Vietnam-Afghanistan

Afghan President Could Risk His Safety By Opposing Runoff Election

What's new: Updates with runoff election to be held Nov. 7

By Robert Weller

With the main backers of the international force in Afghanistan sending strong signals that President Hamid KarzaiHamid Karzai needs to stand back and allow a runoff election, he could be putting himself in a risky position.

Waheed Omar, a spokesman for Karzai’s campaign, initially told Al Jazeera the president did not accept that a runoff would be needed. "We will keep our reaction reserved for when the final, certified results of the elections are announced [by the Independent Election Commission] and that will be legally binding for us."

But Tuesday morning Karzai ordered a second round of voting for Nov. 7, the New York Times reported.

It brought back memories of how the CIA sponsored the assassination of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem and a coup to replace him with a compliant general in 1963. Diem had refused to buckle under pressure that he end his autocratic and cruel reign.

On the surface it appears it might not be any more difficult in Afghanistan taking little more than guards walking away a few minutes.

The international Electoral Complaints Commission announced Monday that Karzai had not won the 50 percent majority necessary to avoid a second election.

The Election Complaints Commission released a report, available at http://www.ecc.org.af/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=62. I couldn't make heads or tails of it. Clarity and certainty clearly are not goals. Perhaps we need a bit of disambiguity.

Diplomats told newspapers that a panel of United Nations election experts said Karzai should be stripped of his election victory because there was so much fraud in the Aug. 20 election.

Actually, Karzai's election total of 54 or 55 percent was modest compared to Diem's 98 percent. The late dictator Mobutu of Zaire claimed 100 percent in several elections. I remember one. Another reporter and I went to a polling booth, where a green ballot meant yes or progress and a red ballot meant no or chaos. We asked to see red ballots and they had none. We ended up stuck in a small concrete jail for several hours.

Even before the announcement the White House indicated its concern that Karzai's government didn't deserve support that would cost the lives of American and other troops as well as Afghan lives.

"I think it would be irresponsible and... it would be reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop level if, in fact, you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether in fact there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space," top White House advisor, chief of staff, Rahm EmanuelRahm Emanuel said on Sunday, Agence France Presse reported.

President Obama has declined to be rushed into sending more troops despite a request by Gen. Stanley McChrystal to send 40,000 more troops or risk losing the war. Public opinion polls indicate that McChrystal has more influence with Congress than he does with the American people, however.

"It would be entirely irresponsible for the president of the United States to commit more troops to this country, when we don't even have an election finished and know who the president is and what kind of government we're working with," said US Sen. John KerryJohn Kerry, visiting Afghanistan. The former Democratic presidential candidate is a Vietnam combat veteran.

During the weekend France announced it would send no fresh troops to Afghanistan. Italy early signaled its reluctance. There is growing pressure in England and Australia to at least reduce their presence.

"A credible government is needed. If a second round is called for, we need to scrupulously abide by the law," said United Nations' spokeswoman Michele Montas in New York.

"It's a time-honored Washington tradition. If you want to bully the government into doing something unpopular and the public into accepting it, manufacture a false emergency. Iraq war? If you don't approve it, mushroom cloud. Banker or IMF bailout? If you don't approve it, financial collapse. Social security privatization? If you don't approve it, the system will go "bankrupt." Our brand is crisis, as James Carville might say. "

Does this sound familiar. It is a column from Robert Naiman on Truthout. No it's not about the balloon boy hoax, even though it is headlined "McChrystal's 40,000 Troop Hoax."

"Gen. McChrystal says that if President Obama does not approve 40,000 more US troops for Afghanistan, and approve them right away, "our mission" - whatever that is - will likely "fail" - whatever that is."