U.S and U.N Continue to Face Credibility Challenges Over Election Fraud

The fall-out from Peter Gailbraith's resignation letter continued over the weekend, as Karzai's main rival, Abdullah Abduallah, blasted the U.N.

“I have no doubt in my mind that it has seriously damaged the U.N.’s credibility in Afghanistan,” said Abdullah, the former foreign minister and election runner-up. The U.N has denied Gailbraith's allegations.

Meanwhile, U.S National Security Advisor James Jones voiced his support for President Karzai, stressing, "It’s very important that they support the legitimately elected president.” The remarks are puzzling, as the White House's desire to downplay the corruption involved in the August 20th elections is sending a message to the Afghan people that they will stand behind Karzai despite his blatant disregard for democracy. Karzai's corruption is not limited to the election process of course; one need only look at the exploding opium trade to seriously question why Jones and Obama are standing so firmly behind this guy? I suppose it's because we have not cultivated any viable alternative...

Eight Americans Killed In Devastating Ambushes

American soldiers suffered one of their worst days since the war began, as eight soldiers were killed in two ambushes near the Pakistan border.

The attacks were not far from Wanat, the scene of a bloody battle that left nine Americans dead in 2008. The New York Times ran a story just yesterday covering the exhaustive report the military recently released discussing what went wrong during that ambush.

The ambushes came on a brutal weekend during which two American soldiers were killed by an Afghan policeman, and three more were killed in attacks across the country. Thirteen soldiers have died in October, compared to 37 for all of September.

For a touch of personal to add to this day of statistics, the New York Daily News ran a touching personal interest story on a Brooklyn soldier serving his third tour of duty in Afghanistan.

White House to McChrystal: "Slow Your Roll"

An encouraging report from the Washington Post claims that divisions over the future course of the War in Afghanistan are intensifying at the White House. A series of high level meetings have recently pitted several top advisers and administration officials against the administratoin's hawkish elements, who side with General McChrystal and General Petraeus. Apparently Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates have not disclosed where they stand.

However, a recent p.r effort to highlight the administration's achievements against al-Qaeda, and a message that defeating the terrorist organization, rather than rebuilding Afghanistan, has always been Obama's stated goal both speak to increasing internal support for the Biden approach.

The Obama strategy in "AfghPak" since March has been to view Pakistan and Afghanistan as a single, related problem. But Obama advisors suggest that two things have changed since March: increased stability in Pakistan due to the reinstatement of Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry as the Supreme Court chief justice and a strong challenge to the Taliban in the Swat Valley, along with the fallout of the Karzai reelection scandals. The declined risk of the entire region destabilizing, along with the diminished legitimacy of the Karzai adminstration, enhance the argument that the U.S can draw down its involvement in nation-building and focus on counter-terrorism.

One anonymous administration official summed up, "Examining the options, testing assumptions, reviewing everything -- we're not talking months, just days and weeks, and it is well worth the time spent."

Obama can be cautious to a fault, but in matters of war and peace, slowing a rush to judgment is a sign of true leadership. Let's hope the White House keeps heading in this direction.

Final Casualty Tally: September, 2009

The Associated Press has reported that 37 American soldiers were killed this September fighting in Afghanistan. That number is down from a record high of 51 deaths in August, but is still one of the bloodiest months of the war. NATO allies suffered an additional 28 deaths, a significant increase over August, an ominous statistic if Obama is intending to seek further troop support from those nations. Finally, Afghan civilian deaths, largely at the hands of the Taliban, increased from 169 in August to 202 in September.

New York Post Runs Anti-War Op-ed

The distinction between a newsroom and op-ed pages notwithstanding, it was quite surprising to see Ralph Peters' column in the New York Post slamming the war in Iraq. Peters endorses the Biden plan to focus on Al-Qaeda, and does an excellent job distilling the reasons this war cannot be "won."
1. The corrupt and weak Karzai government will never be a partner in building a stable democracy:
It's not a "retreat" if we announce that we've tried to help, but the Karzai government failed its own people. We're caught up in a civil war in a non-country and should back the tribes that share our interests. You can't nation-build where there's no nation...Despised by its own people, the ruinous Karzai government would collapse without our support. (If you're going to back a strongman, you should at least pick one who's strong.)

2. We have been failing in Afghanistan for eight years. Just because most Americans just started paying attention to the war last week doesn't mean we haven't had eight years to achieve our goals:
After eight years of engagement, we haven't produced an Afghan army or police force worth a damn. Afghans won't fight for the Karzai government. Yet the Taliban attracts plentiful volunteers willing to give their lives for their cause -- and not just because they've been bribed. That ought to tell us something.

3. Eight years is enough! How many times can you redeploy a soldier to fight for a misguided war?
Even if there were a remote chance of "fixing" Afghanistan -- and there isn't -- we just don't have the troops. Eight years of war have taken their toll. The Army's depleted and the Marines are battle-worn...We're grinding down our forces for campaign promises and political vanity. Our military needs to catch its breath for the next real fight.

There is an opening right now for conservatives and libertarians to join the ranks calling for withdrawal. First of all, it gives them a chance to oppose President Obama. Second, conservatives aren't supposed to like nation-building or blowing money overseas. Third, keeping our military "strong" by deploying it endlessly is nonsensical. Hopefully more columnists like Peters will emerge in favor of withdrawal.

Friday Afternoon Salute: Senator Russ Feingold

Every Friday this site will recognize a leader in the effort to end the War in Afghanistan. Last week we gave a shout-out to Alan Grayson, who made all kinds of news this week leading the charge against Republicans in the health care debate. This week, we honor Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat from Wisconsin.

You may remember Feingold as the only Senator of either party to vote against the Patriot Act in October of 2001. After being mentioned often recently as an opponent of escalating the war, Feingold is now taking to the airwaves, including this interview on NPR:

I think what we're doing now is counterproductive. Troop build ups are counterproductive. I think it is leading to pushing extremists into Pakistan, which is even more dangerous. So I think a flexible timetable is a way to begin the conversation about how do we get our troops reduced rather than building them up dramatically as the administration appears to be doing.

The One Benefit of the War in Afghanistan

General Roy Odierno, the commanding officer in Iraq, said that escalation in Afghanistan could lead to a quicker reduction in American troop levels in Iraq.

Odierno pointed out that up to 4,000 troops could be leaving Iraq by the end of October, noting, "That's a bit faster than we originally planned." Really, general? You sure 4,000 isn't too ambitious? Most of Obama's campaign timelines would have had us out of there by now, and as it is, his current timeline calls for the end of combat operations in ten months.

There are currently 124,000 American troops in Iraq, and 66,000 in Afghanistan. Even after a full "pull-out", the U.S would still have have 30,000-50,000 troops based in Iraq. If you run some elemenatary school math on that, between now and August, 2010, we should be withdrawing troops at a rate of 7,500 a month. And now we now that we can thank the War in Afghanistan for any acceleration in those withdrawals.

Gailbraith Letter to Moon Calls Out Corrupt Election Process

A few days ago this site posted a story on the firing of Peter Gailbraith, the U.N special deputy in Afghanistan. You can also read excellent coverage in the New York Times, Washington Post, and The Guardian.

The New York Times recently obtained a letter from Gailbraith to U.N Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon. They published excerpts, and I, as a mere blogger, can only publish excerpts of the excerpts- but I picked some sweet spots. As a reminder, the "Kai" referenced throughout is his boss, the U.N point-man in Afghanistan, Kai Eide.

As you know, Kai Eide and I have had prolonged disagreement as to whether UNAMA should take action to prevent or mitigate fraud in the Afghanistan elections...For a long time after the elections, Kai denied that significant fraud had taken place, even going to the extreme of ordering UN staff not to discuss the matter. And, at critical stages in the process, he blocked me and other UNAMA professional staff from taking effective action that might have limited the fraud or enabled the Afghan electoral institutions to address it more effectively.”

...

At considerable personal risk, UNAMA field staff collected data on turnout and fraud. Our data showed a miniscule turnout in key Southern Provinces, but these provinces were to report a large number of votes for Karzai. Once it became clear to Kai that the output from our election center would be deeply disturbing to President Karzai, he ordered the staff not to share the data with anyone, including the Afghan institutions charged with preserving the integrity of the electoral process.

...

Shortly after the elections, Kai told President Karzai that “I am biased” in your favor and that “those who are out to get you are also out to get me.” When I asked Kai about this, he explained that being biased did not mean he was supporting Karzai and I accept that explanation. But, I am not sure President Karzai sees it that way. Kai also told me the “those” referred to Ambassador Holbrooke. I think this was an inappropriate conversation for the SRSG to have with the head of state and, in the context, likely interpreted as meaning that UNAMA did not share the concerns Holbrooke was then raising about electoral fraud.

Europeans Not Down With This War

There is good news and bad news coming out of Europe. The good news is 77% of Europeans approve of President Obama's handling of foreign policy, in contrast to only 18% who approved of President Bush's approach at the end of 2008.

The bad news is that they still don't like the actual policies. A new poll shows that the majority of every European country involved in the war favors reducing or withdrawing troops- and some don't even have many to begin with. In Western Europe, 55% of those polled favor reducing troops/withdrawing, while a staggering 69% do in Eastern Europe. Or, as Donald Rumsfeld liked to call them, "the New Europe." For those who still have moral qualms about abandoning Afghanistan completely, 10 out of the 12 countries polled demonstrated support for more economic reconstruction aid.

You can read an insightful, though somewhat alarmist piece on the fracturing of the NATO alliance here.

Crazy Republicans Try to Seize Control of War Debate

I deservedly give President Obama a pretty hard time on this site, but it's worth remembering that the pressure to escalate the war from his right flank is strong. Yesterday, however, those forces were temporarily rebuffed when John McCain's amendment forcing General McChrystal and other military commanders to testify before November 15th was defeated 40-59, along strict party lines.

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) had already passed an amendment, 60-39, requiring McChrystal to testify after Obama has determined his war strategy. In contrast, the McCain amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill was quite nakedly an attempt to put the military high brass on public record asking for more troops before Obama was ready to make that commitment.

This partisan squabble will probably pass when Obama gives McChrystal the troops he is asking for anyway, but the incident should be taken as a reminder that anyone who wants to end this war needs to act as vigilantly as those who seek to prolong and escalate it.