Afghanistan: now what?
So did you hear those huge sighs of relief as the Afghan president Hamid Karzai finally agreed to fight a second round election run-off?
Admittedly, they weren't sighs of relief from Afghan voters - I suspect most of them are far more preoccupied with keeping their families safe - but in Washington, London and points west, political leaders and diplomats could finally relax. Crisis over - for now.
Why was it such a crisis? Look at it this way - you're fighting a difficult, unpopular war with no end in sight. The man you're ostensibly there to help - and who occupies his Presidential office in no small part because he's the one you wanted there - has just been found to have pocketed nearly a million votes which, well, which sort of didn't really exist.
No wonder President Obama isn't quite ready yet to announce whether he's going to deploy tens of thousands more US troops to Afghanistan. It helps if the guys you're helping look as if they're at least half-way honest. (By the way, can anyone tell me the difference between "examining all the options with due consideration", which is what Mr Obama apparently does, and "dithering hopelessly", which is what Gordon Brown is said to be prone to? I merely ask ...)
I'm not naïve. I don't expect a perfect electoral exercise in Afghanistan. But I have the impression that Washington and London both felt that Mr Karzai had really let the side down. It was all so obvious, somehow - and he probably would have won anyway, without all the fiddling.
So US vice-president Joe Biden and US special envoy Richard Holbrooke got heavy with him. It seems angry words were spoken, but Mr Karzai is a proud man who doesn't like being pushed around. For weeks, he refused to budge.
It was Senator John Kerry, the man whom George W Bush beat in 2004, who eventually appears to have been able to sweet-talk the Afghan president into accepting a second round run-off.
Problem solved? Fraid not. Even if the second round is better run than the first round was, and even if Mr Karzai wins a cleaner victory, there's still the small matter of the Taliban, the warlords and the drug barons to deal with. And let's not forget: just across the border, the Pakistani army has now swung into action in South Waziristan, hoping that this time it'll manage to dislodge the tribal and Taliban commanders who so often in the past have defeated it.
So Afghanistan is still a mess. And as the US commander General Stanley McChrystal has pointed out, the people of Afghanistan will be reluctant to offer their wholehearted support to the US-led military effort until they are sure that the international community is in this for the long haul. After all, would you put your eggs in Washington's basket if you thought there was a chance the US might change its mind within the next few months?
Here's the point. The outcome of the Presidential election isn't what matters. What matters is that Washington makes up its mind what it wants to do and then does it. The anti-US forces have a clear objective: foreign troops out. I suspect there's a need for the same degree of clarity from the international military command.
And on an entirely unrelated matter: for what it's worth, I don't think Tony Blair is going to get the job of President of the European Council, even if, eventually, President Klaus of the Czech Republic signs the Lisbon Treaty. I can't put my finger on anything specific ... I just don't think it's going to happen.
Oh, and if you thought I'd be writing about the BNP this week, sorry to disappoint you, but I sort of feel that enough has been already been written, at least for now. Perhaps another time ...
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~34~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Robin,
Afganistan:
Pakistan, the Baluchi parts Iran and all of the smaller tribal areas need to considered together. There are several tribes spread across more than one present day state. Hundreds of years ago we drew lines and created these states, but before this these peoples moved freely through the range of their tribal areas as in many case they still do today carrying weapons and drugs!. The problem is very similar to Kurdistan and Ossetia. I do not think we can hope for a stable region until and unless these natural connections are re-established. Perhaps we need an independent state of Baluchistan and Pashtunistan (etc..) to the north and forget about Afghanistan and the parts of the old countries and see if the traditional tribal territories can be a civilising influence on the area.
What we are doing now is not working. Afganistan is a failed and corrupt state and perhaps we should encourage it to disintegrate for the sake of the peoples of the area and stability? The peoples of the area certainly don't seem to have much wish to be integrated into the existing states.
Tony Blair as European President!!!
The man has no ideology and is therefore a dangerous loose cannon. He took the Labour party to the right of the Tory party to get elected (Just to please The Sun!) I hope we get someone with a feeing for service to the people of Europe. And what's more; why can't, we the people of Europe, vote for our new President? And why don't the media bother about this!
Complain about this comment
The root of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and the wish to invade comes from the Upper classes of the UK Establishment.
They are the Government Front Bench, the Major Opposition Front Bench, Royalty, Justice, Banks, Military commanders, Armament Providers, Shipping Transporters, etc etc.
One thing that most of these movers and shakers have in common is their Public Schooling. They are the Upper Class and they were the ones who wanted war and wish to impose their will on the Afghan people and soil the chances of British people being known as peace lovers.
They control the Spin and the media and keep the majority in a stupor of hopelessness.
Over a million went to the streets in London, much to late, to protest against the war on Iraq, they were ignored by the Government and the Queen. Leaving them with no voice.
The Queen and the royal Family consider they have no active political role to play yet most of them are colonels of regiments and William and Harry have an unhealthy desire to go to Afghanistan and kill some of the locals.
It was noticed that the Prince of Wales was very sorry about a Lt Colonel dying in action and attended his funeral, this showed a decided class distinction not shown to any of the common rank.
All those servicemen in the UK forces declare loyalty to the Queen not the government, as do the MPs, the Police and the Justice.
The Royals are full gung ho for military action. Why?
The people of the UK did not clamour for wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, nor did the Unions, this came from the well educated Movers and the Shakers at the top.
Today PM Brown and his Cabinet continue the spin that our war in Afghanistan is to stop El Quaida training camps being established in Afghanistan, ignoring completely that the Uk forces are providing a wealth of live training for the insurgents where before they had to pretend.
The Afghan people have never had a central government that ruled over the country as is experienced in the UK.
There are ever changing tribal loyalties, each wanting a degree of independence that a central government can never provide for.
The Toffs continue their profit and we unwashed look on helpless as the only thing we have is a vote of a choice of public educated Toffs.
Complain about this comment
Afganisthan will be in a mess until Taliban or any other such organisation runs there.There cannot be two centers of power....Afganisthan has many.How do you expect peace?
Complain about this comment
Peace can only stay in Afganisthan when there is onecenter of power
Complain about this comment
#4. ApratimMukherjee wrote:
"Peace can only stay in Afganisthan when there is one centre of power"
I am not clear about what you have written. Are you saying that peace can be imposed by force from "one centre of power"? Or are you saying the peace will result from the people of Afghanistan wanting to, of their own will, support a central power?
My position is that peace does not ultimately flow from the barrel of a gun, but from the wide popular civil acceptance that everyone benefits from being part of a state.
Complain about this comment
I believe all that you have written about Afghanistan has been written over and over again for the past 1,000 years or more. People keep trying to "fix" Afghanistan, but the issue is about terrorist, many who reside in Pakistan. When there are individuals identified as "warlords" within the existing politcal system the establishment of demoncratic processes seem, at best, a distant goal.
Complain about this comment
Re: your comment on who will be the first President of the EU, for what it's worth, my money is on Guy Verhofstadt of Belgium. The big players - France and Germany - may well see him as nice, uncontroversial, safe pair of hands and impeccably European. And, unlike Blair, English is not his first language and he is not seen as an enthusiastic and very junior partner to the US. As for Afghanistan - my prediction is US out (behind a fig leaf) by 2012 - prior to Obama's re-election campaign. You read it here first!
Complain about this comment
On the BBC'c 'Feedback programme at 1.30pm November 13th 2009, the
presenter, Roger Bolton, asked Richard Clark, a news editor from the
radio newsroom, why the news and the PM programme continued to carry
Mrs Janes' comments that her son bled to death because there were no
helicopters available.
Caroline Wyatt, BBC Defence correspondence in Afghanistan, filed a
report on November 10th that Soldier Janes had been picked up by
helicopter 'within an hour' of being seriously injured. You can listen
to Clark's desperate attempts to justify his approach to 'balance' on
the Feedback programme attached. Caroline's report got no air time.
There's been nothing about it on Nick Robinson's blog either. I Caroline Wyatt's report true or is it just being hidden to save the BBC embarrassment?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS