Abdullah Accuses Karzai of Fraud, Treason;
US Dependence on Northern Supply Routes destabilizing North, Threatening Central Asia
Gen. Stanley McChrystal has admitted that there is no significant al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan. He implies that al-Qaeda does maintain some links to the guerrillas fighting the Karzai government. But McChrystal's statement rather undermines the hawkish argument of Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Joe Lieberman that the Afghanistan war is being fought against al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan and only needs more troops and firepower to succeed. In my own view, the Afghanistan training camps were not that important to al-Qaeda's 9/11 plot. The key had been recruiting an Egyptian and a Lebanese engineer in Hamburg, Germany, and getting them flight training in the US.
Meanwhile, the real al-Qaeda is threatening a war of attritition against US troops in the Middle East. The message was far more oriented toward the Israeli-Palestinian issue than toward Afghanistan, which seems to be positioned as the place where US troops are punished for alleged American misdeeds elsewhere. Whenever al-Qaeda foregrounds the Israeli-Palestinian issue, it is a sign of the organization's weakness. Everyone knows that they haven't done anything practical for the Palestinians, and that the Palestinian leadership doesn't want them grandstanding on the backs of the Palestinians. Bin Laden is increasingly irrelevant. In the new audiotape (note: not videotape) attributed to him, he accuses Obama of failing to honor his pledge to end the wars. But in fact Obama only pledged to get out of Iraq, and there is every reason to believe that he will do so. Al-Qaeda knows that that step will virtually drain its support and recruiting ability (only 4% of Arabs say they care deeply about Afghanistan).
In an ominous development for Afghanistan, presidential candidate Abdullah Abdullah has accused incumbent president Hamid Karzai of using state resources to engineer the stealing of the August 20 presidential election, accusing Karzai of treason. Abdullah said that Karzai bribed tribal elders between $4,000 and $8,000 each to throw the election to Karzai. Abdullah is likely stealing a page from Mir Husain Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, the losers in the Iranian presidential elections, who refused to accept the officially announced results and who alleged that the election was fixed in favor of incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Whereas the result of this dispute in Iran was that hundreds of thousands of mostly peaceful demonstrators repeatedly gathered in the streets until brutally repressed, in Afghanistan protests are likely to be rather more violent.
I think it just got substantially less likely that the West will be able to get Karzai and Abdullah to form some sort of national unity government together.
Abdullah wants there to be a run-off election, which likely will not be necessary by current rules, which require it only if no candidate receives at least 50 precent of the vote. But Abdullah believes that the votes that put Karzai up to 54% were at least in part fraudulent and the result of vote-buying with state monies. A run-off is also becoming difficult to hold unless it is scheduled very soon, because winter snows will limit the mobility of much of the population until the spring. But the Independent Electoral Commission is warning that a complete count of the first round may still be weeks away. For Afghanistan to be without a president all winter and spring could be disastrous, not only for the country but also for the Obama administration's military strategy.
CBS has video on the ongoing electoral crisis:
Even generally pro-Western Pakistani newspaper editors are accusing Western politicians who are defending the legitimacy of the election process in Afghanistan of living in another universe.
Meanwhile, Deirdre Tynan at Eurasia.net argues that the increasing dependence of the US and NATO on supply routes coming down from Central Asia into northern Afghanistan has helped destabilize the north, especially Kunduz province, which earlier had been relatively calm. The hijacking of fuel trucks and the subsequent German-ordered US air strike on the trucks in Kunduz all stemmed from the turn of the US to the northern supply routes. I am alarmed by her suggestion that for the US to depend ever more heavily on Central Asian routes for supplies could impel the anti-government militants to begin hitting Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, & etc. That is, the Afghanistan war effort could eventually create a new silk road, in the form of a highway of death that destabilizes the whole region.
End/ (Not Continued)

|
10 Comments:
But McChrystal's statement rather undermines the hawkish argument of Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Joe Lieberman that the Afghanistan war is being fought against al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan.
It's also the Obama argument:
“This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans."
Based on a host of recent media releases, al-Qa'ida "Central's" (AQC) people in "AFPAK" seem to be, more probably, in parts of Pakistan, like Waziristan, though they cross over into Afghanistan. A lot of the non-Arab jihadi contingents, such as the Uzbek Islamic Jihad Union, are based in Waziristan. AQC has released numerous audio and video messages about the ongoing fighting in Pakistan, including an audio message each this summer from Usama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri and a video on Swat featuring their new young gun, Abu Yahya al-Libi, who is an excellent orator (the video was called Swat: Victory or Martyrdom
Also based on recent multimedia releases and chatter on the various jihadi forums, a lot of the fighters going to fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan are Turkish or Uzbek, and not Arab.
However, the major AQC video series on "AFPAK," Wind of Paradise , does include profiles of a number of Arab "mujahideen" who have been killed in the field there. They represent many countries, including Kuwait, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Libya, and Morocco, as well as non-Arab Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Tajikistan, as well as East Turkestan.
If anyone finds a link to the full text of an English translation of the Bin Laden tape, that would be very much appreciated.
As far as signs of weakness, Al-Qaeda is, by every objective measure, weaker today than on September 10, 2001 - so any statement it makes can be perceived, accurately but not usefully, as a sign of weakness.
One thing ideological groups don't do, almost by definition, is lie about their ideology. When Bin Laden says his motivation to engage the US in war is to punish the US for its support for the displacement of the Palestinians and the suffering that radiates from that, he has no reason to lie about that.
From what I understand of his worldview, the starvation caused by the sanctions on Iraq before the invasion was orchestrated by the US with the purpose of weakening Iraq as a strategic threat to Israel. The actual invasion of Iraq even more so. Support for Israel also lies behind the US propping up puppet dictatorships that torture their citizens in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
In other words, directly or indirectly, the dispute over Israel is the basis of essentially the entire dispute between Bin Laden's vision of the Muslim world and the West.
If Bin Laden really didn't care about Israel, he'd have no reason to talk about it, instead he'd advance his real ideological point when he makes a tape.
Much as anyone hates Bin Laden, Bin Laden himself thinks he's right. And he thinks reasonable people in his target audience will agree with him if he explains himself. When he says he (and the Muslim world through his efforts) is engaging the US in a war of attrition over US support of Israel, that's because that's what he perceives himself as doing.
Anyway, the full text of the tape would be greatly appreciated if it becomes available.
What do you of Gwynne Dyer's suggestion that the illegitimate vote and other extenuating circumstances have opened a brief window of opportunity for Obama to announce a withdrawal of troops and end to propping up the Karzai government altogether?
"President Obama made a huge mistake in accepting the Washington orthodoxy that the war in Afghanistan is both vital to American interests and winnable. If he doesn’t turn around and start looking for a way out, it may destroy his administration in the end (though probably not in his first term). But the hardest thing in politics is to change course: you are punished far more severely for admitting a mistake than for making it in the first place.
What Obama could now say if he wanted, however, is: “This changes everything.”
It doesn’t, really, because the war in Afghanistan has been unwinnable for years, and it was never a vital American interest. Nor was Karzai’s regime honest or competent before this election. But Obama could SAY that the revelation of the true nature of the regime that the United States is supporting has forced him to reconsider the scale of the US military commitment in Afghanistan, and he could then start working his way towards the door.
...
The 9/11 attacks were not planned in Afghanistan. They were planned by al-Qaeda operatives in Germany and Florida, and it is very unlikely that the Taliban government of Afghanistan had advance warning of them.
The Taliban and al-Qaeda were not “allies”, though they held similar views about the right way for Muslims to live. The mainly Arab senior members of al-Qaeda were in Afghanistan in 1996-2001 because they had fought alongside the Afghans as foreign volunteers during the war against the Soviet occupation in the 1980s. The Taliban leaders felt a debt of honour towards them, and gave them refuge.
The Taliban NEVER ruled all of Afghanistan. They controlled their own Pashtun homeland in the south and east, plus Kabul and some other bits, but the militias of the other ethnic groups always held out in the north.
So why does Western political rhetoric take it for granted that the Taliban would gain control of all of Afghanistan if Western troops left, or that they would then allow al-Qaeda to have bases in the country again, or that they have the slightest desire to attack the West?
If Western troops did pull out of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai would try to make a deal with the Taliban, and he might succeed. Even if he failed, few Western interests are at stake in the outcome. This outrageous parody of an election has given Barack Obama the political room he needs to save himself, and he should seize the opportunity."
It's odd how Western pundits like to speak for Al-Qaeda. It's as if they are shepherding people into not having to see what is right in front of their face, a voluntary and popular kind of propaganda.
Palestine _is_ one of the central issues here, and Al-Qaeda stated that quite clearly back in 1998. Israel's actions in Lebanon being another very clearly stated inspiration from early on. The vast majority of groups designated as terrorist by the State Department have Palestine as a causus belli. What, are we to suppose that those Arabs are just angry at us because they are irrational or jealous, a Fox News version of reality? You can oppose Al-Qaeda without living in an imaginary world, Juan.
.
Re: "The key had been recruiting an Egyptian and a Lebanese engineer in Hamburg, Germany, and getting them flight training in the US."
Sorry Juan, but nanothermite is nanothermite is nanothermite.
Quoting McChrystal:
"We have not been struck again in the United States, and I think the strikes that would have hit across the world — not just in Europe or the United States but I think also in much of the Muslim world — I think have been prevented"
What about successful attacks in Spain and the UK? Don't count I guess. Our large superbly equipped,multi-based force in Iraq hasn't had much success preventing terrorist class attacks right under its nose, and Iraq is part of the Muslim world.
Looking at the political tensions in Afghanistan, the warlords, the drug cartels, the corruption machines, etc., how does one explain to the US soldier why he or she must kill as many Taliban as possible? And keep doing it for years to come.
It seems to me that if the Taliban were gone tomorrow, the Afghanis would be not much better off. I don't think we can line up and shoot ALL the bad guys in that poor country. But that would be the logical step after we've lined up and shot all the Taliban.
"But McChrystal's statement rather undermines the hawkish argument of Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Joe Lieberman that the Afghanistan war is being fought against al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan.
" 'It's also the Obama argument....' "
As Senator and President, Obama has been easily as hawkish on Afghanistan and Pakistan as any other political leader. Excusing Obama is an error.
The key had been recruiting an Egyptian and a Lebanese engineer in Hamburg, Germany, and getting them flight training in the US.
and another 'key' were the 15 SAUDI ARABIANS.
but let's invade and occupy Iraq instead.
why am i still so confused ???
I have never seen the case made that the "Afghan" people desire to be a unified nation under the rule of Kabul. If they refuse to accept some crooks way off in Kabul as their sovereign, or if they show up for elections to sneak their own crook into Kabul but have no intention of obeying him when he asks for mutual sacrifice, then it's not a legitimate state. It isn't just conquering Afghanistan that's idiotic, it's the desire to get Afghans to rule themselves when they are hostile to sharing power with each other.
Now if someone has a plan to get them to recognize some sort of local law and authority and stop stealing each others' goats, and have all Western aid & security forces deal directly with those authorities, maybe we can look like the supporters of tribal legitimacy and make the Taliban look like outside usurpers. Then the Taliban would just be a Pashtun political cult demanding the impossible.
But it means erasing the fake country of Afghanistan from the map, telling the ISI to go screw itself, and accepting that the US will only be one of many actors in the region forever. Is Obama ready for that yet?
Post a Comment
<< Home