Afghans opt out of phony election
Published Aug 26, 2009 3:31 PM
The fraud-filled and inconclusive Afghan presidential election exposed the
weakness of the U.S.-NATO occupation regime. President Barack Obama’s
defense of the phony election and of the U.S. intervention failed to cover this
up at a time when the people in the U.S. are growing increasingly unhappy with
the Afghan war.
The top Pentagon brass admit to weaknesses of the occupation and the Afghan
puppet regime, but do so in order to make the case for more U.S. troops. The
generals are putting the administration in the position of taking
responsibility for a U.S. defeat if it doesn’t send more youths to kill
and die in Central Asia.
No election under foreign occupation can be considered “fair.” It
is automatically a violation of that nation’s sovereignty to have foreign
troops presiding over polling places. But Afghanistan’s Aug. 20
presidential election was corrupt from every angle.
The Taliban-led resistance forces opposed participation in what they rightfully
considered a foreign-imposed election. In the many areas under control of the
resistance, voting was minimal. “In a broad southern
region—provinces like Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan and Zabul—turnout
was as low as 5 percent to 10 percent, [a Western] official said, effectively
disenfranchising the region viewed as the most crucial” in the latest
U.S. offensive. (New York Times, Aug. 22)
In provinces where the resistance is weaker, local military
figures—usually called “warlords” in the Western
media—controlled the voting places. Most of these figures were lined up
with incumbent President Hamid Karzai, who even pulled off a last-minute deal
with Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, bringing him back from exile in Turkey in an
attempt to deliver votes from the Uzbek ethnic group.
One of the more absurd aspects of the election was the alleged high
participation of women voting in certain areas. It turned out that men who were
“heads” of families could hold the voting cards of all the women in
the household and vote for them. Sonali Kolhatkar, co-author of the book,
“Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords, and the Propaganda of
Silence,” said on Democracy Now! on Aug. 20 that “thousands of
women have been registered to vote by their husbands or by male relatives, and
voting has apparently been done in their name.”
Whether Karzai was able to win a clear victory—requiring more than 50
percent of the vote in the first round—is still in doubt. There were over
40 candidates, but only a few were really in the contest. Karzai’s main
rival, former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah, claims Karzai’s forces
stuffed ballot boxes and stole ballots in the south. Outside election observers
agree there was vote manipulation which aided Karzai. Both Abdullah, who also
cooperates with the occupation forces, and Karzai claim to have won the
Karzai’s rivals have filed over a thousand claims of election fraud. The
result is that the election, which the U.S. and NATO hoped would somehow add
legitimacy to the occupation regime, has only discredited it further.
Pentagon wants more troops
An Aug. 23 New York Times article said that U.S. commanders in Afghanistan are
reporting gains by the resistance forces and requesting more U.S. and NATO
troops. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan,
is now supposed to be working on new requests to the administration to be filed
in early September. The media are hinting that McChrystal will ask for more
In addition, on CNN’s “State of the Union” program on Aug.
23, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Adm. Mike Mullen said that “the Afghan
situation is serious and it is deteriorating,” despite the recent
addition of 17,000 U.S. troops.
The Pentagon is apparently about to increase pressure on the Obama
administration to send more troops to Afghanistan even before any have left
Meanwhile, unlike in Iraq, the U.S. president has taken political
responsibility for the war in Afghanistan. He reiterated his campaign position
before a meeting of Veterans of Foreign Wars in Phoenix on Aug. 17, calling the
war in Afghanistan “fundamental to the defense of our people.”
Obama added, “This is not a war of choice. This is a war of
Allegedly, this is “a war of necessity” because al-Qaeda and Osama
bin Laden are the main targets. In reality, both have almost disappeared from
the media and from Afghanistan. The Afghans themselves, Taliban included, had
nothing to do with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
People in the U.S., especially those who voted for Obama, are growing more and
more hostile to the Afghan war. A new poll shows that a majority of the people
in the United States “now see the war in Afghanistan as not worth
fighting, and just a quarter say more U.S. troops should be sent to the
country.” (Washington Post, Aug. 20)
According to the poll, seven out of 10 Democrats “say the war has not
been worth its costs, and fewer than one in five support an increase in troop
levels.” Most of those who still support the war in Afghanistan are
Republicans, who are against the Obama administration on all domestic issues
and oppose his presidency in general.
Republican Sen. John McCain has publicly asked for more troops, and will
pressure the administration to send them should the generals request more
forces, as is expected.
E-mail: [email protected]
Articles copyright 1995-2012 Workers World.
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: [email protected]
Subscribe [email protected]
Support independent news DONATE