SYNDICATED COLUMN: The Impotent Dictator
How Many More Must Die for Karzai?
"For five years Mr. Karzai was my president," Ashraf Ghani, an opposition candidate, bemoaned after widespread reports that incumbent Hamid Karzai had used fraud on a massive scale to steal the election. "Now how many Afghans will consider him their president?"
Not many. In a country where civil war is the national pastime and five-year-old boys learn how to fire an AK-47, this is not good. But Ghani is asking the wrong question. The real question is, how many Americans will continue to see Karzai as viable--and be willing to continue to pay the price of propping him up?
California Senator Diane Feinstein used to support Karzai. "Afghanistan is our beachhead on our war on terror. We cannot lose it, or we lose our war on terror," she said in 2002. What a difference seven years makes! "I do not believe we can build a democratic state in Afghanistan," she finally admitted last week.
Americans are finally waking up. Afghanistan, most people finally understand, is not "the good war" but the stupid one. We can't win. Even worse, there's nothing to win. The historical parallels aren't perfect--they never are--but it's hard not to think of the cost of propping up the corrupt Diem regime and its successors in South Vietnam when you see Hamid Karzai prancing around in Kabul, never an arm's length away from U.S. Special Forces commandos. You see, Karzai's own troops can't be trusted not to kill him.
A July headline in The Christian Science Monitor asked an intentionally hilarious question: "Afghan Election: Can Karzai's Rivals Close the Gap?" Not with the way Karzai stuffs ballot boxes!
There were at least 800 fake polling sites on Afghanistan's election day--places that "existed only on paper," reported The New York Times. "We think that about 15 percent of the polling sites never opened on Election Day," the paper quoted a "senior Western diplomat." "But they still managed to report thousands of ballots for Karzai."
Also, "Mr. Karzai’s supporters also took over approximately 800 [additional] legitimate polling centers and used them to fraudulently report tens of thousands of additional ballots for Mr. Karzai."
Actually, make that hundreds of thousands. In "Kandahar…preliminary results indicate that more than 350,000 ballots have been turned in to be counted. But Western officials estimated that only about 25,000 people actually voted there."
Overall "pro-Karzai ballots," reports the Times, "may exceed the people who actually voted by a factor of 10."
The truth is, there's nothing new here. Ashraf Ghani may have been the only Afghan to have ever considered Karzai legitimate. To most Afghans, Karzai has always been a curious "impotent dictator," propped up by U.S. military force but with insufficient funding to exert his power outside the capital Kabul. In the provinces, tribal warlords fight the Taliban for control.
Looking at Karzai's resume, it's hard to imagine what George W. Bush and his "pet Afghan" Zalmay Khalilzad were thinking when they appointed Karzai as the U.S. puppet "interim president" of occupied Afghanistan in late 2001. Granted, all three were oilmen--Karzai and Khalilzad had both worked as consultants for the energy corporation Unocal, which tried to build an oil-gas pipeline across Afghanistan in the mid-1990s.
But Karzai lacked both integrity--as a Taliban official in 1997, Karzai was caught embezzling government funds and forced to flee the country--and support. He was a Pashtun, and the new Northern Alliance government was predominantly Tajik. Always essential in a nation permanently at war, Karzai had no military bona fides, having rarely seen a shot fired in anger.
Karzai's drive to consolidate power since 2001 has been marked by trickery, intimidation, ballot stuffing and systemic corruption. One "election" has followed another. But none have been conducted legitimately.
Perhaps democracy was too much to hope for in a nation whose infrastructure had been degraded to the 14th century. There was no census, no house addresses, no mail service. How could a fair election be held?
Karzai didn't even try.
At a June 2002 loya jirga (grand assembly) to choose the new head of state, Karzai got his U.S. masters to lean on his main rival, former king, Mohammed Zahir Shah. Zahir Shah withdrew, as did 70 of his delegates. They did the same to ex-President Burhanuddin Rabbani, guaranteeing Karzai a phony mandate.
"Voting for the loya jirga has been plagued by violence and vote-buying," said UN envoy to Afghanistan Lakhdar Brahimi at the time. "There were attempts at manipulation, violence, unfortunately. Money was used, threats were used."
"This is not a democracy, it is a rubber stamp. Everything has already been decided by the powerful ones," added the Women's Affairs minister.
On October 9, 2004, Karzai "won" his first "democratic election." As before, Karzai's goons stacked the deck. Unsympathetic elections officials were kidnapped. The UN concluded that "that fraud had occurred, particularly ballot-box stuffing" in the 2004 election. The UN "noted that some estimates have said that 10 percent to 15 percent of the 11.5 million registered voters, in Afghanistan and among Afghan refugees abroad, may be registered more than once," reported The New York Times at the time. The three-member committee that counted the ballots were all appointed by Karzai.
Those who can't win, cheat. Without the U.S., Karzai would never have won power in Afghanistan. He certainly wouldn't have kept it.
Meanwhile, the New York Times reported May 18, 2009 that Zalmay Khalilzad "could assume a powerful, unelected position inside the Afghan government under a plan he is discussing with Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, according to senior American and Afghan officials."
Bush's corrupt oilmen are still having fun looting Afghanistan. The question for us Americans is: why should anyone die to help them?
(Ted Rall, President of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, is author of the books "To Afghanistan and Back" and "Silk Road to Ruin.")
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
"For five years Mr. Karzai was my president," Ashraf Ghani, an opposition candidate, bemoaned after widespread reports that incumbent Hamid Karzai had used fraud on a massive scale to steal the election. "Now how many Afghans will consider him their president?"
Not many. In a country where civil war is the national pastime and five-year-old boys learn how to fire an AK-47, this is not good. But Ghani is asking the wrong question. The real question is, how many Americans will continue to see Karzai as viable--and be willing to continue to pay the price of propping him up?
California Senator Diane Feinstein used to support Karzai. "Afghanistan is our beachhead on our war on terror. We cannot lose it, or we lose our war on terror," she said in 2002. What a difference seven years makes! "I do not believe we can build a democratic state in Afghanistan," she finally admitted last week.
Americans are finally waking up. Afghanistan, most people finally understand, is not "the good war" but the stupid one. We can't win. Even worse, there's nothing to win. The historical parallels aren't perfect--they never are--but it's hard not to think of the cost of propping up the corrupt Diem regime and its successors in South Vietnam when you see Hamid Karzai prancing around in Kabul, never an arm's length away from U.S. Special Forces commandos. You see, Karzai's own troops can't be trusted not to kill him.
A July headline in The Christian Science Monitor asked an intentionally hilarious question: "Afghan Election: Can Karzai's Rivals Close the Gap?" Not with the way Karzai stuffs ballot boxes!
There were at least 800 fake polling sites on Afghanistan's election day--places that "existed only on paper," reported The New York Times. "We think that about 15 percent of the polling sites never opened on Election Day," the paper quoted a "senior Western diplomat." "But they still managed to report thousands of ballots for Karzai."
Also, "Mr. Karzai’s supporters also took over approximately 800 [additional] legitimate polling centers and used them to fraudulently report tens of thousands of additional ballots for Mr. Karzai."
Actually, make that hundreds of thousands. In "Kandahar…preliminary results indicate that more than 350,000 ballots have been turned in to be counted. But Western officials estimated that only about 25,000 people actually voted there."
Overall "pro-Karzai ballots," reports the Times, "may exceed the people who actually voted by a factor of 10."
The truth is, there's nothing new here. Ashraf Ghani may have been the only Afghan to have ever considered Karzai legitimate. To most Afghans, Karzai has always been a curious "impotent dictator," propped up by U.S. military force but with insufficient funding to exert his power outside the capital Kabul. In the provinces, tribal warlords fight the Taliban for control.
Looking at Karzai's resume, it's hard to imagine what George W. Bush and his "pet Afghan" Zalmay Khalilzad were thinking when they appointed Karzai as the U.S. puppet "interim president" of occupied Afghanistan in late 2001. Granted, all three were oilmen--Karzai and Khalilzad had both worked as consultants for the energy corporation Unocal, which tried to build an oil-gas pipeline across Afghanistan in the mid-1990s.
But Karzai lacked both integrity--as a Taliban official in 1997, Karzai was caught embezzling government funds and forced to flee the country--and support. He was a Pashtun, and the new Northern Alliance government was predominantly Tajik. Always essential in a nation permanently at war, Karzai had no military bona fides, having rarely seen a shot fired in anger.
Karzai's drive to consolidate power since 2001 has been marked by trickery, intimidation, ballot stuffing and systemic corruption. One "election" has followed another. But none have been conducted legitimately.
Perhaps democracy was too much to hope for in a nation whose infrastructure had been degraded to the 14th century. There was no census, no house addresses, no mail service. How could a fair election be held?
Karzai didn't even try.
At a June 2002 loya jirga (grand assembly) to choose the new head of state, Karzai got his U.S. masters to lean on his main rival, former king, Mohammed Zahir Shah. Zahir Shah withdrew, as did 70 of his delegates. They did the same to ex-President Burhanuddin Rabbani, guaranteeing Karzai a phony mandate.
"Voting for the loya jirga has been plagued by violence and vote-buying," said UN envoy to Afghanistan Lakhdar Brahimi at the time. "There were attempts at manipulation, violence, unfortunately. Money was used, threats were used."
"This is not a democracy, it is a rubber stamp. Everything has already been decided by the powerful ones," added the Women's Affairs minister.
On October 9, 2004, Karzai "won" his first "democratic election." As before, Karzai's goons stacked the deck. Unsympathetic elections officials were kidnapped. The UN concluded that "that fraud had occurred, particularly ballot-box stuffing" in the 2004 election. The UN "noted that some estimates have said that 10 percent to 15 percent of the 11.5 million registered voters, in Afghanistan and among Afghan refugees abroad, may be registered more than once," reported The New York Times at the time. The three-member committee that counted the ballots were all appointed by Karzai.
Those who can't win, cheat. Without the U.S., Karzai would never have won power in Afghanistan. He certainly wouldn't have kept it.
Meanwhile, the New York Times reported May 18, 2009 that Zalmay Khalilzad "could assume a powerful, unelected position inside the Afghan government under a plan he is discussing with Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, according to senior American and Afghan officials."
Bush's corrupt oilmen are still having fun looting Afghanistan. The question for us Americans is: why should anyone die to help them?
(Ted Rall, President of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, is author of the books "To Afghanistan and Back" and "Silk Road to Ruin.")
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
Labels: afghanistan, Hamid Karzai






27 Comments:
Does it matter?
Here's a piece of Afghan historical trivia:
Burhanuddin Rabbani, mentioned above, was a professor during the '70s in Kabul who thought women should not attend university. His idea to get them drive them out was to pour acid on their faces and legs.
Why should US troops, or anyone else, die for this reprobate piece of crap?
Not to mention the rest of the so-called "candidates". Quite a few of them are just warlords with their beards shaved off.
Shows how badly the facts can get skewed in the telling compounded by gender prejudice. B. Rabbani was simply a distributor for the Nair brand depilatory, which removes unwanted hair from the face and legs, not a woman-hating, acid-throwing advocate. A guy can't get a break!
Speaking of despots and war criminals, the following story was just published:
"Muntazer al-Zaidi, the Iraqi reporter who hurled his shoes at then U.S. President, George W. Buh, whose act of defiance during a news conference last December summed up the feelings of many Iraqis towards the former U.S. leader, was released from prison on Tuesday."
The story fails to note that the "act of defiance" also summed up the feelings of many Americans towards Bush.
Some commentators made much of Bush's quick reflexes at the tossed shoes, which makes sense, though. Bush had lots of practice dodging responsibility during the Vietnam War, not to mention the entire remainder of his adult life.
All the wrong people have been sent to the slammer while Bush and Cheney roam free.
Does it matter?
A guy can't get a break.
Break his legs.
"Bush had lots of practice dodging responsibility during the Vietnam War..."
When the left makes statements like this, I always have to chuckle. It's the left who always advocates dodging service, especially in times of war, yet they wouldn't shut up about Bush being in the Air National Guard. I'm sorry, but I forgot that Clinton was a Green Beret in Vietnam, right?
Ok, so what's the alternative. I agree that Afghanistan has proven itself historically the place where super powers go to get embarrassed, but what happens if the U.S. and our NATO allies decide to pack up and go home? Answer: the same thing that happened after the Soviets withdrew. There will be a power struggle, and the faction most willing to be ruthless and brutal will take power. I wouldn't be surprised if the Taliban were to take power again. We all saw where that led eight years ago. Plus, Pakistan would be in much more danger from an extremist led Afghanistan, and Pakistan has nukes. So, it seems as if the U.S. does have another Vietnam of sorts on its hands, only then the south didn't have WMD. What to do? Unconditional retreat is not an option.
What a moron
Does it matter?
"When the left makes statements like this..."
The opinion (based on records the Bush family didn't succeed in destroying) is of one person, not "the left." Because, you see, SON, many of the people you LABEL "the left" have, by their deeds, NOT avoided military conscription or voluntary service, or hidden behind daddy's connections to PRETEND at military service. But let's assume this opinion on George W. Bush is a left-wing conspiracy to tarnish George W. Bush's perfect reputation and record. No, let's not. Bush proved to be a coward and a malingerer. No doubt about this, though. The "right' pushed hard and illegally to insert this dangerous incompetent into the White House. Let's not close our eyes to what happened the past EIGHT YEARS. And, please, don't blame the past EIGHT YEARS on the Clintons. That is totally STUPID. TOTALLY STUPID.
Owen, you are a moron. People criticize Bush for not serving because he is a hypocrite, not because people should be in the military. And as for Afghanistan, maybe a country should have a right to self determination???
@ Susan Stark on Rabbani
Listen, getting angry over Afghan chauvinism will do you no good. The US is already a tight buddy of Saudi Arabia. How do women's rights work out there?
And as for the acid throwing thing; I am sorry to tell you but its a tactic emplyed every four or so years somewhere in South Asia. The entire Indus and Ganges basin, and all their riverine tributary zones are some of the worst places to be a woman in the entire world.
I'll inform you right now that women will not be treated as equal citizens in a region if they don't stand up for their rights. Ted mentioned how civil war is a past time in Afghanistan. Tribal feuding is a way of life. asking why a snake like Rabbani behaved as he did, is like asking a scorpion why it stings. A better question to ask is why didn't the acid victim's brother, father, cousins, uncles or nephews not react? A bullet in Rabbani's head would be illegal, but considered "justified vengeance" by Afghan society at large. Susan, I am sorry to tell you that women in South Asia will have to take their rights on their own. Nobody from outside is capable of sustainably "handing" them their freedom.
Y_S
Pakistan
Does it Matter?
Seconded. The corruption and bankruptcy of the Kabul regime is obvious. A minor example; Wali Karzai, Hamid Karzai's younger brother, is the country's largest gun smuggler and drug trafficker. That is the President's brother we are talking about.
The real question is, what happens when Western forces leave Afghanistan. How will that show play out.
Sincerely
Y_S
Pakistan
Sounds like ACORN has an office or two in Kabul. Maybe they are giving advice on how to setup an underage brothel and avoid taxes.
The outside panel CBS brought into to get to the bottom of the so-called “Rathergate” mess says. I recently re-examined the panel’s report after a source, Deep Throat style, told me to “Go to page 130.” When I did, here’s the startling piece of information I found:
Mapes had information prior to the airing of the September 8 [2004] Segment that President Bush, while in the TexANG [Texas Air National Guard] did volunteer for service in Vietnam but was turned down in favor of more experienced pilots. For example, a flight instructor who served in the TexANG with Lieutenant Bush advised Mapes in 1999 that Lieutenant Bush “did want to go to Vietnam but others went first.” Similarly, several others advised Mapes in 1999, and again in 2004 before September 8, that Lieutenant Bush had volunteered to go to Vietnam but did not have enough flight hours to qualify.
If you are going to refute this, try to use facts, not bumper sticker slogans this time K?
Susan Stark, before you post a response, reread what I wrote and try to reply to what I actually wrote.
Grouchy, please don't blame "corporate media"
Aggie, try not to bloviate.
We're stuck on a set of trajectories that won't change. It does not matter what is said about it.
So how many of you girls on the left called BJ Bill ("I loath the military") Clinton a coward for draft dodging?
Anon re: Mapes
Bush was provided with a script to follow for any and all activities that might put him in harm's way. That's how the Daddy's Connections Network works. So, if Bush didn't accumulate sufficient time and experience to go to Vietnam, you can bet he smirked when he was allegedly told he wasn't qualified. I don't believe anything from Bush's public and private records, because so, so, SO much of it was blacked out. No one without a ton of dirt needs to be protected that much. Bush was and is dirty.
Speaking of Muntazer al-Zaidi, I hope he improved his aim and speed while in jail. I mean, how disappointing was that? If he couldn't get the pretzel-choking slacker POTUS, what are the odds of him hitting the fly-swatting One, in case He visits His Mesopotamian satrapy?
And, on a more serious note, Owen, why do you think "unconditional retreat is not an option?" Do you think the US has an infinite supply money (not to mention able bodies) to throw down that well? When is enough enough, when there's no stone left to turn in Afghanistan?
And to anon@9/17/09 12:11 AM, so what if George II didn't dodge the draft (oh wait, he wasn't really drafted, was he)? Is he any less of a doofus because of that?
"Unconditional retreat is not an option."
The Russians did a highly publicized surge. Then, they declared victory and left.
At least Bush is an American citizen. And no Bush brothers are living in a hut on $20/year. You'd think B Hussein could at least send another $20 and double his bro's annual income. But hey, who cares about B Hussein's impoverished family in Africa. As long as he looks cool fist pumping his "wife".
"At least Bush is an American citizen. And no Bush brothers are living in a hut on $20/year. You'd think B Hussein could at least send another $20 and double his bro's annual income. But hey, who cares about B Hussein's impoverished family in Africa. As long as he looks cool fist pumping his "wife"."
-A Genius
Anon. I love you. You are my hero. Please post here more often. I am serious.
It's all hopeless....we're doomed. Stop it! Just.....stop!
... but what happens if the U.S. and our NATO allies decide to pack up and go home? Answer: the same thing that happened after the Soviets withdrew. There will be a power struggle, and the faction most willing to be ruthless and brutal will take power. I wouldn't be surprised if the Taliban were to take power again.
What? The Taliban were in control of the White House? When was that?
Oh, oh, you mean what happens, in Afghanistan, if all the foreign troops leave. Guess what, nobody cares. It's not our problem. That's why they call it a separate country on a different continent on the other side of the world.
Anon 6:10 AM said:
"Guess what, nobody cares. It's not our problem. That's why they call it a separate country on a different continent on the other side of the world."
The same thing people said when the Soviets pulled out. The same thing chauvenistic nationalists and nativists say all the time....it's not that there won't be consequences, it's that most people are incapable of or unwilling to connect the dots between perpetually screwing over a society to the point of utter dysfunction, the presence of a failed state, and the inevitable fundamentalism that rises from the ashes of said state to take vengeance on whatever target its leaders seek to blame.
For example, the fundies in the US blamed 9/11 on gays and abortion. Look it up, they did! Why? because it increases donations to their Hate Machine. This is the same way people take power in any polity; find a scapegoat to blame everything on, rally a base of support, attack said scapegoat with genocidal rage. Sound familiar?
It's inevitable, we're screwed..that's why we should stop being so abusive. That's why we should stop justifying that abuse with more abuse. But, alas, nobody listened then, nobody listens now, nobody will ever listen, it's all a waste of time.
Go buy yourself a goat, just don't feed it alfalfa for god's sake!
Susan Stark, before you post a response, reread what I wrote and try to reply to what I actually wrote.
Grouchy, please don't blame "corporate media"
Aggie, try not to bloviate.
You really didn't think you'd draw us out on your pathetic and irrelevant little thread, did you?
Post a Comment
<< Home