October 19th, 2009 by Jason

The U.N.-backed Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) has declared ballots from 210 polling stations invalid due to “clear and convincing evidence of fraud.” The ECC has instructed the Afghan-led Independent Election Commission (IEC) to “invalidate a certain percentage of each candidate’s votes” based on the ECC’s findings. As a result, it is largely expected that Hamid Karzai’s total will fall below the 50% necessary to avoid a runoff election.

In response, President Karzai announced Afghan politics has reached a “deadlock” and said no decisions can be made yet based on the ECC figures. Meanwhile, Abdullah Abdullah’s campaign urged the IEC to accept the ECC’s findings and act accordingly. Rahm Emanuel and Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) have both stated it would be inadvisable to make any decisions on troop increases until the legitimacy of the Afghan government is determined.

Towards that end, the White House insisted on the Sunday talk shows that there must be either a runoff election or a power-sharing arrangement, while admitting the decision is ultimately up to the Afghans. But Senator John Cornyn (R-Tex.) rebutted that, while Afghan legitimacy is important to the mission, it should not solely determine U.S. foreign policy.

Laura Rozen quotes an anonymous expert who doubts the wisdom of a power-sharing arrangement because it “does not resolve the underlying tensions between Abdullah and Karzai supporters (Abdullah wants a parliamentary system of government, thus changing the constitution from a presidential to a parliamentary system).” Nonetheless, it appears the U.S. is working towards such a deal, as there are reports Deputy U.S. Ambassador Frank Ricciardone met with Abdullah this weekend.

To put pressure on Karzai, Jim Hoagland at the Washington Post argues that only by threatening a U.S. withdrawal can America force Karzai “into sharing power with more honest, competent Afghans.” Stephen J. Solarz and Michael O’Hanlon similarly argue that the U.S. should tie “our future increases in American resources for Afghanistan to reciprocating measures by the Afghan government.” According to Solarz and O’Hanlon, counterinsurgency hinges on a “strong and legitimate indigenous partner government.” Also in the Washington Post, Jackson Diehl explains why Europeans will not likely significantly increase their troop levels but at the same time will continue to rhetorically push ”the effort to stabilize Afghanistan under a decent government.”

Representative Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) and Senator Lieberman (I-Conn.) argue President Obama should fully resource the counterinsurgency campaign that will be “focused on protecting the Afghan population, building up the Afghan national security forces and improving Afghan governance.” But Matthew Yglesias reports that Representative Jane Harman (D-Cali.) has expressed doubts about a troop increase.

The examples of America’s past wars continue to drive the debate. Lewis Sorley draws lessons from Vietnam, while Gordon Goldstein comes to different conclusions from the same example. But in the Weekly Standard, Max Boot argues analysts should rid themselves of the “Vietnam Syndrome” all together.

Speaking more broadly about U.S. foreign policy, Gregory Scoblete of Real Clear World observes, “the very policies that tend to drive radical recruitment are the ones that the U.S. will almost certainly never change,” such as American “support for autocratic regimes.” Thomas Friedman emphasizes the importance of the voice of the people: ”Where there is people power wedded to progressive ideas, there is hope - and American power can help. Where there is people power harnessed to bad ideas, there is danger. Where there is no people power and only bad ideas, there will be no happy endings.”

Posted in Afghanistan, Congress, Democracy Promotion, Elections, Freedom, Military, Reform, Taliban, Terrorism, US foreign policy, US politics, United Nations, al-Qaeda |