Afghanistan's aborted runoff
What Abdullah Abdullah's withdrawal from a Nov. 7 runoff does to Hamid Karzai's legitimacy
Afghan Presidential candidate Dr. Abdullah Abdullah has withdrawn from the election.
(EPA/Corbis/S. Sabawoon)
Afghan election officials canceled this week's presidential runoff after opposition candidate Abdullah Abdullah dropped out, handing President Hamid Karzai a second term. Abdullah said he was quitting because nothing had been done to prevent a repeat of the widespread fraud that tainted the first round. Has the election destroyed the Afghan government's credibility? (Watch Abdullah Abdullah speak about his withdrawal from the Afghani election)
Of course it has: The real winner in Afghanistan's disastrous election was the Taliban insurgency, says Tom Engelhardt in Mother Jones. After ballot-box stuffing discredited the first round, Sen. John Kerry and envoy Richard Holbrooke rushed over to "twist arms" and force a runoff, "in the name of having an effective 'democratic' partner in Afghanistan." Now it will be easier than ever for Taliban propagandists to dismiss Hamid Karzai's government as a U.S. "puppet."
"Too big to fail: Afghanistan as a bailout state"
Karzai can still recover: Hamid Karzai's reputation has taken a hit, says Tom Coghlan in the London Times, and "a one-horse second round" would not have restored trust in his government. But Abdullah Abdullah—who said, "In Afghanistan even the people who have fought each other sit down and talk"—is apparently open to a deal. For Karzai, conceding some power to his rival "may still be the safest route to some sort of electoral legitimacy."
"Analysis: Karzai will struggle for credibility"
It's Obama who lost credibility: The Obama administration is calling Abdullah Abdullah's decision a "personal" choice that doesn't affect Hamid Karzai's legitimacy, says Seth Leibsohn in National Review, and won't impact President Obama's decision on whether to send more troops. But the White House thought the runoff was the key to "stability and legitimacy" in Kabul when it was pressuring Hamid Karzai to accept a runoff. To say the election is "settled enough" now is "cynicism in foreign and defense policy at its worst."
"When exactly did Afghanistan become ‘settled enough’?"
The U.S. needs a deal as badly as Karzai does: The "election imbroglio" has already complicated things for President Obama, says Alexandra Zavis in The Boston Globe. As he "deliberates whether to deepen US involvement in the war, including deploying tens of thousands of additional troops," he needs Hamid Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah to work together to restore legitimacy to the government in Kabul. "A weak and discredited government in Kabul would make it more difficult to persuade a disillusioned American public and Congress to up the ante on a life-and-death commitment."
"Karzai appears to win by default"
Show: Oldest | Newest
8 Comments
Posted by Flip Flop Flap, Monday, November 2, 2009, 6:04 pm Yesterday, Karzai was an illegitimate fraudster and Obama could not make any decision about American troops dying in Afghanistan until the rigged election was fixed. Today, Karzai is congratulated as the new Afghan president by Obama. This is what American foreign politics have become. Talk about change.
Posted by Dexter, Monday, November 2, 2009, 6:20 pm Hope. Change. Transparency. Ha. OUT THE WINDOW. They are just words to fool us. We deserve better. We deserve the truth from just ONE politician. BHO is not a leader. We got bamboozled. Will vote very differently next time. If Afghanistan is corrupt, then what is the USA? Doubly corrupt?
Posted by Gut Shot, Monday, November 2, 2009, 7:43 pm Matthew Hoh is correct. We are seen by Aghanis as occupiers in the middle of a civil war. siding with 1 side. Bring all the troops home. Strengthen our country and borders with these troops and materiel and let these tribes kill each other in afghan. What does Afghan import to the US besides Heroin? Troops at the borders, airports, and ship ports could stop this. We do not need anything Afghan has to offer. These people have been fighting for centuries. Let them go at it without us. Screw Afghan. Strengthen the US first.
Posted by Michael J. Gorman, Monday, November 2, 2009, 11:16 pm Sorry, but as much as we care about our soldiers and hope they come home as soon as NOW, and think of all of them as heroes, most of us JUST DON'T CARE ABOUT AFGHANISTAN. TO HELL WITH THAT DRUG NATION. I feel sorry for the average struggling Afghan family, but we should leave now and forget they ever existed. Let's worry about Pakistan, Russia, China and our own problems right here. The rest of the world can kiss off.
Posted by JoAnne Coakley, Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 9:08 am I hate our position in Afghanistan but if we allow the Taliban to retake the country, thousands of women will die. The Taliban are uneducated, superstitious, barbaric men who only want power over all and especially over women.They forbid women to work or even go out without a male relative and make no provision for women who don't have a male relative. They are basically left to die.The suicide rate among women under the Taliban is very high. I know we cannot be the world's police but I'm very worried for those women.
Posted by Marilyn Brann, Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 2:14 pm Joanne is right, thousands of women will die and some of them will die because they were raped by someone other than their husbands. THey are put to death because they are impure after being raped.
Posted by Women , Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 6:08 pm You think Karzai's drug emporium treats women better than the Taliban? Have you been to Afghanistan?? We either need to take a stand, which this administration WILL NOT DO, or we need to get out. As proof that this administration will not stand up for freedom and democracy, just look at what happened in the Iranian elections. France, Greece, and countless other countries stood up for the Iranian people, Obama just bowed to Ahmenijad.
Posted by Brett, Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 3:04 pm How did Obama 'bow' to Ahmadinejad? By not trying to jump in and discredit the entire opposition as an American creation? You neocons and Obamahaters still don't understand anything about foreign policy, do you?!? If Obama had done what you ostensibly seem to have expected him to do, Ahmadinejad would have a pretext to lock Iran down and completely stifle any dissent to a much greater degree than it is already happening. Too nuanced? Sorry, that's the real world.
Post a Comment