Afghanistan: The US Marches On (with 20,000 More Troops)....To Where?

Afghanistan: Forget the Election, Let’s Have Some More Troops

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

UPDATE 1000 GMT: The Independent of London offers the "exclusive" that the US commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, will ask for 20,000 more troops in his long-awaited report to President Obama.

Regular EA readers won't be surprised, as only last Sunday we featured the public-relations offensive by two Administration officials pointing towards an increase of 25,000 soldiers. The question: will the US press for some of the increase to come from NATO allies or will it provide all of the additional forces?
--

The post-election situation drags on in Afghanistan, with the result of the Presidential vote descending into a protracted delay amidst allegations of fraud. The electoral commission has now suspended daily briefings, and stories have emerged of a heated row between President Hamid Karzai and President Obama's envoy Richard Holbrooke, apparently over the attempt of the Karzai camp to alter the vote so the President would be re-elected in the first round.

Our suspicion has been that, for many in Washington, this political quagmire would merely be the backdrop (and indeed the pretext) for an intensified military campaign. Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation shares our fears. Particuarly notable in his account below is the large presence of Bruce Riedel, who helped design the Obama strategy of intervention in Afghanistan at the start of 2009.

Afghanistan Apocalypse

Yesterday afternoon at the Brookings Institution, four analysts portrayed a bleak and terrifying vision of the current state of affairs in Afghanistan in the wake of the presidential election. All four were hawkish, reflecting a growing consensus in the Washington establishment that the Afghanistan war is only just beginning.

Their conclusions: (1) A significant escalation of the war will be necessary to avoid utter defeat. (2) Even if tens of thousands of troops are added to the US occupation, it won't be possible to determine if the US/NATO effort is succeeding until eighteen months later. (3) Even if the United States turns the tide in Afghanistan, no significant drawdown of US forces will take place until five years have passed.

The experts at the panel were Bruce Riedel, a 30-year CIA veteran and adviser to four presidents, who chaired President Obama's Afghan task force; Michael O'Hanlon, a military expert and adviser to General David Petraeus; Tony Cordesman, a conservative military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; and Kim Kagan, head of the Institute for the Study of War.

Not a single panelist questioned the goals, purpose or objectives of the Afghan war. Not one said anything about a political solution to the war, about negotiations, or about diplomacy. Not one questioned the viability of an open-ended commitment to the war. And none of them had any doubts about the strategic necessity of defeating the Taliban and its allies. Although the growing political opposition to the war was referenced in passing -- more than half of Americans say the the war isn't worth fighting, and liberal-left members of Congress are beginning to raise objections -- the panel seemed to believe that President Obama can and must ignore politics and push to expand the war when General McChrystal, as expected, recommends an increase in the the level of US forces once again. O'Hanlon, a well-connected, ultra-hawkish Democrat who backed the war in Iraq, said that the chances that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will lead congressional opposition to the war in Afghanistan in 2009-2010 are zero. "Congress will not pull the rug out from under Barack Obama, before the mid-term elections," he asserted, calling the very idea "unthinkable" and "political suicide."

O'Hanlon, who had just returned from Afghanistan, acknowledged that McChrystal is "fully aware that, right now, America is not winning this war." But he gently scolded Admiral Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs, for saying that the war is "deteriorating." If Mullen goes around saying that in public, even after the addition of 21,000 US troops in 2009, he makes it harder to convince Americans that the war is winnable. O'Hanlon strongly favors adding yet more troops, but he didn't provide numbers on how many forces the US will need ultimately. If the United States can turn things around, "In four to five years we will be able to substantially downsize."

The bleakest account of the war came from Cordesman, Washington's resident Cassandra. He delivered a blistering assessment of the Bush administration's complete failure to pursue the Afghan war, with "almost no coherence in strategy" for seven years. President Bush, he said, didn't properly "resource" (i.e., fund) the war, kept troop levels far too low, and failed to build the Afghan National Army (ANA). In addition, he said, US intelligence was extremely poor. The Bush administration and the Pentagon lied about how the war was going, saying, for instance, that only 13 out of 364 Afghan districts were threatened by the Taliban, when if fact nearly half of the country was under siege. And he said that, even under McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry, a former military commander, coordination between the military command and the embassy is "extremely poor."

Cordesman warned that McChrystal and the NATO/ISAF command is under pressure from the White House and the National Security Council not to increase troops levels, and he warned that if "politically correct" limitations are imposed on the US war effort, "I believe we will lose this war." He blasted General James Jones, the national security adviser, for expressing White House opposition to additional troops during a meeting with McChrystal at which Bob Woodward of the Washington Post was present. Of the four panelists, Cordesman was the only one who suggested that Obama and the NSC might resist McChrystal's request for additional forces.

Riedel presented a series of alternative outcomes of the presidential election, which may or may not result in a second-round runoff election in October. He seemed gloomy about the overall election results, noting that overall turnout was held to 30 to 40 percent, and that in some provinces turnout would be far less, below 20 percent. In some areas, less than 5 percent of women voted at all, he said. And he said that President Karzai, if he wins, will emerge even more dependent than before on warlords. Indeed, amid charges of widespread fraud being leveled by leading opposition candidates, general apathy and disaffection about the vote from the majority Pashtun population, and effective Taliban-led intimidation, the election may not create any sense of legitimacy for the next government. (According to Cordesman, "Regardless of who wins, we will not have people capable of governing the country.")

But Riedel's more apocalyptic point came in response to a questioner who wondered why the war is important. If we lose in Afghanistan, or if we withdraw, it will trigger a victorious war dance throughout the Muslim world by radicals and militants, he said. Riedel portrayed the stakes in the war as nothing less than dealing a fatal blow to jihadism. "The triumph of jihadism, in driving NATO out of Afghanistan, will resonate throughout the Muslim world," he said, comparing it to the belief among many Al Qaeda and Taliban types that the defeat of the USSR in Afghanistan in the 1980s led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Nowhere did Riedel suggest that there is a middle ground between crushing the Taliban and an outright Taliban victory over the United States, say, by reaching a political solution brokered by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other outside parties with large sections of the Taliban leadership. Nor did any of the panelists suggest that it's possible to split Al Qaeda and the most extreme elements of the anti-Western forces in Afghanistan-Pakistan away from other Islamists, such as the Taliban's core leadership and guerrilla chieftains such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a former US and CIA ally in the 1980s, who is now a key ally of the Taliban.

Martin Indyk, who runs foreign policy for Brookings, asked Riedel if reality, so far, clashed with the plan that he helped draw up for Obama earlier this year. No, said Riedel. He said that Obama had inherited a disaster in Afghanistan from the Bush administration."Trying to turn that around overnight is an illusion," he said. (He failed to note that in trying to turn it around, Obama is turning it in the wrong direction, i.e., toward escalation rather than de-escalation.) "Anyone who thinks that in 12 to 18 months we're going to be anywhere close to victory is living in a fantasy," Riedel said. He did leave open the possibility that the conflict is now unwinnable, and that the US escalation is "too little, too late." But, like the rest of the panelists, Riedel suggested that there is no alternative to victory.

Sadly, like Richard Holbrooke, who two weeks ago told a Washington audience that he can't define victory, none of the panelists bothered to explain what victory might look like either -- only that it will take a decade or more to get there.

Transcript and Analysis: Mullen, Eikenberry Sell the Afghanistan War on CNN (23 August)

Video & Transcript: Mullen, Eikenberry Sell Afghanistan War on "Meet the Press" (23 August)

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

This may be one of the most depressing interviews I have read since the start of the Obama Administration. (And it will get worse later today --- I have seen clips from a similar performance on NBC's Meet the Press; we're waiting for the full video and transcript.) The White House, amidst the political complexity of this week's events in Afghanistan, put up two military men --- Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, and the US Ambassor to Afghanistan, General Karl Eikenberry --- for set-up questions from John King.

The political knowledge in this exchange is almost vacant, with the platitudes about "democracy" (note Eikenberry's excited spin that he couldn't get the indelible ink off his finger) substituting for the serious issues about the election --- today, there are reports that the declaration of the vote may be delayed because of fraud allegations --- and the politics beyond it.

Instead the conversation turns to militarising the US involvement, with the question, "How many more troops?" And, of course, this is all rationalised by skipping over the Afghan people and referring to "Al Qa'eda" (who, I'll note for the record, are not in Afghanistan but in another country).

KING: This is the “State of the Union” report for Sunday, August 23rd.

In Afghanistan today, both President Hamid Karzai and his top challenger are claiming victory in last week’s election, raising tensions, even though it could be weeks or more before the official results are certified. It is an uncertain military situation, as well, with fighting between U.S. forces and the Taliban intensifying. And fresh indications President Obama could soon be asked to commit more American troops.

Here to talk about this and other global challenges are the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen , and the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry. He joins us from Kabul.

And Mr. Ambassador, let me start with you. There are complaints, escalating complaints this Sunday about fraud in the elections. On the threshold question of will this balloting be credible, what is your answer?

EIKENBERRY: Well, John, it was an extraordinary two months that we’ve been through, with this being a very historic election. Afghanistan, the first time in the past 30 years that the Afghan people have led an election for their president, for provincial councils, very intense campaign that occurred over the last two months, all new in Afghanistan. Presidential televised debates, campaign rallies. A very civil debate that occurred over this time.

The election itself, everyone knows how challenging it is in the country like Afghanistan to run an election. There’s an insurgency in parts of the country right now. It was an election in which over 6,000 voting stations were set up, crossing deserts and mountains, donkeys carrying ballots to the last polling stations of Afghanistan, and a very well-organized campaign. The Afghan-led independent electoral commission looks like it managed a pretty good process. There’s adjudication systems that have been up, an electoral complaints commission. There was a media complaints commission that was set up.

I got out myself and looked at some of the voting that was going on, and I can tell you, at least one part of the process, the indelible ink, over three days now I haven’t been able to get it off the finger.

Now, against all of that, where are we? Well, right now we’re waiting for the results of this election to come in. The electoral -- the independent electoral commission, they’re waiting for the tallies to be count from across the country. There’s been charges of fraud. The electoral complaints commission is taking those on right now.

We’re really not going to know, John, for several more weeks exactly where we do stand in this process.

We’re not sure exactly what the level of voter turnout was. Millions turned out to vote, but of course, Taliban intimidation, especially in southern Afghanistan, certainly limited those numbers. But for now, we don’t know, and it’s for us to wait and see and allow this process to move forward.

KING: Well, Admiral, jump in on that point. Wait and see, could be weeks, could be longer. It’s already a very tenuous political situation, a dangerous military situation. How worried are you that if you have complaints of fraud, you have a candidate from the north, one challenger, the president who’s from the south. Are you worried about ethnic tensions, ethnic violence escalating and complicating an already bad situation?

MULLEN: Well, this election was truly remarkable, and in terms of what Ambassador Eikenberry has laid out, in the face of what has been a growing insurgency, and certainly intimidation to a certain degree -- and we’ll see over the next few weeks how it actually plays out.

Our forces under the leadership of our new commander out there, General Stan McChrystal, were very focused in support of the Afghan security forces. And one of the highlights for me is that the Afghan security forces, the police and the army, provided security for these elections. And over 95 percent of the polling stations were open.

And so, we’ll keep that focus. And one of the possibilities, obviously, if there isn’t a majority winner here is a runoff. And so we’ll keep that focus and be able to keep that focus.

And at the same time, we’re aware of the insurgency. We’re addressing that, particularly in the south and the east. And so our combat leaders are very focused on that, as well, while General McChrystal shifts his focus to the security and the needs that the Afghan people have specifically for that security.

KING: Well, you mentioned General McChrystal. He is preparing a report to the president, in which many, especially members of the congressional delegation that just met with him, believe he’s going to ask for more troops.

Here’s what [Senator] Susan Collins said on her blog after meeting with both the ambassador and the general. She said, “Along with Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and their aides, the general provided us with a detailed briefing. He begins with his chilling assessment that the situation in Afghanistan is serious and deteriorating.” She says, sir, she left that meeting with no doubt that he will ask for more troops. And there have been a number of options circulated. A low-risk 15,000 more; medium-risk 25,000 more; high-risk 45,000 more.

Senator John McCain out this morning saying that he is worried that that has been made public, because he thinks there’s political pressure, and that at best, then, you guys will split the difference and give 25,000 more troops. Pressure?

MULLEN: Well, I think it is serious and it is deteriorating, and I’ve said that over the last couple of years, that the Taliban insurgency has gotten better, more sophisticated. Their tactics just in my recent visits out there and talking with our troops certainly indicate that.

General McChrystal is about to wrap up his assessment, and he’ll come in with that assessment in detail, and I haven’t seen that, that...

KING: You have no doubt he’ll ask for more troops?

MULLEN: Actually, we’re not at a point yet where he’s made any decisions about asking for additional troops. His guidance from me and from the Secretary of Defense was to go out, assess where you are, and then tell us what you need. And we’ll get to that point. And I -- I want to, I guess, assure you or reassure you that he hasn’t asked for any additional troops up until this point in time.

KING: Mr. Ambassador, you’re also a retired general, so you’re a military man now in a diplomatic role. I want to read you something from Senator John Kerry , the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, in the context of rising doubts here in the United States about what is the mission in Afghanistan, not only in the Congress but with the American people. Senator Kerry says, “I’m very concerned about Afghanistan’s footprint. The breadth of the challenge that we face there, with police, with governance, corruption, narcotics, tribalism, other kinds of things may well be beyond the narrower definition the president gave the mission.”

Do you believe, sir, that the American people understand what the mission is in Afghanistan?

EIKENBERRY: John, there are extraordinary challenges that we face in carrying out this mission, but we need to go back and remember Afghanistan and how it looked on the 10th of September of 2001. At that time, this was a state that was controlled by international terrorism. And so, the president’s strategy, the administration’s strategy is clear. It’s to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat al Qaeda.

Now, for what this means to us here in Afghanistan, to prevent the conditions that existed on the 10th of September in 2001, it means the hardening of the Afghan state, and that has a dimension to it of an Afghanistan where the government can provide for its own security with a capable army and a police force. It means the government upon which those security forces rest. It’s a government...

KING: Sir, I want to interrupt you. I want to interrupt you. I’m sorry to interrupt, but...

(CROSSTALK)

EIKENBERRY: ... services to the people.

KING: I just want to jump in, because there’s a credibility question that many people ask. And it may not be fair to you in the challenge of Afghanistan, but because of what happened in Iraq, people in Congress and the American people, certainly in my travels -- I was at Ft. Riley this past week -- they asked these questions.

I want to go back in time. In 2006, you were on this network when you were still in the military and you were asked about the situation in Afghanistan in 2006, and you said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) EIKENBERRY: Things are getting better in Afghanistan in every dimension. If you look at it from the Al Qaida or the Taliban perspective, four and a half years ago, you ruled in Afghanistan. Now you’ve been pushed out of Afghanistan.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: And that a year later, sir, you were back on this network, 2006 turned into a not so good year, but you were back the very next February and you sounded optimistic again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EIKENBERRY: I think as we’re now moving into 2007, we’re very well-postured for success. We see a very significant increase in the combat power of the Afghan national army, the police. President Karzai continues to improve governance. So I think we’re reasonably well-postured in 2007.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Is it not fair now in 2009, we are 18 days from the eighth anniversary of 9/11 -- you mentioned the situation on September 10th -- is it not a fair question for the American people to say, where has all the money gone? And why has there not been more progress? And should they, I’m sorry, sir, believe optimistic statements from their government?

EIKENBERRY: Well, John, I don’t think my statement right now would be characterized as optimistic. I’m being -- I’m giving a candid assessment that, as Admiral Mullen said, we have a very difficult situation in parts of Afghanistan today.

What we do have for the first time, I believe, since 2002, we have a very clear strategy, and matched against that we have sufficient -- we have resources that are being mobilized. That’s in the security domain. That’s in terms of very (ph) importantly on the civilian side here within the United States embassy, and our mission.

Admiral Mullen talked about the military dimension for Afghanistan. It’s critical, but in and of itself, it’s not sufficient. This is not going to be won entirely on the battlefield here for us in Afghanistan. It’s going to require that the government of Afghanistan develops capability over the next several years. It’s going to require further work in helping to develop a sustainable economy.

There’s a regional diplomacy dimension to this. And I think that as we look ahead, we see what our goals and objectives are. We’re mobilizing sufficient resources for those, but I don’t want to understate the degree of challenges that we’re facing.

KING: I would like to ask the ambassador and the admiral to stand by. Much more with Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Eikenberry in just a moment. When we come back, we’ll head to the magic wall for a closer look at these global challenges.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We’re back with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen , and the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Lieutenant General, retired, Karl Eikenberry.

Gentlemen, let’s continue the conversation. Here are the three leading candidates in Afghanistan -- President Karzai, Dr. Abdullah and Mr. Ghani. I want to move on to a major challenge, and you have a new strategy for dealing with this, Admiral. Help me understand. Look at this, the numbers are stunning. In 2001, Afghanistan produced 185 metric tons of opium. In 2008, look how much that has gone up, 7,700, from 12 percent of the world’s poppy crop to 93 percent of the world’s poppy crop.

Do you have a new counter-narcotic strategy that allows you to target drug kingpins if you believe they are supporting the Taliban and the insurgency? Is that correct?

MULLEN: Actually, yes, and we’ve had that for many months, and specifically changed our rules of engagement so that kingpins, laboratories, individuals who support, transport, specifically, these products are also able to be both either captured or killed. But we’re just...

KING: How? How if there is a pro-U.S. government, how has that happened?

MULLEN: We’re -- I just think it’s something that has not been the focus of the Afghan government, specifically over the last seven or eight years.

I mean, some of the things we’re seeing right now in terms of this conflict and the challenge is really a very comprehensive addressal of all aspects of it. So yes, I’ve got -- and -- changed ROE that allows me to do this, but that’s just part of the counter- narcotics strategy. Because...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: I’m sorry to interrupt, but if this has happened under President Karzai, do you have any reason to believe that if he’s reelected, that that will go down?

MULLEN: Well, I think it’s clearly something we’re going to have to keep a very close eye on and move in that direction.

There’s an agricultural strategy that goes across this, where they grow it. It wasn’t -- it was a few decades ago, but -- that Afghanistan actually produced enough food for itself, it exported food in this very rich agricultural valley.

Now, we’ve got to, I think, across our government and theirs focus on creating the infrastructure which allows them to produce the kind of products that they used to produce agriculturally.

KING: I want to look now, here is a glimpse at the U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan. 62,000 now, and most expect, although you say the review is not complete, that number to keep going up. Ambassador, I want you to come in on this point here. 62,000 U.S. troops, about 35,000 from other nations, those NATO allies. Many of the NATO allies invested a modest number of troops to provide security through the elections. Mr. Ambassador, define through the elections. Are some of these 35,000 now going to leave that the elections are over? Or do you have commitments for them to stay through final results?

EIKENBERRY: John, they are committed. We’ll know on the 17th of September, that’s the target date, at least for the independent electoral commission of Afghanistan, Afghanistan-led, to give the final announcements on the election. If no candidate achieves 50 percent, then there’ll be a runoff among the top two contenders, and we would expect that that election will occur then perhaps six weeks later or about four weeks later in mid-October. So we could have a four to six weeks delay here in the whole process if we do go to a runoff. But we have commitments from the forces that are here to stay on if needed for a runoff.

KING: For a runoff. Would you like more NATO forces, sir? And just how deep is your frustration that our allies, given the increasing challenge, will not commit more? To you, Mr. Ambassador?

EIKENBERRY: John, that was for me?

KING: Yes, sir.

EIKENBERRY: John, the commitment that we’ve got from our NATO allies here is pretty extraordinary. We’ve got, as you had pointed out, 100,000 troops on the ground; about 40,000 of those are non-U.S. They’re from 40 different countries, 40 plus different countries, from all the countries of NATO. This is the most ambitious, the most difficult mission that NATO in its 60-year history has ever conducted.

And so, yes, we’re hoping for more progress with our allies, but if we look at where this alliance was 10 years ago and where they are today, far from Europe, inside of Afghanistan, I think we have to take stock of the extraordinary commitments that our European and Canadian allies have made.

KING: We are running short on time, but Admiral Mullen, a couple quick questions for you in closing. Here’s the U.S. troop level in Iraq, down now to in the mid-120,000. We were at about 140,000 at the beginning of the year. Horrific violence this past week. Many saying just what was to be expected. They knew the U.S. troops were coming out, that the insurgents, those who want to commit violence, waited. Are you concerned about what’s happening in the context of the Iraqi response and to whether you’ll be able to keep this timeline to keep pulling U.S. troops out?

MULLEN: Extremely concerned by the incidents last week. I think everybody was, and the key is whether this is an indicator of future sectarian violence. And certainly, many of us believe that one way that this can come unwound is through sectarian violence.

Our leadership’s focussed on it. I know the leadership in politically and militarily in Iraq is very focussed on that. We’ve got also a little longer-term focus through the elections in January, and then after that, you know, that slope that you see there on the right-hand side of your graph is going to continue pretty dramatically between March and August of next year. The message is that the Iraqi leadership really has to take control and ensure...

KING: Is there a risk -- is there a risk this stops?

MULLEN: There’s always a risk. We have not seen a lot of this really until last week. And we’ve seen some positive signs up north, where possibilities existed before, but it’s something we’re all very, very mindful of and watching very carefully. Not just us from here, but our troops on the ground there as well.

KING: I want to ask you lastly, sir, your impressions, reactions. The Scottish court released the gentleman who was convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. He has gone back to Libya. There was a hero’s welcome on the ground in Libya despite a very strong message from the United States -- one, that they did not want him released, and two, that he should be put under house arrest in Libya. The FBI director says Libya is now -- that decision gives comfort to the terrorists, and obviously you saw the reaction in Libya.

There are proposed military sales to Libya on the table. As the gentleman who has to sign the orders sending men and women into combat around the world, what signal did the court send? And what have you seen out of Libya?

MULLEN: Well, this is obviously a political decision, which is out of my lane. But I mean, just personally, I was appalled by the decision.

KING: And if there are proposed Pentagon sales to Libya on the table, you’ll say no?

MULLEN: Well, we’ll deal with those down the road. It’s just where I am right now.

KING: All right, Admiral, I understand the restrictions you’re under there. I can tell by your face you’d like to say something a bit stronger. Admiral Mike Mullen , Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, thank you very much.

And up next, three U.S. senators from across the ideological spectrum debate whether to send more troops to Afghanistan and whether Congress hears your concerns about proposed health care changes. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: President Obama says the war in Afghanistan is not one of choice, but of necessity. Still some in Congress are concerned that there’s no endgame for the U.S. military mission. Let’s talk it over with the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Armed Services Committee member and independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, and Democratic Senator Benjamin Cardin of Maryland, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Gentlemen, welcome. I want to get to Afghanistan in a minute, but I want to start where I ended with Admiral Mullen. Your reaction, the three of you involved so much in our international policy, to what happened, the Scottish court first releasing the gentleman convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

And then we can show our viewers, I hope, the hero’s welcome he received back in Libya after a direct message from the United States to put him under house arrest and to not do just this.

Senator Lugar, what should the United States do now in the context of, A, relations with Libya which had improved and, in fact, on the table were some proposed military sales.

LUGAR: Well, I think we ought to continue our relations with Libya, but we ought to condemn as strongly as possible this release. I think the president has indicated he felt it was obnoxious, I would certainly concur with that.

But I think it’s very important to notice that the President Gadhafi has a constituency in Libya, which I suppose he was appealing. And the rest of the world is now engaged in diplomatic relations with Libya.

KING: You were there, sir...

LIEBERMAN: Yes.

KING: ... on a congressional delegation. And you delivered this same message. That you hoped he was not released, but if he was, there should not be that welcome. What should the consequences be?

LIEBERMAN: That’s absolutely right. That’s exactly what we said to Colonel Gadhafi. He obviously didn’t get the message that he believed that Al Megrahi was convicted politically. But the fact is he was convicted in a court of law according to the rule of law. This release -- the Scottish justice secretary committed an act of gross injustice here. The suggestions that have followed both from Libya, Gadhafi himself, his son Saif, and from the head of the British Libyan Business Council, that there was an intermixing here of Megrahi’s fate with British interest in oil exploration in Libya, are shocking.

I don’t want to believe that they are true, but they are hanging so heavily in the air that I hope that our friends in Britain will convene an independent investigation of this action by the Scottish justice minister to release a mass murder.

With regard to Libya, we warned respectfully at that point, because we hoped Colonel Gadhafi would get our message that he could not expect relations with the United States, which have been good since after the Iraq War of 2003.

He has destroyed his WMD. He is cooperating in counterterrorism with us. But he could not expect them to go on normally if Megrahi was not only released, but greeted as a hero. And that has happened. So I would say suspension of arms sales, don’t expect President Obama to meet Gadhafi at the U.N. General Assembly in New York in September.

This is a real setback for the anti-terrorist cause and takes our relations with Libya back to where they were for too long, a bad place.

KING: Do you agree with that assessment vis-a-vis Libya? And what do you believe was the motivation of releasing? Is it a humanitarian gesture, he has terminal cancer? Or do you believe there is something more suspicious?

CARDIN: Well, first, I think there should be consequences to those actions. So the terrorist showed no compassion for his victims. And to give him a compassionate release was wrong.

I think we also have to realize what impact this has on our war against terror. Here you see a terrorist being released after serving just eight years, a mass murder. I think it’s very serious and I think there should be consequences.

KING: And in terms of the motivation of the Scottish court? Do you share his questioning?

CARDIN: I think Senator Lieberman raises a very valid point. I think we need to know what this oil deal was all about and whether there was a compromise to the judicial system for commercial gain.

KING: All right. Let’s move on to Afghanistan and I want to ask a threshold question first, because we all lived through the Iraq debate. From a policy standpoint and from a political standpoint, it got pretty ugly here in the United States.

And, Senator Lugar, starting with you, has the president laid out to the American people a clear statement of the mission? Now, where we’re going, and what the endgame is?

LUGAR: In Afghanistan, is that a question?

KING: Yes.

LUGAR: No. And I think everyone waits for General McChrystal to give, really, the outline of where we’re headed, how many troops or whatever else is going to be required, and of course, as time goes by, the debate goes on.

The Washington Post had polling that indicated that a large number of Americans are losing faith in the mission. A majority of Democrats do not really favor continuing very strongly. Republicans still in favor of it. So I hope we don’t get into a partisan battle of that variety.

I think the president really has to face the fact that his own leadership here is critical. He really can’t just leave this to the Congress, to General McChrystal, and say, folks, sort of, discuss this, after the report comes in.

KING: Well, let me bring in Senator Cardin on that point. As the Democrat of the group here, 70 percent in that poll, Senator Lugar just referred to in The Washington Post poll, 70 percent of Democrats say this is a fight not worth fighting.

If General McChrystal says, I need more troops, will you vote for them?

CARDIN: Well, first, I think we have to see what he says. Clearly the president is defining our mission to go after the terrorists. There’s a lot of problems in Afghanistan. We didn’t choose this war, they attacked us. We need to make sure that Afghanistan and, quite frankly, the border with Pakistan is not a safe haven for terrorists.

That should be our objective. And we now need to know what do we need to do as far as resources to accomplish that mission?

KING: You were there and you met with the ambassador and you met with the general on this same international trip with Senator Collins, Senator McCain, Senator Graham. How many more troops is he going to need, sir?

LIEBERMAN: That we didn’t talk about in detail. But it’s very clear that General McChrystal is going to ask for more troops.

Incidentally, I think, John, that President Obama has been strong and clear in Afghanistan. Obviously there has been a lot else going on in Washington and in American politics.

LIEBERMAN: The recession, health care reform, et cetera, but the president came in and basically recommitted to what he had said during the campaign last year, that this was a war of necessity. That we were struck from Afghanistan when the Taliban was in charge on 9/11 ‘01. We can’t let the Taliban come back. This is as if we were in the end of the second world war, democracy was beginning to take route in Germany and the Nazis started an offensive to take the country back. That’s what the Taliban is doing. So right now, the president has put a new team in charge, and they’re good. General McChrystal, Ambassador Eikenberry, he’s committed to 21,000 more troops. They’re beginning to arrive. They’re making a difference, those marines, in southern Afghanistan under General Larry Nicholson, doing a great job in turning the tide.

KING: Do you see any political pressure on General McChrystal to ratchet down those numbers, to not ask for a significant number of more troops?

LIEBERMAN: I haven’t seen any. I sure hope there’s not. If there’s a lesson we should’ve learned from Iraq, some of the pressure that was put on our generals there not to ask for what they thought they needed to win meant that we lost a lot of lives, spent a lot of money. My own opinion coming back from Afghanistan with a new team, new strategy, we ought to take the option that General McChrystal gives us that has the least risk.

In other words, don’t dribble it out, don’t go for incrementalism. That’s a lesson we learned in Iraq. Frankly it’s a lesson we learned a long time ago in Vietnam that give our troops and our civilians there State Department, economic assistance, people, the support that they need as quickly as we can get it to them, and then demand that the Afghan government do the same. Raise the number of security forces that they have in the battle and produce a good government for their people.

KING: I want to move on domestic issues. Senator Lugar lastly on the international, how long do the American people need to be prepared for significant U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan?

LUGAR: Well, that’s the question the president will have to try to define much better. For example, we heard on your program this morning about the politics of the country, maybe taking several years to work out.

They have various other institutions in the economy, agriculture, the drug business and so forth. How many of these missions, leaving aside the Taliban and the al Qaeda being chased over to Pakistan, what have you. I think General McChrystal can’t answer all that. He can give some military guidance, but the political guidance of why Afghanistan should be reformed and how long we stay with it is a presidential, and it’s likely to last many, many years beyond this particular term.

KING: Many, many years, a sober assessment.

Breaking Afghanistan News: It's President Karzai Again

The Latest from Afghanistan: The Election

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

We should never say, "Told you so", but....

After 24 hours of bits and pieces on the Afghanistan election, with  international bodies trying to put together a general picture of a satisfactory election amidst an estimated turnout of 40-50 percent and a steady drip of stories of electoral manipulation and fraud, the smoke (white? black? grey?) in favour of Afghanistan's current President is seen:

President Hamid Karzai is cruising toward a first-round victory in Afghanistan's presidential election, tallying 71 percent of the 4.5 million votes counted so far, knowledgeable sources revealed on Saturday.

As of 4pm today, one source confided to Pajhwok Afghan News, more than 4.5 million ballots had been calculated hitherto. Of the 4,514,084 votes counted thus far, the incumbent has collected 3,244,196.

Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, main challenger to Karzai, bagged about a million votes, some 23 percent of the total calculated so far, the sources said. To be specific, he added, 1,029,467 votes went to the former foreign minister.

Ramazan Bashardost got 189,653 votes, Dr. Ashraf Ghani Ahmedzai 47,954 and Mirwais Yasini 2714. Another two million votes remain to be tallied from remote areas where Karzai was overwhelmingly supported.

Even if Abdullah were to collect 50 percent of the remaining votes, he could not force Karzai into a second-round election....

The information was reported to Pajhwok by a high-level party official who is watching the vote count. It was confirmed by a source from Karzai's office, who is also watching the count.

The Latest from Afghanistan: The Election

Afghanistan Election: The Videos

EA Soundcheck: Assessing Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq
EA Soundcheck: 7 Points on Afghanistan’s Presidential Election

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

In addition to our ongoing coverage of the post-election crisis in Iran, we'll be keeping an eye on developments in the Afghanistan election. For a guide to the campaign and the issues, see our analysis and listen to our audio at EA Soundcheck, both on the eve of the election and on the night after the vote. Our colleagues at Alive in Afghanistan are providing a full map-based overview of the latest news and incidents. Follow the links for updates for useful poster on Twitter or track the incoming messages at #afghan09. And here is a useful map to keep "at your side" on the computer.



1115 GMT: Pajhwok News Agency is offering a stream of reports pointing to manipulation and fraud in the counting of the vote. In one case in Khost Province, it claims that while residents say less than 500 people, the election commission returned a total of more than 22,000 for Hamid Karzai.

0840 GMT: No, I've Won. Abdullah Abdullah's camp claim that he, not Hamid Karzai, is a first-round winner, taking 63 percent of the vote to Karzai's 31.

If I were a cynic (which, of course, I am not), I would say that all remains to make this situation complete is for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to show up and say he won.

0715 GMT: Jim Sciutto of ABC News reports that the campaign of Abdullah Abdullah, Hamid Karzai's main challenger, has denied the claims of a first-round victory by the Karzai camp.

The election commission has responded, "We have no results yet...This is not official...We don't accept [the Karzai claims]."

0630 GMT: Last night I discussed the election and and its significance with Fintan Dunne. Already I was looking towards the prospect of a first-round Karzai victory,  more because of manoeuvres behind the scenes than because of the up-front vote.

Perhaps more importantly, other questions are opened up. Look, for example, to how Karzai tries to exert his authority, not only with other Afghan groups but against his American "allies". And, for all the cautions about "democracy" in this election, has the process opened up some space --- symbolic or "real" --- for social and political action against corruption and for rights and development?

21 August, 0600 GMT: A Full Glass for Karzai? All day yesterday we used the phrase "half-empty, half-full" for the election, with mixed returns on turnout, "minor" violence which killed at least 27 people, and reports of irregularities and fraud.

The trend continues today, with one important exception. Election authorities say that the national turnout was between 40 and 50 percent, well down on the 70 percent for the 2004 Presidential election but above the 30 percent threshold needed for a valid result. Caroline Wyatt, reporting from Helmand for the BBC, has just engaged in a bit of cheerleading for the "success" and "incredible result", given the issues of security. Other observers, such as Al Jazeera English, are being more measured in their views.

The important exception is President Karzai, whose team are already prepared to celebrate. Karzai's campaign manager told Reuters this morning, "Initial results show that the president has got a majority. We will not got to a second round."

1830 GMT: In one district of Logar Province in eastern Afghanistan five polling centres were burned and 28 rockets were fired at others.

1825 GMT: In his televised address this evening, President Karzai hailed the day as a triumph: "I greet the brave and courageous people of Afghanistan on the successful conduct of elections, which is a propitious sign for establishing a democratically elected government and promoting democracy in the country." This is about as unexpected as the Pope declaring that God is a jolly nice chap.

More intriguing is the statement of Karzai's primary challenge, Abdullah Abdullah, that he found initial results "satisfactory and encouraging".

1700 GMT: Three election centers reported attacked and burned, with all ballot boxes destroyed, in Shindand district of Herat in western Afghanistan.

1535 GMT: Well, the media line is now in. As the Voice of America puts it, "Afghan Election Spared Major Attacks, But Questions Linger Over Turnout". That spares the immediate blushes of the US military, a perspective that was all too painfully clear in Spencer Ackerman's initial piece for The Washington Independent, with its framing of "a testament to Brig. Gen. Damien Cantwell’s security strategy". At the same time, it reflects the doubts over the "Democracy Triumphs" narrative, as voter participation is unlikely to meet the benchmark of 70 percent in the 2004 election. (The BBC is reporting from Kandahar, using unnamed sources, that turnout will struggle to reach 50 percent.) Ackerman's follow-up piece, an interview of Akbar Ayazi of US Government-funded Radio Afghanistan, again tells a tale with Ayazi's commment, “Personally, I feel the psychological war conducted by the Taliban somehow worked...[as evidenced] “by low turnout."

That, however, only sketches the limitations of the media's narrative. The inevitable framings of "security" and "democracy" will miss the power politics that is already going on within Afghanistan. Some media outlets have dared to mention election irregularities but almost none in the mainstream have gotten to the substance, which is the attempt by President Hamid Karzai's camp to ensure he crosses the 50 percent threshold for a first-round win and the opposition attempt by Abdullah Abdullah to take the battle to a run-off. Favours are being swapped, I suspect money is changing hands, and there is evidence that ballots are being stuffed or fabricated or destroyed.

The point is not to throw around the blanket charge of "corruption" but to put up the realities. From the start, this was not as much a question of defeat of the Taliban and (in substance, if not symbolism) the exercise of the vote but of whether Karzai could extend his stay in office and influence for another four years. If so, then he could move from being the Number One Dealmaker in Afghanistan to a renewed attempt to take the lead, including seizing initiative from the Americans, in the political manoeuvres vis-a-vis other factions as well as the Taliban.

1415 GMT: Our friends at Global Post are also providing running coverage today. Their headline tips off their mood: "Clashes, and threats, spook Afghan voters".

1400 GMT: President Karzai is speaking on national television. He has said there were 73 attacks today.

1355 GMT: Here's the 21st-century technology to claim election fraud. Candidate Ashraf Ghani is sending out a stream of messages on Twitter to claim, "Warlords in north, northeast, south and southeast force people at gun point to vote for either Abdullah or Karzai."

1330 GMT: Foreign Policy puts out an interim summary, drawing from various sources, on today's developments. Apart from believing that the tale of "Britney Jamilia Spears" voting in Kandahar is new (it's not --- the fake registration was the source of Internet giggling last week), it's not bad. The one bit we haven't covered here: "A voting official in Kandahar said that turnout appears to be forty percent lower than in 2004, the spiritual homeland of the Taliban, and AP correspondents reported similarly shorter lines in the capital, Kabul."

1320 GMT: Earlier we reported that a Commander Razziq (1000 GMT) had taken the novel step of removing the ballot boxes to his house. Now it is claimed that all vote-counting has been stopped by force in Spin Boldak [southern Afghanistan] by the commander.

1315 GMT: From Pajhwok News Agency: "Taliban attack 5 polling centers in Baghlan capital [northern Afghanistan], steal 25 ballot boxes; fleeing poll workers preserve 10"

1310 GMT: Too early to draw wide conclusions but have to say that concerns are rising. From Atia Abawi of CNN: "Government official told me that provinces reporting high numbers of ballot stuffing in provinces with low turnout."

1300 GMT: The half-full, half-empty turnout today is captured by these reports: "In Ghazni province [east Afghanistan], 10 of 18 districts had no voting at all; but in other 8, all was fine....Wardak [east-central Afghanistan]: Of 9 districts, 2 with normal voting, 2 with no voting [because] Taliban blockd road, 5 with some problems but voting continued."

No half-full in Kandahar, though, where turnout is reported very low.

1203 GMT: Reliable EA source, from witness accounts, says the two people killed in Kabul firefight this morning were not "suicide bombers" but Afghan Army troops.

1200 GMT: Claims that latest rocket attack in Kandahar has killed one and injured three people.

1145 GMT: Election commission says polling stations may extend their hours if they opened late or "for other reasons".

1130 GMT: Conflicting reports over the end of the voting day, with some saying that stations have closed and others saying there has been an extension of one hour. Best estimate is "Polls closing, but voters still in line in many places".

1020 GMT: In Faryab Province in northern Afghanistan, 50,000 voters were reportedly shut out in districts under Taliban control.

Even more troubling news has come out of Baghlan, where the police commander was killed this morning. Reports indicate that intense fighting has continued in the area, with more than 20 insurgents killed.

1010 GMT: If the touchstone for "success" is Kabul, then the verdict is still out. A CNN correspondent claims that, halfway through the voting day, turnout in the capital had reached 30%; turnout in the rural areas of Kabul Province are reportedly higher than expected. The two gunmen who died in a firefight are now being described as "suicide attackers"; media cameras at the scene were confiscated, and some journalists were arrested.

1000 GMT: Developments continue to follow the general pattern. There has been good (and peaceful) turnout in some areas such as Herat, Mazar, Ghazni, and Samangan. Other areas such as Helmand Province and Kandahar have been marred by restrictions on voting, low turnout, and/or violence. Reports of roadside bombs and suicide attacks are continuing.

Difficulties and irregularities in the voting process have been claimed. In one case, a commander reportedly took all the voting boxes from nearby stations into his house. The not-so-indelible "indelible" ink story is still circulating, with candidate Ramazan Bashardost claiming, "This is not an election. This is a comedy." There are reports of children voting.

o830 GMT: Reports coming in of incidents throughout Afghanistan: at least seven improvised explosive devices in Kabul, rockets on a Kunduz polling place, and rockets in Lashkar Gah in Helmand.

0755 GMT: Nothing to See Here, Go Away. General Rashid Dostum, the former militia commander who holds sway in Uzbek areas in northern Afghanistan, has rejected allegations that his return from exile in Turkey is linked to delivery of votes to President Hamid Karzai:

I have no personal agreement with Karzai....The people ... they became somewhat sick while I was away ... I heard them say, 'If General Dostum doesn't come here, we won't vote'....I thought, God forbid people don't vote, so I came here to make sure that people vote.

0745 GMT: More than Fireworks (0710 GMT). Reports of a firefight in Kabul between gunmen and the Afghan army have been confirmed by Governor of Kabul. Two gunmen were killed, one wounded.

0725 GMT: More from Helmand: "8 Rockets hit Lashkar Gah. 2 dead, one wounded at least. Widespread fraud in the city."

0710 GMT: Truth or Spin? From Atia Abawi of CNN: "Governor of Kabul says security situation is fine, just incidents of fireworks to scare people and one dead body found, killed by sniper."

0700 GMT: Al Jazeera reports that, while turnout is good in areas like Bamiyan, concern is growing over low turnout so far in Kabul. It notes incidents and low turnout in Kandahar in the south, played down by the Governor, and repeats the BBC's observation that stations are closed in Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand Province.

0630 GMT: Going by international television at this hour, well into the morning's voting in the Presidential election, there is no real news. With obvious difficulties in covering a large country, especially amidst security considerations, a lot of the coverage consists of reporters standing at polling stations and saying, "There are voters here." Sometimes this becomes, "There are a lot of voters here," with little insight into whether "a lot" consists of a queue at that moment or a significant proportion of the local population. (Media spotcheck: CNN International is really awful at the moment, filling empty space with mainly "Ra-ra-ra Democracy" words, before giving 30 minutes to World Sport. Al Jazeera, recognising that up-to-the-minute news may be patchy, is providing a lot of background, as is BBC Radio. BBC TV, at least here in Britain, is nowhere.)

However, "no real news" could be good news, if that means an absence of violence and disruption. So, appreciating that any glance can only be partial and limited at this time (and for some time to come), what are the signals?

The reports from observers and better-informed sources are decidedly mixed on voter turnout. The report of Voice of America, "At polling station in Kabul mosque, short line of men, few women showng up" has just been followed by Pajhwok Afghan News, "Good voter turnout in Herat". Putting the bits together (and reminding reader that Alive in Afghanistan has an outstanding map-based site to give perspective), it seems that some areas have solid turnout and no need for security whereas other areas will struggle. BBC radio reported 30 minutes ago that more than half the polling stations in Helmand Province, the highlight trouble spot in Afghanistan, have not opened.

There are scattered reports of violence, including a District chief and one other person killed in Kandahar, two killed in or near Khost, and small explosions in Kabul.

Potentially more significant politically are the first indications that election fraud will be alleged. Soon after president candidate Ramazan Basharadost, who has run an energetic campaign based on anti-corruption pledges, voted, he and his supporters claimed that the "indelible" ink used to mark fingers and prevent repeat voting was washing off. The immediate reaction, either from truth or an attempt to limit the allegation, is that "substandard" ink had been used.