by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Oct. 19, 2009
All Rights Reserved.

              Invalidating another 10% of the Afghan vote, a special U.N. watchdog election group left Afghan President Hamid Karzai with less that 48%, forcing either a runoff or power-sharing arrangement with Karazi’s closed rival former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, who earned at least 27.8% Sept. 16, 2009.  A 49-year-old physician trained at Kabul Medical University, Abdullah comes from both Pashtun and Tajik roots, formerly part Ahmad Shah Massoud’s Northern Alliance.  Forced because of voter fraud below the 50% threshold, Karzai no longer enjoys the majority needed to govern his country.  Stripped of his mandate, Karazai no longer has the mandate needed to lead Afghanistan.  President Barack Obama has resisted adding the additional 40,000 troops requested by Afghan Commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal.  Karazi’s dilemma raises real questions about Afghan leadership.

            Recognizing problems with the Karzai government, Barack hesitated to give McChrystal the extra troops before reevaluating the mission and relationship with the government.  Controlling only a part of the capital city Kabul, Karazi has little clout elsewhere in Afghanistan.  When charges of Karzai’s voter fraud plagued the Aug.20, 2009 election, the Obama administration was forced to reassess its strategy.  Barack already added 21,000 troops in March, quintupling U.S. casualties, now averaging about 80 a month.  No matter how much the U.S. feels allied with Karzai, they can’t support an illegitimate government.  Holding a runoff or power-sharing doesn’t deal with Karazi’s corruption, expecting U.S. and coalition soldiers to die for a benevolent dictator.  White House officials can’t have it both ways:  Supporting democracy and, at the same time, accepting voter fraud.

            U.S. public opinion has turned against Obama’s plans to escalate the war.  Karzai didn’t help with voter fraud, already adding to deep skepticism about the mission itself.  When former President George W. Bush launched Operation Enduring Freedom Oct. 7, 2001 to topple the Taliban, he had the unequivocal support of the American people.  When he let Osama bin Laden escape to Pakistan March 4, 2002, the U.S. mission changed.  No longer could U.S. forces go after the perpetrators of Sept. 11.  Only a year later, did the U.S. war on terror redirect itself to Saddam Hussein March 20, 2003, neglecting Afghan War until Bush left office.  Obama made good on his campaign promise wind down Iraq and shift resources to Afghanistan.  Obama didn’t know how low a U.S. puppet would stoop to hang onto power.  No U.S. president can or should ignore Karza’s dirty pool.

             Public polls have turned against the Afghan War, no longer finding Afghanistan the lesser of two evils.  Bush had the luxury in the wake of Sept. 11 to deplete the national treasury for national security.  With the economy still reeling, voters no longer buy the national security argument and see both wars as a drag on the U.S. economy.  “The international community and the Obama administration appear to favor the unity government rather than an election,” said Zalmay Khalilzad, former ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan, forgetting that Karzai has exposed himself.  Adullah shouldn’t negotiate with Karzai:  He should demand his resignation.  Power-sharing only postpones the inevitable since most Afghan’s don’t support the current puppet regime.  No true democracy can support election fraud.  Nor should the U.S. spill more blood and treasure to support the regime.

            Karzai’s election fraud gives the radical Taliban regime the moral high ground to keep fighting.  Installing Abdullah would legitimize the Afghan government, robbing the Taliban of their excuse to keep on fighting.  “You can’t do a serious counterinsurgency with a flawed local partner,” said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official who led the Obama administration’s policy review on Iraq and Afghanistan.  Losing about 80 troops a month, the U.S. can’t afford to go to bat for a corrupt dictator, no matter how stubborn the enemy. Karzai has requested more troops not to defeat the Taliban but to keep him in power.  Obama takes considerable heat in the U.S. Congress, especially from former GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), to honor McChrystal’s request for 40,000 more troops.  Winning in Afghanistan involves more than protecting a corrupt dictator that stole an election.

            Standing on principle is more important in Afghanistan than honoring the personnel demands of battlefield commanders.  McChrysal must get the bigger picture before he asks growing number of U.S. troops to sacrifice their lives.  Adding more troops normally results in increased death rates, at least initially.  “There is a sense of limbo right now and what the U.S. is going to do.  That creates a drift and this is not good in Afghanistan,” said former Iraq Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the same person who shrugged when he was asked by House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) what happened to $16 billion missing U.S. dollars.  Before Obama commits more blood and treasure in Afghanistan, he must clarify the mission and question the legitimacy of the Karzai regime.  Power-sharing preserves Karzai’s power but doesn’t deal with the problem.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.