Elections: Politics and Violence

In my post last week, I predicted that Afghanistan's Presidential election last Thursday would not go smoothly. In fact, Afghanistan now faces all of the challenges I outlined: legitimacy concerns, fraud allegations, and continued violence. During the election on Thursday alone, Taliban militia sought to disrupt the voting process by launching a number of attacks that caused polling centers in the South and East to be closed. They also made good on their threat of cutting off the inked fingers of voters in certain areas, specifically women. But, election day violence by the proclaimed enemies of the state is the least of Afghanistan's concerns.

The largest threat to stability, progress, and viability of a democratic system in Afghanistan is legitimacy of the government. Simply put, if people don't believe the elections are legitimate (voting fraud, electioneering, etc.), they will not hold the government to be legitimate. If the government is seen to be fraudulent, the

democratic system will fail and violence will consume that which we have already put so much blood, sweat, and tears into building. Since last Thursday, many allegations have come out about voting fraud. Even the UN is saying that a large portion of votes cast may be fraudulent.

The immediate impact of fraud claims is best exemplified by Iran's Presidential election in June wherein mass protests broke out following the election prompting a months long violent and bloody crackdown on political opposition. A bloody and oppressive crackdown by the government isn't a possibility in Afghanistan because that kind of reaction would completely destroy any legitimacy the government would have had. However, some of the losing candidates are planning to organize mass protests while the leading challenger has previously threatened the same. The likelihood of these protests turning violence, especially if radicals or militants were to show up, is very high.

The gut check here is foreboding. An early release of polling data indicates Karzai has won last Thursday's election in a relative landslide (72% of the vote so far compared to 23% of his biggest challenger). However, that data appears to be inaccurate as this AP article indicates that Karzai and his top challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, both have around 40% of the nationwide vote and are headed for a runoff. Unfortunately, a runoff presents a situation that must be scrutinized heavily. If Karzai were to gain a large margin in the vote, it will literally fodder for fraud claims. If the fraud claims aren't handled correctly, independently investigated, and cleared by the UN, things could get very ugly and the consequences for the US's strategy could be dire. As it stands, like an ominous cloud on the horizon, there are almost certainly going to be protests in the coming days and weeks. The only question is will they be big enough and worked up enough to turn violent?

Elections: Mark II

Here in the US, Wednesday the 19th is winding down. In Afghanistan, Wednesday the 19th has already happened. It is a funny thing to think that a place half the world away is experiencing what we would consider the future. However, in the early hours of election day in Afghanistan (it is after 1 am on Thursday the 20th at the time of this writing), two things have become clear: there will be blood and there will be controversy.

After yesterday's posting, an attack occurred in the heart of Kabul wherein insurgents caused the deaths of civilians and American troops, indicating that they are unafraid of walking directly into the lions den in order to cause fear and chaos ahead of the election. However, that being said, Afghani voters are turning out to register and vote in former Taliban strong holds or under direct threat of violence by the Taliban, indicating that Afghanis are too invested in achieving peace and democracy to be stopped by fear.

The gut check here is optimistic. Election day is underway and the polls officially open in mere hours. Even though violence occurred on Wednesday and many were hurt while several died (including poll workers), Afghani security forces are on alert and Afghani voters will not be deterred. These are promising signs that Afghanistan will make it through Thursday's Presidential election, even if it isn't unscathed.

Election For Sale

Thursday in Afghanistan promises to be a day of reckoning for not only Hamid Karzai and his government but also for larger Western efforts to turn a state that's existed in a haphazard tribal system for centuries into a functioning democracy. Karzai is running for his second term as Afghanistan's President since he was hand picked by the US, then under President Bush, for his charismatic and strong political nature. However, since he won the first Presidential election in 2004, Karzai's government has suffered routine setbacks in battling insurgents as well as widespread corruption while also failing to extend its authority beyond the capital city of Kabul.

But, corruption within and actual authority of the government are only two parts of the legitimacy issue in Thursday's elections. The legitimacy of the elections themselves is in peril due to increased violence in towns around voting polls as well as direct threats from the Taliban and other insurgent groups. Also, election monitors won't be able to be present in dangerous areas, presenting an opportunity for vote fraud. But, the ultimate challenge to legitimacy will be the outcome. More than one candidate has employed political manipulation tactics by claiming violent unrest will occur if they are not the winner or overtly accusing Karzai of stealing the election. These types of claims and political manipulations increase the likelihood of violence in the instance that the elections are not decisive and legitimacy challenges are not addressed properly and openly.

The gut check here is very anxious. This election is the make or break point for President Obama's redoubled efforts in Afghanistan and the future of any Afghani government, plain and simple. There will certainly be legitimacy challenges following Thursday's vote, and, if they aren't handled properly, violent unrest a la Iran is a very real possibility. US and allied forces are already involved in a protracted battle against resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda forces; having to deal with violence by citizens not affiliated with insurgency would make an already nightmarish war zone nearly impossible to navigate, much less subdue. Another valid issue is how the losers will react. While there are more than forty challengers facing Karzai, only a few have a real chance. If Karzai wins, will those few leaders concede or push legitimacy challenges and urge protest among their followers? Too much is riding on this election for Thursday to go off without a hitch.

Unstable Ally

In the US's campaign in Afghanistan, much is dependent on our ally to the South East, Pakistan. Since most of the fighting between US and allied forces is taking place along the mountainous and desolate border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other insurgents have enjoyed unfettered movement across the border and made outlying villages in the Pashtun province their main recruiting grounds. In fact, you may remember the foreign policy fiasco during the 2008 Presidential elections when Sarah Palin was "ambushed" in a restaurant by a voter who asked her if she would pursue terrorists across the border into Pakistan with air support to which she replied that she would. US excursions across the border into Pakistan was and is still a major problem between the two countries.

During the Bush administration, the campaign in Afghanistan, arguably much more important than Iraq, suffered a great deal of backsliding. But, Pakistan, then under Musharraf, was more subordinate to the US in terms of military action. However, towards the end of the Bush administration, air strikes and other excursions across the border became a major rallying cry of extremist Islamic groups that slowly pushed Musharraf to the breaking point. Following his manipulations of the government (such as illegally declaring state of emergency powers, attempting to dismiss the Chief Justice, and stacking the high court in his favor) and other political functions (such as postponing the elections planned for November 2008), Musharraf was forced out of office by both Islamic extremist groups and legitimate political parties who would no longer stand on the sidelines and suffer military dictatorship.

However, as soon as Musharraf's government became unstable, Islamic extremist groups seized on the opportunity to increase their size and influence, most notably the Taliban and Al Qaeda. But, Afghanistan and the US aren't the only targets of Pakistani terrorist groups. The terrorist attack in Mumbai, India last year that halted the peace process between the two countries was perpetrated by an Islamic militant group based out of Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Taiba. Pakistan seems to be slowly losing control over its own security when it can't even bring charges against the alleged leader of Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hafiz Saeed.

The gut check here is much scarier than the growing numbers of terrorist groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda. In the past two years, Pakistani nuclear weapons facilities have been attacked by terrorist three times. Given that the relationship between India and Pakistan has proven to be one of the world's three most likely scenarios for regional or global nuclear war when it was just the governments of the two countries going at it, the idea of a terrorist group obtaining even one nuclear weapon from Pakistan is downright terrifying. Never mind just buying one from a rogue state like Iran or North Korea, terrorists have a better chance of straight up overwhelming an already unstable security mechanism to the point that Pakistan loses control of their nuclear facilities. We shouldn't be afraid of a state like Iran that doesn't have nukes yet. We should be afraid of a state that loses complete control over the nukes they already have.

New Promises, Old War

Today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled to Africa to issue a new pledge of support for Somalia in its on-going conflict with insurgent group Al Shabaab. Secretary Clinton also issued a sharp rebuke to neighboring Eritrea for its alleged support of Al Shabaab and promised to pursue sanctions. But, at a time when our armed forces are stretched thin and entirely committed to the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, what kind of support can we actually give?

Somalia has been plagued by war since the 1970's and has essentially been under failed state status since the beginning of the Somali Civil War in the early 1990's. Extremist Islamic groups began consolidating power by recruiting local war lords from 2004 to present. Ethiopia intervened and, together with African Union forces as well as international military support including US gunships, shut down the radical Islamic pseudo government called the Islamic Courts Union. But, in early 2009, Ethiopia withdrew, leaving behind the AU peacekeepers who were wholly unprepared for the coming rewnewal of conflict.

Here in the US, we only recently gained insight into new developments in Somalia when several Somali immigrants suddenly returned to Somalia to take part in the resurgent civil war. The catalyst was when one of the naturalized US citizens returned to Somalia and became the first American to ever carry out a suicide bombing. Now, Somalia is suddenly back on the map in terms of foreign policy. The country is under constant assault from a terrorist organization (Al Shabaab) known to have ties to Al Qaeda.

So why don't we have troops there? Simply put, we don't have the man power. The US can't afford to send valuable logistical resources and troops to Somalia when we are already falling behind in Afghanistan and trying to finish out the campaign in Iraq. Also, the infamous Black Hawk Down scenario is a sharp reminder of how easy it can be to get bogged down in Somalia.

The gut check here is rather bitter. Somalia is one of those places where we should have done it right the first time, but politics got in the way of conducting military opperations. Now, years later, Somalia is a breeding ground for Al Qaeda. But, the fact that the AU is beginning to stand on its own changes the situation dramatically. If an AU lead operation were to be successful in Somalia with help from the international community, the AU would gain extreme amounts of credibility in conflict solving. Right now, Secretary Clinton's diplomatic strategy, putting the pressure on those who supply Al Shabaab (allegedly Eritrea) and other insurgent groups, is the prudent course. If it gets to the point where we have to send military forces, I hope we send something harder to hit with an RPG than a black hawk.

Operation Treadmill

While the world was preoccupied with Iraq, Afghanistan quietly became more and more lost. Now, with Iraq winding down, the upcoming round of elections is providing a critical review of democratic progress in Afghanistan. With Karzai facing down two main challengers in a field of contestants, the elections themselves are far from decided, much less guaranteed to even happen given a new outbreak of violence. At issue is whether or not the US has succeeded in creating a secure environment in which democracy can flourish.

Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US presence in Afghanistan has done little to provide security. The Taliban as well as other insurgent groups have enjoyed tacit freedom in the no-mans-land area on the boarder betwen Pakistan and Afghanistan due to the extreme complexity of the terrain. As a result, the Taliban and other insurgent groups have been able to essentially ressurect their forces and produce a new wave of violence that is threatening the stability of the upcoming Afghani elections. In fact, reports indicate that Taliban and Afghani insurgents have reached a new level of sophistication in guerrilla warfare that has significantly increased their operating range, their combat effectiveness, and their overall lethality.

Part of the reason the mission Afghanistan has slid so far backwards is the policies and strategies of the Bush adminstration. Under Bush, the US basically contracted local war lords to provide intelligence and regional security. As a result, the war lords were basically given the freedom to enlarge their private armies and run their opium poppy trade, leading to a massive boom in the Afghani heroin trade. This drug trade boom put money directly into the hands of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. In response to this backsliding, President Obama announced his new plan for Afghanistan at the end of May and later developed a new drug policy.

But, even if his strategic plan enjoys marginal success, it is no guarantee that the US's political plans for Afghanistan succeed. In 2001, Karzai looked like the best choice to lead Afghanistan given that he would work closely with the US and had the charisma and character needed to lead. Now, he presides over what is largely seen as a corrupt government. The lesson that the US has continuously failed to learn is that we can't simply choose who should lead a country, the leader has to be organically chosen.

The gut check here is that Afghanistan is in a very precarious position. US forces have a long way to go to guarantee stability. If it's too dangerous, the elections might not be viable. If it is stable enough but the US is too involved, the elections will be seen as biased or even rigged. But, if the US holds too much back and the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or some other insurgent group have too much freedom to influence the voting, the Taliban could enjoy a political revitalization as well. The key is to provide a secure atmosphere so the elections can be held free of violence while not influencing the voting in any way.

Kangaroo Court

Today, Iran held trials for numerous individuals involved in protests after the recent Presidential elections. Those arrested include civillians active in the post-elections protests and prominent pro-reform politicians, indicating that anyone who opposes the government is not safe. No verdicts or sentences have been given yet, but the details and allegations from the trials that have already come out show that this is clearly no court of law.

The fifteen page indicment alleges that the defendants attacked government forces and buildings, have links to armed rebel groups, and conspired against the ruling system. More accusations allege that the groups that the pro-reform politicians represent took money from foreign entities (read: the West) in a year long plot to bring about a velvet revolution. Nevermind that the pro-reform parties might have real interests in changing the course of Iranian politics, they were clearly trying to overthrow the government by engaging in a peaceful, democratic elections process.

The gut check here is disgusting. Ahmadinejad's regime calls this a trial, but it's clearly all for show. The defendants weren't allowed access to lawyers. There are allegations that some were tortured to obtain false confessions. These people are being put on trial for what amounts to treason because Ahmadinejad's regime couldn't handle people questioning their legitimacy. Instead of addressing the questions of legitimacy with openness, they decided to kill a bunch of people, throw some more in jail and torture them. Now they're trying to politically manipulate the situation by having a "trial"? Don't think that this is a trial, or even a court of law, not for one second.