmen of the House and Senate appropriations committees — both Democrats — made markedly different public statements on what President Obama should do next and whether more troops should be sent to bolster the war effort,

–   with Sen. Daniel Inouye (Hawaii) voicing support for a new counterinsurgency strategy and Rep. David Obey (Wis.) reiterating his doubts about the entire venture. The split matters, since an increase in troops for Afghanistan would likely require the Obama administration to ask Congress for more money, and Inouye and Obey would need to agree.

–   Inouye returned from a trip to Afghanistan Tuesday night and issued a statement endorsing the overall strategic recommendations of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander there. "At this time, I believe General McChrystal’s assessment of the current situation and his conclusions, including his assessment that coalition forces must have more daily contact with the people of Afghanistan, is correct and is what is needed if we are to achieve security and stability in Afghanistan," Inouye said. "As for the specific numbers of U.S. troops that may be required for this new strategy, I will await specific recommendations from the military and the Administration."

–   While acknowledging the high cost of sending more troops, Inouye said: "If, after further consultation and deliberation we decide we need 40,000 more troops or 50,000 more troops in Afghanistan, that’s what we’ll send but much more discussion has to take place before a final decision on troop levels can be made."

–   Obey, meanwhile, delivered a speech in Stevens Point, Wis., where he made clear that he does not believe the national will exists for a big troop buildup, nor does he believe the U.S. has reliable partners in this fight.

–   "When you have to work through two weak reeds like the Pakistan government and Afghan government, it severely limits what you can accomplish," Obey said, according to the Wausau Daily Herald (as was flagged by "The Cable" blog on ForeignPolicy.com).

Obey later added, "If we’re going to try and take on the Taliban all across Afghanistan, it’s going to require hundreds of thousands of American, Pakistani and Afghani troops, and I just don’t believe that this country wants to see that happen."

–   Obey has made these points before, issuing a lengthy statement last week outlining the pitfalls of a continued long-term U.S. presence in Afghanistan. "Because it would drain the spirit of the country over that long period of time as well as drain the U.S. treasury, it would devour virtually any other priorities that the President or anyone in Congress had," Obey said.

–   The split goes beyond just the current chairmen. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the previous Appropriations head before Inouye, made a rare visit to the Senate floor Wednesday to say: "I have become deeply concerned that in the eight years since the September 11 attacks, the reason for the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan has become lost, consumed in some broader scheme of nation-building which has clouded our purpose and obscure our reasoning." Byrd said he did not understand what McChrystal aimed to achieve with his troop request, and "if more troops are required to support an international mission in Afghanistan, then the international community should step up and provide the additional forces and funding."

That top Democrats are divided on Afghanistan is clear, but the next step on Capitol Hill is not.

–   The House and Senate are just beginning negotiations to reconcile their different versions of the Defense appropriations bill for 2010, and both measures include $128 billion to fund ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that amount simply represents the Obama administration’s best guess, made months ago, for what the Pentagon would need over the next year.

–   That money does not included the cost of adding more troops beyond the current level. In his statement Tuesday, Inouye used the estimate that each additional 1,000 troops sent to Afghanistan would cost $1 billion per year, and that same ballpark number has been used by Appropriations aides and the administration. So a 40,000-troop increase would require something like $40 billion to fund.

But no one knows yet what strategy Obama will choose, and since the Pentagon has a huge budget and at least some flexibility to shift money between accounts, no one on Capitol Hill is willing to hazard a guess yet as to when the White House will have to ask for more money. When it does, Obey and Inouye — and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), among others — will have to sit down in a room and settle their differences.

World Socialist Web Site

Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)

Another costly week in Afghanistan

–   As the Obama administration considers a request for the deployment of as many as 60,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, the current 100,000-strong US and NATO occupation force is continuing to suffer casualties at an unprecedented rate. In the week since eight American soldiers were killed in a major insurgent attack on a now abandoned base in the province of Nuristan, a further 10 troops have lost their lives and dozens have been wounded. The October death toll has already reached 29 and the total number of fatalities in 2009 stands at 408.

–   The rising casualties are due to the significant growth of the Taliban-led insurgency. The US military, as part of its campaign to press for a major surge of troops, estimated this month that the number of Taliban-aligned insurgents has grown from around 7,000 to over 25,000 in the past four years. The figure reportedly includes the thousands of fighters commanded by the Pashtun warlords and former US-financed, anti-Soviet mujahaddin leaders, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani.

–   It is now believed the Taliban have active guerrilla cells operating in 80 percent of Afghanistan and all of the country’s major cities. Abdul Rahim Wardak, the Afghan defence minister, claimed on Saturday that at least 4,000 Islamist militants from Pakistan, the former Soviet Central Asian republics and North Africa were fighting alongside the Taliban.

–   The latest casualties include American, British, Polish, Spanish, Swedish and Australian troops. The majority were caused by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) or landmines, which Afghan guerrillas are setting with increasingly lethal proficiency. Dozens of pro-occupation Afghan government soldiers, police and officials have also lost their lives or been wounded. Four Afghan troops were killed on Sunday in the eastern province of Paktika. The governor and police commander of Shah Khil, a district in Paktika, were killed by an IED on Saturday.

–   An American soldier died Friday in an IED attack in an unspecified part of western Afghanistan, most likely Herat province. The same day, two Polish soldiers were killed in the eastern province of Wardak when their supply vehicle struck a mine. Another four soldiers were seriously injured. In the course of the eight-year war, 15 Polish troops have lost their lives. The Polish government has 2,000 personnel deployed in Afghanistan.

An Australian soldier was wounded on Friday in an attack in the southern province of Uruzgan. The Australian contingent in Afghanistan numbers 1,550. In the past two years, 10 have been killed and more than 80 wounded.

Lance Corporal James Hill became the 221st British death in Afghanistan when he was killed last Thursday by an IED. Insurgents had managed to rig a bomb along the track used by British troops to reach their practice firing range near Camp Bastion, the major military base in Helmand province. An investigation is reportedly underway into the security breach. Media reports have suggested that the explosive may have been set up by children, who were often permitted to enter the area to pick up expended brass cartridge cases. The 9,000-strong British force in Afghanistan has lost 84 dead and more than 300 wounded so far this year.

A joint patrol by Swedish and Finnish troops on the outskirts of the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif, in Balkh province, was also ambushed on Thursday. Insurgents fired rocket propelled grenades and small arms at their armoured vehicles. Two Swedes were wounded. Sweden has 430 troops in Afghanistan and Finland has 130. Until recently, there was relatively little insurgent activity in Balkh.

–   Last Wednesday, a seventh Spanish soldier died in Afghanistan in an IED attack in the western province of Badghis—an area, like Balkh, considered one of the “safer” parts of the country. The Taliban are now targeting the provinces in order to disrupt the NATO northern supply route through Central Asia, which is increasingly being used due to insurgent attacks on convoys through Pakistan.

–   The reality of an intractable and spreading insurgency that has broad popular support, particularly in the ethnic Pashtun southern and eastern provinces of the country, is fuelling the debate in Washington over alternatives to increasing troop numbers.

–   One option being considered is to seek a settlement with the Taliban on the proviso that it ends resistance and accepts the legitimacy of the US-backed regime in Kabul. Over the past week, Obama administration officials have downplayed years of US propaganda blurring the distinction between the Taliban and the Al Qaeda network. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told journalists on Friday that there was “clearly a difference” and that the Taliban did not pose a “transnational threat”. Such statements point to the possibility of overtures to various Taliban factions and allies.

–   After eight years of fighting, however, the Taliban have little reason to accept any terms dictated by Washington. Militarily and politically, it is in the strongest position since the 2001 invasion. The August 20 presidential election in Afghanistan has been a debacle for the US occupation. Of some five million votes counted, as many as 1.5 million were likely fraudulent, primarily benefiting incumbent President Hamid Karzai. Across the Pashtun south, as few as 5 percent of the population voted, either because of support for or fear of the Taliban, which called for a boycott.

–   Two months later, no official result has been announced while the White House ponders how to deal with the blatant election rigging by Karzai and his supporters. The senior UN representative in Afghanistan, Kai Eide, admitted on the weekend that there was evidence of “widespread fraud”.

–   If the Obama administration allows Karzai to claim victory, it will only fuel popular hostility toward what is nothing more than a puppet regime. If it insists on new elections, the poll cannot be held until after winter, allowing the Taliban to extend its influence. Whatever decision is made, US propaganda that its invasion has brought “democracy” to Afghanistan has been completely discredited.

The other dilemma facing Obama is where additional American troops for an Afghan surge would come from. While General Stanley McChrystal has reportedly asked for as many as 60,000 more personnel, as few as 15,000 are believed to be available for deployment over the next six months. Some 120,000 troops are still in Iraq and are slated to remain there until well after elections in January.

About the WSWS | Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Top of page

Copyright © 1998-2009 World Socialist Web Site – All rights reserved

Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)

Afghan election crisis enters new stage

The crisis surrounding the August 20 presidential election in Afghanistan is set to enter a new stage. The result is scheduled to be announced, after supposedly taking into account evidence of blatant rigging in favour of the current president, Hamid Karzai.

–   The preliminary result released on September 16 gave Karzai 54.6 percent of the 5.5 million votes cast, out of a possible 15 million registered voters. His nearest rival, Abdullah Abdullah, received 27.8 percent. Karzai’s outright victory, if made official, would exclude a second-round run-off and he would be installed for another five-year term.

–   UN observers, however, have publicly estimated that at least 1.5 million votes were fraudulent. This suggests that far less than 30 percent of the electorate voted and that Karzai received no more than 46 percent. In the ethnic Pashtun southern provinces where the anti-occupation insurgency is most active, as few as 10 percent of voters actually cast a ballot.

Two months after the poll, matters are coming to a head. A decision has to be made over the fate of the US-backed puppet government in Kabul.

–   The UN-appointed Election Complaints Commission, comprising an American, a Dutch, a Canadian and two Afghan members, has reportedly finished weeks examining questionable ballots. The audit will be sent to Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission to issue the final result, possibly in the next few days.

Within the framework of the Afghan constitution, there are only two options. The EEC can decide to ignore the scale of the fraud and declare Karzai the victor. Alternatively, it can recommend that tens of thousands of votes be thrown out, bringing Karzai’s margin below 50 percent and triggering a second-round election. It is unlikely that a poll could be held before the end of the Afghan winter.

–   At the end of September, reinstalling Karzai seemed to be the preferred option. The ECC announced that it would only audit 10 percent of the disputed ballots—making it easier to downplay the extent of fraud. Sources told the Washington Post that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had reassured Karzai he would remain president.

Several weeks later, however, the election still poses political dilemmas in the US and Europe where the real decisions will be made. Evidence of blatant poll rigging has undermined propaganda that the US-led occupation was to help “democracy” take root. A majority of people in the US and its European allies now oppose the war.

–   Differences over how to proceed were on display at a press conference on Sunday by the top UN envoy in Afghanistan, Kai Eide. Flanked by the US, British and French ambassadors, he admitted there had been “significant fraud” in the election, but rejected the claims of his former assistant, Peter Galbraith, that the UN was helping to cover up the scale of the vote-rigging.

–   Eide ordered Galbraith out of Afghanistan and he was then sacked by the UN at the end of September. Galbraith has subsequently waged a public campaign in the American media, condemning Eide and the election. At least six other senior UN officials in Afghanistan have resigned in support of Galbraith.

–   Galbraith’s comments make clear that the debate over the election is linked to the Obama administration’s deliberations over whether to massively increase the number of US troops in the country. He told the New York Times yesterday that the election outcome was “central to the question of whether you send more troops and invest in an enhanced counterinsurgency” as it “requires a credible Afghan partner”.

–   Galbraith’s concerns are no doubt widely shared. To keep Karzai as president would only fuel antiwar sentiment in the US as well as deepen the already serious rifts among the pro-occupation factions of the Afghan elite. Abdullah Abdullah has continued to denounce the election as legitimate and to call for a second-round poll.

–   In the northern province of Balkh, pro-Abdullah governor Atta Mohammad Noor has stated he would not accept the authority of a Karzai government.

–   There are concerns that open fighting could break out between his supporters and the militia of ethnic Uzbek strongman Abdul Rashid Dostum, who backed Karzai. Fighting could also erupt between rival pro-Karzai and pro-Abdullah ethnic Tajik powerbrokers in the northeastern provinces.

–   In the ethnic Pashtun south, Karzai’s re-election through wholesale fraud would only boost support for the Taliban, especially as thousands more foreign troops pour into the country. The Taliban has always insisted that a government installed by the US invasion could never be anything but a puppet regime.

In Kabul, the crisis over the election result continued this week. One of the two Afghans on the ECC—Supreme Court representative and Karzai appointee Maulavi Mustafa Barakzia—resigned on Monday, denouncing its recommendations as the result of “interference by foreigners”. He alleged that the three foreign representatives had been “making all decisions on their own”.

A spokesman for Abdullah, Saleh Mohammad Registani, immediately branded the resignation as a ploy by Karzai. “If anything comes out of this that is against Karzai’s interests,” he declared, “then Karzai will say the Supreme Court member was not present at the last crucial meetings, so all these decisions were made by foreigners.”

Karzai declared on Tuesday that allegations of massive vote-rigging were “totally fabricated”. While there had been “irregularities”, he said, the election had been “as a whole good and free and democratic”. In what amounted to an appeal for US backing, he reiterated his support for the deployment of more American troops to the country.

–   The US and its main European allies will be the final arbiters of the election result. The decision will not be based on concerns over democracy, but on what best assists the suppression of the insurgency and the consolidation of Afghanistan as a client state in Central Asia.

–   One option being canvassed is to convene an emergency conference of power brokers and tribal heads—a loya jirga—to form a national unity government. Such a move would dovetail with suggestions in the Obama administration that, rather than increasing troop numbers, factions of the Taliban be offered substantial bribes to join the government, in exchange for accepting the legitimacy of the US-installed regime and cooperating with it.

Another option, hinted at in US military circles by references to the assassination of corrupt South Vietnamese president Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963, would be Karzai’s removal by similar methods. The US commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has reportedly advised Obama that a major obstacle to the success of his proposed troop “surge” in Afghanistan is the corruption and illegitimacy of the Karzai government as well as the Afghan military and police force.

About the WSWS | Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Top of page

Copyright © 1998-2009 World Socialist Web Site – All rights reserved

October 16, 2009

By ELISABETH BUMILLER and SABRINA TAVERNISE

–   WASHINGTON — The government of President Hamid Karzai is preparing for the likelihood that he will have to face an election runoff with his main challenger, Afghanistan’s ambassador here said Thursday, acknowledging an outcome that Western diplomats had been pushing for but that could complicate the debate over whether to send more American troops.

–   The comments by the ambassador in Washington, Said Tayeb Jawad, were the first in which Mr. Karzai’s government conceded that a runoff was likely, after weeks of investigation into stark cases of election fraud.

In an interview on Wednesday and in a follow-up telephone conversation on Thursday, Mr. Jawad said that although he had no direct contact with the commission auditing the vote, the Karzai government was preparing for the commission to announce Saturday that a runoff was necessary.

“Chances are there will be a second round, although it was not so sure up to a couple of days ago, but now it looks like there will be a second round,” Mr. Jawad said Wednesday.

Though a runoff could ease some questions about the legitimacy of the Afghan government, the Obama administration now faces the prospect of further delay in making a decision on increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, administration officials said Thursday. They said the potential runoff was dominating much of the continuing debate over Afghanistan policy in the White House.

–   An administration official, who requested anonymity to speak more openly about internal White House deliberations, said that while “it is quite legitimate to delay a decision on troops until you know what kind of government you’re dealing with,” President Obama’s advisers were in fact split over whether Mr. Obama should announce troop deployments without knowing who was in charge in Afghanistan or wait until the political situation in Kabul was clear.

–   Another complicating factor, administration officials said, is the prospect that there could be a power-sharing agreement between Mr. Karzai and his main opponent, Abdullah Abdullah. Both Mr. Abdullah and the Karzai government’s ambassador to Washington hinted at that possibility on Thursday.

The debate over the American strategy in Afghanistan has been the consuming foreign policy issue of the Obama presidency. In recent weeks, the president and his top diplomats and military advisers have been engaged in a remarkably public debate over the size of a future military force and how to deal with a Karzai government it has accused of corruption and ineptitude.

Administration officials have said they are not close to making a final decision, and some Republican critics have already accused them of moving too slowly.

–   Afghan and American officials said the earliest that a runoff vote could be held was late this month or early next month, with results expected about two weeks later. Some Afghans said, however, that the vote might have to be delayed because of bad winter weather until the spring, a nightmare situation for a White House that does not want to remain in limbo.

–   The new round of voting would also mean a repeat of the huge security operation that sought to keep the first round of voting, on Aug. 20, safe from insurgents’ attacks.

–   Until now, Mr. Obama’s advisers have said they expect a decision from him on additional troop deployments, perhaps as many as 40,000, within the next few weeks. Administration officials and Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, have said they have only 12 to 18 months to show progress in Afghanistan, where security has been steadily deteriorating and deaths of American and NATO troops are increasing.

–   Administration officials said that it was their understanding that an election commission would announce, probably in Kabul on Saturday, that after questionable ballots had been thrown out, Mr. Karzai had received only 48 percent of the vote, a tally that would mean a runoff was needed. The original vote has been marred by widespread evidence of fraud and ballot-stuffing for Mr. Karzai.

–   In a news conference in Kabul on Thursday, Mr. Abdullah hinted that he might be willing to negotiate a power-sharing deal with Mr. Karzai, but only after an announcement about whether a runoff election is needed.

“It will be a different environment, no doubt, once the announcement is made,” Mr. Abdullah said. “We reserve our reaction, and what to do post-announcement, for that period.”

In the interview in Washington on Wednesday, the Afghan ambassador did not discount the possibility of a deal between Mr. Karzai and Mr. Abdullah, but he said he viewed it with skepticism.

“That’s peaceable, that’s doable, that’s probably a good way to go politically, but whether it would make a huge difference as far as the reality on the ground, and as far as bringing more capable, skillful Afghans to the government, I doubt it,” Mr. Jawad said.

–   In the meantime, it is unclear whether any deal would be legally possible. The Afghan Constitution requires a runoff to be held in two weeks if no candidate receives more than half the vote.

–   But Afghanistan violated its Constitution as recently as the spring, when Mr. Karzai failed to hold elections within the time frame it mandated. To preserve his legitimacy, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Karzai could remain the legal head of state until a new one was selected, even though his term had expired.

“There might be some other miracle they could do,” said Wadir Safi, a professor at Kabul University.

In further evidence that Mr. Karzai was feeling vulnerable, his longtime ally Zalmay Khalilzad, a former American ambassador to Afghanistan, arrived in the country on Wednesday. A spokeswoman for the American Embassy in Kabul said that Mr. Khalilzad, an American citizen born in Afghanistan, had come as a “private citizen” and that he was not representing the United States government.

–   Relations between Mr. Karzai and Mr. Khalilzad, who also served as American ambassador in Iraq, became strained in the spring after Mr. Karzai reportedly led Mr. Khalilzad to believe he would get a government position and later dropped the offer.

The two men met Thursday morning, a spokesman for Mr. Karzai’s campaign said, but he gave no further details.

In a brief appearance on Afghan television on Wednesday, Mr. Khalilzad indicated that he had come to help Afghans during a difficult election process, but an official in Mr. Abdullah’s campaign said they did not want his assistance. “We do not need any broker,” the official said.

Elisabeth Bumiller reported from Washington, and Sabrina Tavernise from Kabul, Afghanistan. Mark Landler contributed reporting from Washington.

Weitere Truppenaufstockung – Obama schickt 13.000 Soldaten nach Afghanistan

13. Oktober 2009, 10:58 Uhr

–   Der amerikanische Präsident Barack Obama hat zugestimmt, neben der Aufstockung um 21.000 Soldaten im März, weitere 13.000 Mann nach Afghanistan zu entsenden. Wie Medien unter Berufung auf Verteidigungskreise berichten, sollen das vor allem Sanitäter, Ingenieure und Militärpolizisten sein.

Der amerikanische Präsident Barack Obama schickt nach einem Zeitungsbericht deutlich mehr zusätzliche Truppen nach Afghanistan als bislang bekannt.

Wie die Zeitung „Washington Post“ auf ihrer Internetseite berichtete, autorisierte Obama neben der im März angekündigten Aufstockung um 21.000 Soldaten die Entsendung von weiteren 13.000 Mann.

Die zusätzlichen Truppen seien vor allem unterstützende Einheiten wie Sanitäter, Ingenieure und Militärpolizisten, schreibt die „Washington Post“ unter Berufung auf Verteidigungskreise.

Das Weiße Haus und das Pentagon haben in der Vergangenheit öfter größere Truppenverlegungen verschwiegen. Obamas Vorgänger George W. Bush nannte bei einer Truppenaufstockung im Irak nur die 20.000 Kampftruppen und sparte die rund 8000 unterstützenden Einheiten aus.

–   Obama arbeitet derzeit an einer neuen Afghanistan-Strategie. Der US-Oberbefehlshaber am Hindukusch, General Stanley McChrystal, forderte kürzlich die Entsendung von bis zu 40.000 zusätzlichen Soldaten.

–   Derzeit sind laut „Washington Post“ rund 65.000 amerikanische Soldaten in Afghanistan stationiert.

October 6, 2009

Surgical Strikes Shape Afghanistan Debate

WASHINGTON — A string of successful operations recently killing or capturing high-level figures from Al Qaeda, particularly in the tribal areas of Pakistan, has fueled the argument inside the Obama administration about the necessity of a substantial troop build-up in Afghanistan, officials said.

–   Administration officials said the United States had eliminated more than half of its top targets over the last year, severely constricted Al Qaeda’s capacity to operate and choked off a lot of its financing. The sense of progress against Al Qaeda and its allies has helped shape the internal debate over the best way to fight in Afghanistan as President Obama explores alternatives to a large escalation.

The White House has begun promoting the missile strikes and raids that have killed Qaeda operatives in Pakistan, Somalia and elsewhere. Mr. Obama will visit the National Counterterrorism Center on Tuesday to call attention to the operations. While aides said the public focus was not related to the Afghanistan review, it could give Mr. Obama political room if he rejected or pared back the request for 40,000 more troops from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan.

The focus on so-called surgical strikes against terrorism suspects comes as the Afghanistan review accelerates. Mr. Obama met Monday with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates; his national security team met separately. The president will host Congressional leaders on Tuesday to talk about Afghanistan, then meet with top advisers on Wednesday and Friday to consider a new strategy.

–   The internal debate has spilled out in public at times and created stress within the Obama team. Mr. Gates warned his colleagues in a speech Monday to keep their advice to the president private, a statement taken as a rebuke to General McChrystal, who last week said publicly that he did not think a smaller-scale option would work.

“It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations, civilians and military alike, provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately,” Mr. Gates told the Association of the United States Army.

–   Just a day earlier Gen. James L. Jones, the national security adviser, also appeared to chide General McChrystal for his public comments. But Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said Mr. Gates’s comment was directed not just at the general but at all participants in the review. “To interpret this as being directed at only one person is really missing the point,” Mr. Morrell said.

–   The White House also tried to make it clear on Monday that Mr. Obama did not envision actually pulling out of Afghanistan no matter how he rules on General McChrystal’s request. “I don’t think we have the option to leave,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary.

–   Even the option advocated by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. for a scaled-back approach would not reduce the current force of 68,000 troops, officials said. Instead, it would keep troop levels roughly where they are now but shift emphasis to the sort of Predator drone strikes and Special Forces operations that have been used more aggressively over the last year.

–   That idea has its critics, including General McChrystal and other officials who do not overlook the value of such operations — indeed, General McChrystal used to head the Joint Special Operations Command, which was responsible for many of those operations. But they say they depend on a significant troop presence on the ground to provide intelligence and restrict the space where Al Qaeda can operate. They argue that defeating Al Qaeda requires fighting the Taliban, too, and warn of the difficulties in managing the relationship with Pakistan, which has often bristled at American drone attacks on its territory.

On Monday evening, Mr. Gates suggested that a shortage of troops had contributed to the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. “The reality is that because of our inability — and the inability, frankly, of our allies — to put enough troops into Afghanistan, the Taliban do have the momentum right now,” he said.

Administration officials trace what they see as increasing success at killing individual Qaeda leaders to the stepped-up use of Predator and Reaper drones in the brutal and largely ungoverned border regions of Pakistan. President George W. Bush approved a more aggressive campaign of surgical strikes last year before leaving office, and Mr. Obama has embraced and expanded the program. The Obama team has also worked to strengthen its partnership with Pakistan’s government.

–   Of the 20 Qaeda or allied leaders most wanted by the United States in the Pakistani tribal areas, 11 have been killed or captured since July 2008, according to senior administration officials who provided a briefing on the operations on condition of anonymity. Another four added to the top-20 list have also been killed or captured, they said.

How much this all adds up to is hard to say. The Bush administration regularly cited its successes in eliminating high-level Qaeda figures, too, and yet the organization seemed to replenish itself. The Obama administration appears no closer than its predecessor to capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri or the Afghan Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar.

But one official who has been involved in the struggle with terrorism under both administrations said Al Qaeda had been significan