An election
held under the guns of a foreign occupation army cannot be called
legitimate or democratic. That’s a basic tenet of international
law.
Nevertheless,
the US and its NATO allies have been lauding last week’s faux
presidential elections in Afghanistan as both a sign of growing
support for Hamid Karzai’s Western-backed government and the
birth of democracy in Afghanistan.
In reality,
the carefully stage-managed vote in Afghanistan for candidates
chosen by Western powers is unlikely to bring either peace or
democracy to this wretched nation that has suffered thirty years
of nonstop war.
On the
contrary, American generals have intensified warnings that the
military situation in Afghanistan is rapidly "deteriorating"
and are calling for yet more troops in addition to the recent
major manpower increase authorized by President Barack Obama.
Sixty-eight thousand US combat troops, 40,000 NATO soldiers,
and 75,000 mercenaries are apparently not enough.
Welcome
to Vietnam Mission Creep, Part II.
Taliban
and its nationalist allies rejected last week’s vote as a fraud
designed to validate continued foreign occupation and open the
way for Western oil and gas pipelines. Taliban, which speaks
for many of Afghanistan’s majority Pashtun, said it would only
join a national election when US and NATO troops withdraw.
Charges
of a rigged election are unfortunately correct. All parties
were banned from the supposedly "free election." Only
candidates who favored continued US and NATO occupation ran.
The US paid for the elections and advertising, funded the Election
Commission, and spread around large amounts of largesse to tribal
warlords. Foreign observers reported extensive fraud and vote
rigging.
Compared
to this predetermined vote, Iran’s recent elections look almost
Swiss by comparison. Afghan elections run by the Soviets in
1986 and 1987 were fairer and more open: opposition parties
were allowed to run.
After all
the pre-election hoopla in Afghanistan, to paraphrase Omar Khayyam,
we come out the same door we went in.
Election
results won’t be in for two weeks. But the winner will be whomever
Washington decides is to be its man in Kabul.
That will
likely be Hamid Karzai or Northern Alliance front-man, Dr. Abdullah
Abdullah. The Obama administration is fed up with Hamid Karzai
and mutters about dumping him, but can’t find an acceptable
alternative. Abdullah, with his close links to Iran and Russia,
makes Washington nervous.
What the
US would really like is a new version of the late Najibullah,
the iron-fisted strongman who ran Afghanistan for the Soviets.
The Western
powers have marketed the Afghan War to their voters by claiming
it is all about democracy, women’s rights, education and nation
building. President Barack Obama claims the US is in Afghanistan
to fight Al-Qaida. But Al-Qaida barely exists. Its handful of
members long ago decamped to Pakistan.
This war
is really about oil pipeline routes and Western domination of
the energy-rich Caspian Basin. And of course pressure on Obama
from the right that the US cannot afford to lose a second war
under his command.
Afghanistan’s
Pashtun tribes, who make up 55% of the population, remain excluded
from power. Afghanistan is a three-legged ethnic stool. Take
away the Pashtun leg and stability is impossible.
There will
be neither peace nor stability in Afghanistan until the Pashtun
majority is enfranchised. This means dealing directly with Taliban,
which is part of the Pashtun people.
The Western
powers cannot run Afghanistan by using the minority Tajiks,
Uzbeks and smaller number of Shia Hazara.
The solution
to this unnecessary war is not more phony elections but a comprehensive
peace agreement between ethnic factions that largely restores
status quo before the 1979 Soviet invasion. That means a weak
central government in Kabul (Karzai is ideal for this job),
and a high degree
of autonomy for self-governing Pashtun, Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara
regions.
Government
should revert to the old "loya jirga" system of tribal
sit-downs, where decision are made by consensus, often after
lengthy haggling. That is the way of the Afghans and of traditional
Islamic society. Afghanistan worked pretty well under this old
easygoing system. In fact, Afghanistan never really had a government
in the Western sense.
All foreign
soldiers must withdraw. A diplomatic "cordon sanitaire"
should be drawn around Afghanistan’s borders, returning it to
its traditional role as a neutral buffer state.
The powers
now stirring the Afghan pot – the US, NATO, India, Iran, Russia,
the Communist Central Asian states – must cease meddling. They
have become part of the Afghan problem. Afghans must be allowed
to slowly resolve their differences the traditional Afghan way
even if it initially means blood and revenge attacks. That’s
unavoidable in a land where the code of revenge – "badal"
– is sacred.
All Afghans
must share future pipeline royalties. The only way to end the
epidemic of drug trading is to shut border crossings to Pakistan
and the Central Asian states. But those nation’s high officials,
corrupted by drug money, will resist.
The
US and NATO can’t solve Afghanistan’s social or political problems
by continuing to wage a cruel and apparently endless war. American
and NATO soldiers will never be able to change Afghanistan’s
social behavior or end tribal customs that go back thousands
of years. They are too busy defending their own bases from angry
Afghans.
A senior
British general just warned his troops might have to stay for
another 40 years. He quickly was forced by the government to
retract, but the cat was out of the bag.
President
Barack Obama is charging full tilt over a cliff in Afghanistan.
Unless he ends this daft misadventure, his grown-up children
may see American soldiers still fighting in the badlands of
Afghanistan.
The Western
powers have added to the bloody mess in Afghanistan. Time for
them to go home.