Abdullah May Withdraw from Second Round
Abdullah Abdullah is threatening to withdraw from the presidential runoff contest in Afghanistan if the head of the Electoral Commission is not replaced. That commission oversaw the fraud-ridden first round. President Obama has put off his decision on Afghanistan policy until the presidential election is concluded, but what if it never really takes place and the US is willy-nilly stuck with Hamid Karzai and his wounded legitimacy?
Over 1,000 US troops have been wounded in Afghanistan in the past 3 months.
Congress is pressing the Pentagon to find more effective ways of combating roadside bombs or improvised explosive devices.
End/ (Not Continued)
posted by Juan Cole @ 10/31/2009 12:46:00 AM
|
Facebook
12 Comments:
"Over 1,000 US troops have been wounded in Afghanistan in the past 3 months."
So let's ask the unaskable, and the question whose answer won't be remembered even if ever learned: how many Afghans? 10,000? 50,000?
When it rains it pours on American foreign policy. American foreign policy is a house of cards that is toppling.
"Congress is pressing the Pentagon to find more effective ways of combating roadside bombs or improvised explosive devices."
A good start is making sure the equipment we are paying for and sending is in good working order and not already broke when it gets there.
Abdullah will contest the elections. He is just improving his democratic credentials for the western news viewers consumption. Perhaps Washington is ready to replace Karzai with another of its tool, Abdullah. Khalilzad might also re-appear somewhere in the next few months.
“Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell acknowledged that the casualties in Afghanistan have surpassed Iraq ‘surge’ proportions and noted that the violence in Afghanistan is directed more against U.S. and other coalition forces, whereas it was heavily sectarian [ie., 'Civil War'-like] in Iraq. "It shows you how we [occupation forces] are the targets and how effectively they [counter-occupation guerrilla fighters] are targeting us," Morrell said.” That the Obama Administration is still framing their "Afghan Strategy" in terms of this false choice of "either Counter-Terrorism (ie., smaller escalation) or Counter-Insurgency (ie., larger escalation)," where ‘escalation’ is presumed a priori, and ‘insurgents’ is this force of existential fighters, unconnected to US and our occupation, etc., just blows my mind. i mean, The Petraeus/McChrystal command is floundering (mind, by their own account of the situation Over There, not the opinion of this writer), and their "solution set" of "escalate the occupation = number of targets by +40,000 or +20,000" is just bizarre: Where the hell are our well-educated War College faculty and clear-eyed, combat experienced officer corps? And then this recently authorized by Mr. Obama 2010 Defense Authorization Bill, which allocates $7.5 billion USD to train and equip Afghan people to kill and incarcerate other Afghan people — what the hell is THAT supposed to do, make more of them targets, instead of US? "It's just like the programme in IRAQ," proponents say, as if sectarian or ethnic ‘Civil Warfare’ in Afghanistan is what, some kind of solution to the Generals' Petraeus and McChrystal dilemma?
hquain, thank you for remembering the hundred and seventy thousand brave Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police who are fighting and dying to protect their country from the Taliban.
Anonymous, please don't insult Abdullah. You have no idea who he is and how much he sacrificed to free his country from the cruel Taliban.
MonsieurGonzo, I suspect you know that the ANA has suffered greater casualties than the entire international coalition (over 50 countries) combined. You also probably know that the ANP suffer three times the casualties of the ANA.
Do you really regard the ANA and ANP as an oppressive occupation force?
You probably know that in the public opinion poll that came out 5 days ago, the ANA had 91% support and the ANP had 84% support; both of which were far more popular than anything else among the Afghan people. You also know that the Taliban is viewed unfavorably by 91% of Afghans as per the February 9, 2009, public opinion poll.
You likely fear the ANSF for reasons you are not sharing, and support violent attacks against them; but are trying to slyly express your true sentiments in a misleading way.
Do you support Haqqani? the Quetta Shura Taliban? Hekmatyur?
Why don't you go to your local Afghan association and express these feelings out load . . . see what happens to you.
@Anand Ted Rall: America's obsession with protecting its own people is at the heart of Afghans' contempt for the U.S. occupation : “To Afghans on the ground, [perhaps it is the foreign occupier's] drones, [flying overhead, that best] symbolize American callousness, and project a smug sense of superiority, because they protect us at the Afghans' expense. New York Times reporter David Rhode, (the journalist kidnapped by neo-Taliban militants and held in Afghanistan and Pakistan for nine months), recently described their "terrifying presence" : "Remotely piloted, propeller-driven airplanes ~ they could easily be heard as they circled overhead for hours. To the naked eye, they were small dots in the sky. But their missiles had a range of several miles. We knew we could be immolated without warning" [by some foreign occupier's] alien contraption, buzzing around in response to the movement of a joystick in Virginia, ~8,000 miles away.”
MonsieurGonzo, you actually wrote something perceptive. There is a widely held view that Americans don't give a damn when Takfiri extremists mass murder muslims, such as Pakistanis, Shiites, Afghans or ANSF. When Osama Bin Laden mass murdered the Shia from Gilgit Kashmir in 1988 in his first large scale terrorist action, there was hardly a peep about it from Americans, to our great shame.
Please read York Times reporter David Rhode. He writes about how the Taliban hate "moderate" Afghans and Pakistanis far more than Americans, and about how they have killed 5 times as many ANSF as "Americans." Rhodes also writes about how Haqqani Taliban in particular are closely linked with all sorts of foreign fighters; Arabs, Uzbeks, Punjabis (although Rhodes did not mention this I would add Chechens and other out of field foreign Tafkiris); and want to establish a global islamic caliphate.
Granted Haqqani is the most extreme of the three major Taliban factions
But even many of the factions that are nominally part of the Quetta Shura also have regional ambitions (in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Chechnya, other former Soviet Republics, Uighar areas, Kashmir.)
It is important to be intellectually honest and admit that the Taliban's primary goal is to take over large parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to defeat their Afghan and Pakistani enemies (GIRoA, ANSF, former Northern Alliance, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Tajiks, Hazaras, Pakistani Shiites, Pakistani Army, Pakistani government.)
I happen to think that those fighting the Taliban are the good guys and should get international support (funding, training, equipping and advising.)
Perhaps you oppose anti Taliban Afghans and Pakistanis and think that they would be better off ruled by the Taliban.
.
Anand,
I am under the impression that ANA and ANP units are under the command of American officers.
I am under the impression that American officers develop and assign the missions for these units.
I am under the impression that ANA and ANP units in Pashtun areas have mostly (over 80%) Tadjik officers and mostly (~80%) Tadjik soldiers and policemen.
I am under the impression that about 40% of men who join the ANSF quit after completing initial training. I am under the impression that about 30% are AWOL at any given time.
Of the 170,000 men on the payroll of the ANSF, it is my impression that fewer than 70,000 are available for military duties on most days.
If that is not correct, I would benefit from you correcting me.
I assume that you are Afghan. I assume that your perspective is informed by the ethnic group you belong to. I assume that if you are Tadjik that you want to see the central government control the Pashtun areas, and if you are Pashtun that you do not.
I do not trust any polls conducted by American contractors to be able to find out how the Afghani people feel about US military occupation. Who conducted the polls you cite ? Who paid for them ?
This is how simplistic my understanding of Afghanistan is right now. I know I come across as both ignorant and arrogant. But unless you teach me, how am I going to learn otherwise ?
Avid student of self-determination
.
"I am under the impression that ANA and ANP units are under the command of American officers."
Not true. In fact many think that doing this would result in a dramatic improvement of the ANSF. One of the ANA's problems are a lot of dead weight mid grade officers from the old communist Afghan Army. There are also a lot of Mujahadeen commanders (who fought the soviets) and old Northern Alliance commanders. Many of these mid grade officers need to be bribed to retire and replaced by much better quality ANA Lieutenants trained post 2001.
"I am under the impression that American officers develop and assign the missions for these units." Not true. All ANSF are under the command of the Afghan president, which is why the election matters so much.
"I am under the impression that ANA and ANP units in Pashtun areas have mostly (over 80%) Tadjik officers and mostly (~80%) Tadjik soldiers and policemen." Don't know where you heard this. About 40% of the ANA is Pashtu which matches the Afghan population. What you should really ask is which Pasthun tribes and regions are over and under represented.
"I am under the impression that about 40% of men who join the ANSF quit after completing initial training." Not everyone passes basic training. The ANA is choosy about their members. Thank God they are.
"am under the impression that about 30% are AWOL at any given time." AWOL rates are public source. You can look them up. The AWOL rate is a lot lower than that; although it is higher for 205th ANA Corps than it is for any other Corps. Note that at any given time perhaps 25% or more of Afghan soldiers are on official leave. {Because of the long travel times between different parts of Afghanistan.} The leave policy in my view needs to be rationalized better. {For example have one Kandak on leave at any given time per brigade.}
"it is my impression that fewer than 70,000 are available for military duties on most days" Less than that. Most ANSF are not combat troops. You can calculate an estimate for the number on your own. Hint, the ANA has 52 combat battalions + 6 commando combat battalions. You can look up the OOB for the ANP as well.
You can look at every Afghan poll consulted since 2001; they all show similar results; but you are wise to carefully interpret all polls. This said, many reports from the ground suggest that the ANA in particular is popular in the villages. Anecdotally, the ANP is less popular than the polling for it suggests.
You can find negative reports on the ANSF as well.
It was interesting to note that Hoh criticized the Zabul ANSF. There are reports that the Zabul ANSF advisors (and implicitly perhaps the ANSF themselves) didn't like him. This might be a factor in why Hoh resigned from Zabul after 4 months. {Hoh was one of three Americans in the ISAF Zabul PRT.}
If you really want to learn more about the ANSF, you might hang out at the blogs of some current and former ANSF advisors and trainers.
I am not Afghan.
Post a Comment
<< Home