Pajhwok News Agency reports that on Tuesday, the Afghanistan senate deplored the foreign airstrikes that killed 21 innocent civilians in the province of Daikundi on Sunday, and demanded that NATO avoid any repetition of this sort of error.
But some senators went farther, demanding that NATO or US military men responsible for the deaths be executed. Senator Hamidullah Tokhi of Uruzgan complained to Pajhwok that the foreign forces had killed civilians in such incidents time and again, and kept apologizing but then repeating the fatal mistake: “Anyone killing an ordinary Afghan should be executed in public.”
Lawmaker Fatima Aziz of Qunduz concurred, observing, “We saw foreign troops time and again that they killed innocent people, something unbearable for the already war-weary Afghans.”
Earlier this morning, I posted an analysis of President Obama’s proposed US policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to be unveiled tonight in a speech at the US Military Academy. My overriding conclusion? “The ‘hole in the doughnut’…[is] the shakiness of an Afghan Government whose authority doesn’t extend much beyond Kabul.”
Obama Partnering with Afghan Government: But is there any there there?
President Barack Obama’s commitment to “finish the job” in Afghanistan by sending 55,000 US troops to that country (counting the 21,000 he dispatched last winter shortly after being inaugurated) depends heavily on a hope of building up an Afghan government and army over to which the US can eventually turn control. But one of the questions we seldom hear any detail about concerns the country’s governmental capacity. Does the government function? Can it deliver services?
As might be expected, governmental capacity is low, but here are some specifics. Months after the controversial presidential election that many Afghans consider stolen, there is no cabinet, and parliament is threatening to go on recess before confirming a new one because the president is unconstitutionally late in presenting the names. Almost no one bothers to attend the parliamentary sessions. The cabinet ministries are unable to spend the money allocated to them on things like education and rural development, and actually spent less in absolute terms last year than they did in the previous two years. Only half of the development projects for which money was allotted were even begun last year, and none was completed.
Syed Saleem Shahzad, using Pakistani sources, has written an article with dramatic allegations in the Asia Times. Shahzad claims that the US, through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the Pakistan military cut a deal to “resolve” the post-election Afghanistan situation: challenger Abdullah Abdullah would withdraw, allowing Hamid Karzai to serve another term, and negotiations would begin with the Taliban:
Abdullah Abdullah, who this week withdrew from the presidential election runoff in Afghanistan, thereby handing victory to the incumbent, Hamid Karzai, did so under pressure from the United States, Asia Times Online has learned.
In exchange for the pullout of the non-Pashtun Abdullah, Pakistan’s military has agreed to actively mediate between Washington and the Taliban over a reconciliation plan that will allow the US to exit from Afghanistan, as it is doing in Iraq, with a semblance of success.
A senior Pakistani diplomat involved in backchannel negotiations on Pakistan, Afghanistan and US relations told Asia Times Online on the condition of anonymity that the deal over Abdullah, whom Islamabad considers to be pro-India, was made during the three-day visit to Pakistan last week of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Enduring America correspondent Josh Shahryar explains the latest political developments in Afghanistan and assesses their significance:
Dr. Abdullah Abdullah announced today that he would not be participating in the upcoming Nov. 7 run-off against Hamid Karzai. The decision comes at a time when both Afghans and the West are waiting patiently for a new government so both political factions can develop a much-needed plan to urgently deal with the rising tide of insecurity in the country. However, Abdullah’s decision to back out may just plunge Afghanistan into chaos. Read the rest of this entry »
Confused by the political developments in Afghanistan as challenger Abdullah Abdullah pulls out of a runoff against President Hamid Karzai? All you have to do is go back and check Enduring America’s four-sentence guide from mid-October to elections, fraud, and politics:
1. Karzai accepts runoff. Check.
OK, no problem there. Karzai — who may or may not have rigged a first-round election in which almost 30 percent of his votes were thrown out, who may or may not be presiding over a Government better known for corruption rather than financial management, whose brother may or may not be a) rich from said corruption b) tied into Afghan drug money c) a CIA agent — has been been playing nice since he was told by US officials to go through a second-round show of democracy. Read the rest of this entry »
UPDATE 21 October: Overwhelmed by the mass of media coverage on the developments in Afghanistan? Well, just before going to the best inside story — Karen DeYoung and Joshua Partlow in The Washington Post — let’s have a look at EA’s four sentences from yesterday and see how they hold up:
1. Karzai accepts runoff. Check.
2. US declares satisfaction. President Obama to reporters, “President Karzai, as well as the other candidates have shown that they have the interests of the Afghan people at heart.” Check.
3. Closest challenger Abdullah Abdullah accepts runoff. Check.
4. Coalition government with both Karzai and Abdullah to be formed. Wait for it — it will come soon after the 7 November run-off.
5. US then declares troop escalation. Could be a pre-Christmas present for all of us.
Let’s cut through the acres of newsprint and hours of broadcasts trying to get to grips with the controversy over the Afghanistan Presidential election, after a UN-backed electoral commission threw out 28 percent of the votes for current President and front-runner Hamid Karzai and 18 percent of the votes for his closest challenger, Abdullah Abdullah.
Afghanistan’s descent into the far-from-democratic realities of power politics and US military escalation continues. Today’s stories of “Tribal Leaders Say Karzai’s Team Forged 23,900 Votes” — instead of, by the way, delivering them en masse to challenger Abdullah Abdullah — and “U.N. Agency Finds Evidence of Drug Cartels Forming in Afghanistan” are set next to the set-up articles for the entry of more American troops: “General [McChrystal]: Afghan Situation ‘Serious‘”. In The Wall Street Journal, Bruce Reidel (who led President Obama’s initial review group on Afghanistan that produced the March 2009 escalation) and Michael O’Hanlon (who will cherry-pick the 1 of 10 numbers that somehow proves victory is imminent) offer a cheerleading masterpiece for the build-up, “What’s Right with Afghanistan”.
There is still a chance of White House resistance to a large escalation of boots on the ground — the sub-headline on the “General: It’s Serious” story is “McChrystal Expected To Seek More Resources, But White House Is Wary” — but likely prospect, as in March, is a “compromise” that ramps up the US presence in Afghanistan to close to 90,000 troops.
But here’s the rub. Apart from the annoying political considerations that we’ve mentioned when it comes to an Afghanistan “solution”, the declared American military strategy can’t live with only 90,000 troops. Or 190,000 for that matter. Beyond McChrystal’s public-relations guff that his approach is “new” because “we’re going to protect Afghan civilians” (wasn’t the US military supposedly protecting them since the Taliban’s overthrow in Decemberw 2001?), the numbers of a “clear and hold” counter-insurgency approach are far beyond his reach. The following is from foreign policy analyst Donald Snow: Read the rest of this entry »
Our readers, who are a pretty sharp bunch, might have noticed that I was none too happy when I posted the video and transcripts of the Sunday interviews with the Obama Administration’s Dynamic Duo on Afghanistan, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, and the US Ambassador to Kabul, General Karl Eikenberry.
In part, that was because of the insipid set-up questioning of CNN’s John King and the asinine opener of NBC’s David Gregory, “Have the American people lost the will to fight this war?”. In part, it was because Mullen and Eikenberry were hopeless once they got beyond their scripted talking points (to Gregory’s credit, he exposed the limitations with the challenge, “We’re rebuilding this nation?….Is that what the American people signed up for?”).
But, mainly, I’m angry, concerned, resigned because the strategy of Mullen was so blatant: “You know, let’s just aside this complicated politics stuff and throw in some more soldiers.” Read the rest of this entry »
Juan Cole offers a full round-up of developments:
Comments Off 
Earlier this morning, I posted an analysis of President Obama’s proposed US policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to be unveiled tonight in a speech at the US Military Academy. My overriding conclusion? “The ‘hole in the doughnut’…[is] the shakiness of an Afghan Government whose authority doesn’t extend much beyond Kabul.”
Syed Saleem Shahzad, using Pakistani sources, has written 
Enduring America correspondent Josh Shahryar explains the latest political developments in Afghanistan and assesses their significance:
Confused by the political developments in Afghanistan as challenger Abdullah Abdullah pulls out of a runoff against President Hamid Karzai? All you have to do is go back and check Enduring America’s four-sentence guide from mid-October to elections, fraud, and politics:
Afghanistan’s descent into the far-from-democratic realities of power politics and US military escalation continues. Today’s stories of “
Our readers, who are a pretty sharp bunch, might have noticed that I was none too happy when I posted the video and transcripts of the Sunday interviews with the Obama Administration’s Dynamic Duo on Afghanistan, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, and the US Ambassador to Kabul, General Karl Eikenberry.
Entries (RSS)