That is the CONTRA-SURVIVAL segment of the population expressing itself, rla, by not surviving ...

They are there to strip search those Afghan women as I understand it, rla .....

There is nothing cool about that that I can see ....

And they are still invaders in a foreign land, despite their gender ....

And so ....

IS OBAMA GOING TO HAVE US IN AFGHANISTNAM FOR THE NEXT FORTY YEARS?

"3 more troops die as UK toll passes 200 - 3 more British troops killed as Afghan toll surges past 200, sparking debate about war's cost"

By JILL LAWLESS, Associated Press

Last updated: 4:35 p.m., Sunday, August 16, 2009

LONDON -- Prime Minister Gordon Brown affirmed Britain's commitment to Afghanistan Sunday, on a weekend in which roadside bombs killed five more soldiers, pushing the U.K. death toll past 200.

The grim milestone has reignited debate about the heavy human cost of a conflict the government claims is vital to defeating terrorism but that critics say is unwinnable.

The Ministry of Defense said three soldiers from 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers died after they were attacked while on patrol Sunday near Sangin in Helmand Province.

They brought Britain's death toll in the country to 204.

Two other British soldiers died Saturday.

Brown said it had been "a very difficult summer," but insisted the troops' presence in Afghanistan was keeping Britain safe.

Thirteen British troops have been killed so far in August, and 22 died in July, Britain's bloodiest month since the invasion of Afghanistan soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"Three-quarters of the terrorist plots that hit Britain derive from the mountain areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan and it is to make Britain safe and the rest of the world safe that we must make sure we honor our commitment to maintain a stable Afghanistan," Brown said.

Others said the price was too high.

"This should never have happened in the first place," said Anthony Philippson, whose son James died in Afghanistan in 2006.

He said the war was "a waste of time" and the troops poorly equipped.

Britain has about 9,000 troops in Afghanistan, the largest international presence after the United States.

Most are based in Helmand province, where they face determined Taliban insurgents, and casualties have been rising steadily in the past year.

Separately, the Foreign Office said Sunday that a British man had been killed in Herat, western Afghanistan, but released no other details.

The Ministry of Defense said he was a former soldier and British media reported he was working for a private security company.

British troops are part of a 64,000-strong NATO force in the country to bolster the shaky democratic government of President Hamid Karzai and prevent the return of the fundamentalist Taliban, driven from power by the U.S.-led 2001 invasion.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen called the rise of Britain's death toll past the 200 mark "a heavy price to pay," but said preventing the return of terrorism in Afghanistan remained "a critical security task."

Britain's armed forces are used to long conflicts and to taking casualties.

More than 700 were killed over the 30 years of Northern Ireland's Troubles, and 179 British troops died during a six-year mission in Iraq that ended earlier this year.

But critics of the Afghan campaign say the mission is too open-ended, and its goals too vague.

At various times British officials have emphasized the need to make Afghanistan a stable democracy, to curb the opium trade and to stop al-Qaida and related groups basing themselves there.

The incoming British army chief said last week that the mission in Afghanistan could last up to 40 years.

The mission faces many unanswered questions, including whether there are enough NATO forces to keep the Taliban at bay, said Gareth Price, head of the Asia program at London think tank Chatham House.

"The exit strategy is to build up the Afghan army so they can do it -- but when that will come, who knows?" he said.

Polls suggest Britons are about evenly split between supporters and opponents of the mission.

Graham Knight, whose son Ben was killed when a Royal Air Force Nimrod plane exploded over Afghanistan in 2006, said it was "time for an end to military action" in Afghanistan.

"We are ill-equipped and ill-advised," he said.

"We should be getting the non-militant Taliban around the table and begin talks so we can embark on a withdrawal."

Defense Secretary Bob Ainsworth insisted the campaign was making progress.

He said that within a year the Afghan army would take a more front-line role against the Taliban while British troops adopted "a mentoring and a training situation ... giving them the steer and the capacity and the knowledge to be able to do the job that they will need to do."

But the opposition Liberal Democrats said Britain should rethink its strategy.

Its defense spokesman, Nick Harvey, said that "nothing I have seen in this conflict leads me to believe it is even remotely possible that British troops will be off the front line within one year."

"Rather than trying to sway public opinion with false optimism, Bob Ainsworth must admit we need a fundamental change of gear, and a shift from a purely military campaign to one which focuses on achieving peace through meaningful political engagement, co-operation and progress," he said.

--------

Associated Press Writer Robert Wielaard in Brussels contributed to this report.

You're probably right...I hadn't thought of that...

Because you generally look to what you perceive as a brighter side, rla - the WHAT COULD BE ...

I am looking at the WHAT IS ...

And so ...

Yes it often takes more than one set of eyes to see the whole picture...

Should that be it always takes more than one set of eyes to see the whole picture?

AND SPEAKING OF THE WHOLE PICTURE ...

"Karzai's image down as Afghan election approaches - Once hailed as savior of Afghanistan, Karzai's image down as election approaches"

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press

Last updated: 12:05 p.m., Sunday, August 16, 2009

KABUL -- He was once the toast of the town, a charming, urbane Afghan tribal leader voicing Jeffersonian ideals in perfect English, gliding effortlessly through the halls of power in Washington and the baking tents of the Afghan desert.

Since his rise in 2001, President Hamid Karzai's image has changed.

Western critics now accuse him of weak leadership, cutting deals with warlords, tolerating drug smugglers and ignoring rampant corruption that has fed the Taliban insurgency.

Despite his critics both in Afghanistan and abroad, the 51-year-old Karzai appears the favorite in Thursday's presidential election, although a late surge by his chief rival, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, could force a runoff if none of nearly 40 candidates wins a majority.

Karzai's alliances with regional powerbrokers and his origins as a Pashtun, the biggest Afghan ethnic community, have placed him in a strong position despite widespread public dissatisfaction with the government.

A survey funded by the U.S.-funded International Republican Institute and released Friday shows Karzai leading a field of three dozen candidates with 44 percent, against 26 percent for his closest rival.

If neither wins 50 percent, a run-off will be needed.

The prospect of a second five-year term for a wartime president widely seen as ineffectual and indecisive is greeted more with resignation than enthusiasm among Western governments that were once Karzai's strongest champions and helped engineer his rise to power after the U.S.-led invasion overthrew the Taliban in 2001.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said last week that the U.S. would work with "whomever the people of Afghanistan select" but would be "very specific about what we need to see coming" from the next administration -- including effective local governance and a vigorous campaign against corruption.

Karzai dismisses many of the Western complaints about his leadership, saying the West would prefer a compliant Afghan leader to one who challenges his international partners publicly on such issues as airstrikes, civilian casualties and imprisoning Afghans without charge.

"When Hamid Karzai was quiet and there was no trouble between us, Hamid Karzai was a good man," he joked during an interview last month with The Associated Press.

"And now that there is a little trouble, he's a bad man."

James Dobbins, who served as President George W. Bush's first envoy to Afghanistan, believes the personality traits that won Karzai praise when the war began are the same ones that he is faulted for now.

"Karzai is a conciliator and a unifier," Dobbins, now an analyst with the RAND Corp., told The Associated Press.

"He's not the kind of decisive and energetic figure who can push through controversial programs and discipline fractious or corrupt supporters."

Although Karzai himself has not been accused of corruption, allegations that his his younger brother Ahmed Wali Karzai is involved in the drug trade have circulated in Kabul for months.

The younger Karzai denies the allegations.

Karzai's decision last April to pardon five convicted drug leaders, including the nephew of a close political ally, enraged Western officials working to combat drug trafficking and was seen as a bid to draw votes.

Criticism of Karzai stands in marked contrast to the adulation that surrounded his rise from obscure Afghan exile living in Pakistan to the leader of an impoverished nation devastated by a generation of war.

Karzai, the son of a Pashtun tribal chief, broke with the Taliban after he became concerned the movement was falling under the influence of foreign Islamic extremists such as al-Qaida.

He refused an offer to become the Taliban-government's U.N. ambassador and moved to Pakistan in 1995.

His father was assassinated in 1999, purportedly by Taliban agents, and he became leader of the half million-strong Popolzai, a Pashtun tribe.

After the 2001 invasion, Karzai was one of the few Pashtun exiles to organize resistance to the Taliban from inside Afghanistan, a move that nearly cost him his life when his party was struck by a U.S. bomb in a friendly-fire incident and three U.S. Special Forces soldiers traveling with him were killed.

Karzai was chosen at an international conference in Germany in December 2001 to lead a transitional post-Taliban administration, and won a full five-year term in an election three years later.

He seemed so well-suited to his role that in the early years of the Iraq war, as they struggled to find a credible replacement for Saddam Hussein, U.S. officials used to say they needed "an Iraqi Hamid Karzai."

All that changed with the Taliban resurgence, the burgeoning Afghan opium industry and allegations of corrupt government.

Karin von Hippel, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, believes some critics are too quick to blame Karzai for mistakes committed by the U.S. and its allies, that diverted resources from Afghanistan to Iraq after Taliban rule collapsed in 2001.

"We have a lot to answer for in terms of the short-term gains vs. long-term objectives," von Hippel said.

WANTED:A FEASIBILITY EXIT STRATEGY!!!

Okay ...

As a jobs program, the UK doesn't really get that much benefit, with their small contingent of forces...I suppose
it helps their economy some from the manufactoring of arms...Weapons production has a very high multiplier
effect on other manufactorying industries...

They are trying to recapture faded glory, rla ....

And I wonder how much of it has to do with enforcing claims by the "JOHN COMPANY" ....

And so ...

"Afghan attacks kill US civilian, service member - US civilian and service member killed in separate attacks in Afghanistan"

By FISNIK ABRASHI, Associated Press

Last updated: 11:45 a.m., Monday, August 17, 2009

KABUL -- A roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan killed a U.S. service member Monday, while an American civilian working for the military died after insurgents attacked a patrol in the east, officials said.

The military death brings to 22 the number of U.S. troops killed in August, as foreign and Afghan forces step up their fight against the Taliban-led insurgency raging in much of the country's south and east.

A military statement would not disclose details on the latest casualties.

It said only that the civilian died after insurgents attacked his patrol with gunfire.

Thousands of U.S. Marines are pushing ahead with their largest-ever operation in Afghanistan as they try to secure parts of southern Helmand province, a major Taliban stronghold.

A number of insurgent groups also operate in eastern Afghanistan, a mountainous area that borders Pakistan.

Attacks in Afghanistan have risen steadily the last three years.

U.S., NATO and Afghan security forces are out in force this week to help protect voters taking part in Thursday's presidential election.

A powerful Afghan warlord is among those pressuring the U.S. to leave the country as the election draws nearer, saying Afghans can decide their fate "without any trusteeship."

"America has to realize that it will not achieve victory in its war in Afghanistan through increasing the number of its soldiers in this country or through the sham elections," Gulbuddin Hekmatyar told the al-Jazeera news network in a Sunday evening interview.

Hekmatyar was a favored "freedom fighter" in the 1980s when the U.S. backed rebel groups trying to push the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan.

Now his militants are committed to fighting international and U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

------

Associated Press Writer Maamoun Youssef contributed to this report from Cairo.

"Bomb attack kills 3 in Kabul; UN workers wounded"

By FISNIK ABRASHI, Associated Press Writer

18 AUGUST 2009

KABUL – A suicide car bomb exploded Tuesday on the outskirts of Kabul, killing at least three civilians and setting several vehicles on fire, including one belonging to the U.N., officials said.

A U.N. spokesman said three U.N. staff were wounded.

The attack occurred two days before national elections in which Afghans are to select a new president.

The Taliban have denounced the election and warned people they would be at risk if they go to polling stations.

Hours before the suicide blast, two mortar rounds struck near the presidential palace in Kabul, the U.S. military said.

NATO announced Tuesday that its forces would refrain from offensive military operations on election day and would undertake missions only if they were "deemed necessary to protect the population."

The suicide attack on the road leading from Kabul to Bagram Air Base, the largest U.S. facility in the country, killed three civilians and wounded 21, Defense Ministry spokesman Gen. Mohammad Zahir Azimi said.

U.N. spokesman Aleem Siddique said three Afghans working for the United Nations were among the wounded, but there was nothing to indicate that the U.N. vehicle was the target of the attack.

British troops were guarding the site of the explosion as rescuers rushed the wounded to hospitals.

U.S., NATO and Afghan security forces are on high alert this week because of the Thursday vote.

President Hamid Karzai is favored to win but faces a stiff challenge from former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah.

About three dozen candidates are in the race.

Elsewhere, a suicide bomber struck the gates of an Afghan army base in the southern province of Uruzgan, killing three Afghan soldiers and two civilians, provincial police chief Juma Gul Himat said.

U.S. spokeswoman Capt. Elizabeth Mathias had no details of damage or casualties from the attack on the presidential compound.

Neither Karzai or anyone else was wounded in the attack, said deputy presidential spokesman Hamid Elmi.

He said the rounds probably hit "somewhere around the compound," but he had no further details.

Attacks in Afghanistan have risen steadily the last three years.

In a speech Monday in Phoenix, President Barack Obama said U.S. troops would help secure polling places so that the elections can go forward and Afghans can choose their own future.

Obama said peace in Afghanistan "will not be quick" and "will not be easy."

He added that the United States still has a deep interest in the long-term outcome.

"This is not only a war worth fighting."

"This is fundamental to the defense of our people," Obama said.

The Afghans are going to get to choose their own future under the bayonets of American soldiers who will kill them if they decide on a future that LORD OBAMA MAGNUS does not want for them ....

And so ....

Soooo ....

LORD OBAMA MAGNUS is now the arbiter of what wars are worth fighting ....

He has never been in one himself, like his brother George before him, but as an American president, just like his brother George before him, he talks directly to GOD, and GOD has told LORD OBAMA MAGNUS that this war in Afghanistnam is one that is worth fighting ....

Boy, that makes me feel all warm and cuddly and kind of gushy inside ...

To know that we have a president who is imbued with such wisdom ....

Especially since we are fighting HIS war on borrowed money ....

And so ...

Not to mention the fact that this declaration makes LORD OBAMA MAGNUS a "WAR PRESIDENT" like his brother George was before him in 2004 ....

Yes, these democratics are never sleeping .....

Always looking for an advantage that will give them a leg up on the competition ....

And being a WAR PRESIDENT in an election year is a great big leg-up, as Obama's brother George proved to all the candid world in 2004 ....

In an election year, you cannot challenge a WAR PRESIDENT on the war he is having ...

It's an axiom of American presidential politics ....

So we are going to have endless wars ....

And so .....

It is time for USAians, of good conscious, to take to streets and demand that the wars stop...

What would be a good date to call for a national work stoppage by all people who favor Peace?

You should first get a poll going in here, rla, to see if anyone would support such an idea ....

AND IN THE MEANTIME ...

"Attacks rock Kabul ahead of vote; media restricted - Insurgents bomb, launch rockets on Afghan capital; Afghans impose news censorship for election"

By FISNIK ABRASHI, Associated Press

Last updated: 6:45 p.m., Tuesday, August 18, 2009

KABUL -- Insurgents struck the Afghan capital two days before national elections, firing rockets or mortars at the presidential palace and unleashing a suicide car bomber on a NATO convoy.

Alarmed, the government asked news media not to report violence the day of the vote.

Eight people died, including a NATO soldier, and 55 were wounded in the two attacks, authorities said.

In eastern Afghanistan, two U.S. service members were killed and three wounded in a separate bombing, the U.S. military announced, pushing the death toll this month for the American force to 26.

The latest attacks were an ominous sign that the Taliban and their allies are determined to disrupt Thursday's election, in which incumbent Hamid Karzai is up against some three dozen other presidential candidates.

The Islamist insurgents have threatened those who take part in the election -- a crucial step in President Barack Obama's campaign to turn around the deteriorating war.

U.S. officials believe a strong turnout is essential if the new Afghan president is to gain the legitimacy to tackle the formidable challenges facing this nation, including the insurgency, political divisions, ethnic tension, unemployment and corruption.

In a bid to promote a big voter turnout, the NATO-led military force announced that the more than 100,000 international troops here will refrain from offensive operations on election day, focusing instead on protecting voters.

"Our efforts alongside our Afghan security partners will focus on protecting the people of Afghanistan from the insurgents so that the population can freely exercise their right to choose their next president and their provincial representatives," NATO spokesman Brig. Gen. Eric Tremblay said.

Fearing that violence may dampen turnout, the Foreign Ministry issued a statement Tuesday asking news organizations to avoid "broadcasting any incidence of violence" between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. on election day "to ensure the wide participation of the Afghan people."

The statement did not spell out any penalties for those that do not comply.

The English version said media "are requested" to follow the guidelines.

The version in the Afghan language Dari said broadcasting news or video from "terrorist attack" was "strictly forbidden."

It was unclear how the government intended to enforce the ban.

Rachel Reid, the Afghanistan researcher for Human Rights Watch, said freedom of expression was enshrined in the Afghan constitution and that any attempt to censor the reporting would be "an unreasonable violation of press freedoms."

"Afghans have a right to know about the security threats that they face, and make their own assessments about security," Reid said.

Despite heightened security in Kabul and other major cities, a series of attacks in the capital, starting with a suicide bombing Saturday that killed seven people near the main gate of NATO headquarters, has raised doubts that Afghan authorities can guarantee security on election day.

In the Tuesday suicide attack, the bomber detonated an explosives-laden vehicle as a NATO convoy traveled along a major highway near a British military base on the eastern outskirts of Kabul.

The alliance did not specify the nationality of the NATO soldier who was killed.

Two Afghans working for the U.N. were also killed and one was wounded, the U.N. mission here announced.

In a statement issued in New York, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was "deeply distressed" by news of the attack.

Zabiullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, claimed responsibility for the blast in a telephone conversation with The Associated Press.

He said the attack was "part of our routine operations" and not directly linked to the election.

British troops guarded the blast site as rescuers rushed the wounded to hospitals.

An AP reporter saw British soldiers collecting what appeared to be body parts from the roof of an Afghan home.

He also reported shouting matches between British troops and Afghan security personnel at the blast site.

About a dozen private vehicles were destroyed along the road.

People used their hands to dig through the rubble of a damaged building searching for survivors.

Families carried the wounded away from the scene.

Hours before the suicide attack, militants fired a pair of rockets at the presidential compound in central Kabul.

At least one round landed in the palace grounds but caused no casualties, Karzai's spokesman Humayun Hamidzada said.

Karzai is favored to finish first in the Thursday ballot, although a late surge by former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah has raised speculation about a possible runoff if the incumbent fails to win more than 50 percent of the votes.

Recent polls show Karzai ahead but several percentage points shy of the 50 percent mark.

Elsewhere, a suicide bomber struck the gates of an Afghan army base in the southern province of Uruzgan, killing three Afghan soldiers and two civilians, provincial police chief Juma Gul Himat said.

------

Associated Press reporters Amir Shah and Rahim Faiez in Kabul and John Heilprin at the United Nations contributed to this report.

AND IN THE MEANTIME ....

"Despite US troops, Taliban roam freely in south - Taliban's shadow government in southern Afghanistan poses challenge for election, US troops"

By KATHY GANNON, Associated Press

Last updated: 1:15 p.m., Tuesday, August 18, 2009

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- It wasn't enough for the Taliban to name judges in one stretch of southern Afghanistan.

Sensitive to residents' concerns about corruption, the militants in the Musa Qala area of Helmand province even set up a committee to make sure the judges didn't take bribes.

And unlike many of the official government bodies, this one worked.

"One judge was found taking a bribe and the Taliban put black all over his face and tied him to a tree," businessman Eitadullah Khan told The Associated Press.

"When he was released, he was fired."

Southern Afghanistan is the focus of the U.S. deployment of an additional 21,000 troops this year, and the region where many say the legitimacy of Thursday's presidential and provincial elections will rest, depending on voter turnout.

But it's also the region where the Taliban have their strongest infrastructure -- one that goes beyond warriors to a shadow government that includes a justice system and militant-appointed governors.

Many of these Taliban institutions are viewed as less corrupt and more efficient than the Afghan government, and locals say they prefer them -- or fear using anything else.

That makes it even harder for the U.S. and NATO's attempts to get residents to back operations against the militants, and for Afghans wanting to raise voter turnout.

Publicly, U.S. officials play down Taliban capability to operate a shadow government, while at the same time acknowledging their ability to intimidate.

"The Taliban lack the capability to run a shadow government -- they do not operate that way."

"Their actions are aimed at tearing this country apart using fear and terror," said Chief Petty Officer Brian Naranjo, a U.S. military spokesman.

"We take them seriously as a threat to the people of Afghanistan, but we know that the people will prevail and not the Taliban."

Privately, however, some U.S. officials acknowledge there are "no-go" areas for Afghan forces that are effectively controlled by the Taliban.

In an interview last month with The Los Angeles Times, top U.S. commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal said that "practically speaking, there are areas that are controlled by Taliban forces."

Almost six years ago, Mullah Mudaser was among the first batch of Taliban to learn how to make the roadside bombs that are behind the escalating deaths of Western troops.

Back then, he had to sneak across the border to train in Pakistan.

Today, he can train militants in Afghanistan, and has no problem meeting an Associated Press reporter in the middle of the city of Kandahar over a meal of lamb kebabs.

Mudaser said the Taliban store weapons, ammunition and suicide vests in some neighborhoods of Kandahar, which was the Taliban's spiritual and operational headquarters before the U.S.-led invasion in 2001.

Despite more than 100,000 U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, Kandahar residents say Taliban militants move through the city's northern and southern suburbs with impunity, distributing threatening "shabnamas" or night letters and attacking female activists and schoolgirls.

The militant infrastructure is most prevalent in the rural areas.

The Taliban say they control about 65 percent of the ethnic Pashtun-dominated countryside, a figure that could not be confirmed.

In Kandahar, Zabul, Helmand, Uruzgan and Nimroz provinces, the militants control several districts, the U.N. said.

"The rural areas are difficult for the government to control," U.N. official Samad Khaydarov said in an interview at his Kandahar office, protected by blast walls, a thick steel barrier and several uniformed police.

"The Taliban have influence especially among the clergy and the tribal elders in several districts and some regions."

The Taliban's strictly Islamic judicial system is the most glaring example of the militants' influence.

In Helmand -- the province neighboring Kandahar where thousands of British troops are deployed -- the Taliban in Musa Qala district have regular court dates, said Khan, the businessman.

Every Thursday, villagers stand before the Taliban judge, usually to settle disputes.

Khan, 30, who once supported President Hamid Karzai, has grown disillusioned with his government's rampant corruption and spoke of the Taliban's work in a voice laced with admiration.

"The Taliban were not good, but these people now -- the government -- they are thieves and killers," he said.

One of the largest landowners in the Zherai district of Kandahar said the Taliban move freely in the area and have set up courts there as well.

He spoke on condition of anonymity due to security fears.

"In some areas they are Taliban at night and government officials by day," said one former government official who also spoke on condition of anonymity because "no one can protect you from the Taliban."

U.S. and Afghan officials are racing to secure the south ahead of the elections.

Already, the militants in the region have warned that residents who vote face violence.

U.S. troops are engaged in a major offensive in Helmand province's Now Zad district, trying to clear the Taliban from the town of Dahaneh so a voting center can be set up.

Afghanistan's government and U.S. intelligence put the headquarters of the Afghan Taliban in neighboring Pakistan, where a 10-member committee, known as the Quetta shura is said to be located.

Mudaser said the Taliban infrastructure in Afghanistan began to coalesce in the last two years.

In his home province of Zabul, the insurgent governor is Mullah Ismail.

The military commander and Mudaser's boss is Mullah Bashar, who reports to the Taliban's countrywide defense chief, Mullah Abdul Ghani Barader.

Since the 2006 death of Taliban military chief Mullah Akhtar Mohammed Usmani, Barader has been running the battlefield command for the Taliban.

In dozens of districts throughout the ethnic Pashtun-dominated south, Mudaser said the Taliban have also appointed their own police chiefs.

Mudaser said he has 120 Taliban under his command and has taught hundreds of militants to make roadside bombs.

With so much militant control in southern Afghanistan, he said he no longer has to make clandestine trips to Pakistan to impart his skills.

"Now we have hundreds of people who know how to make them," he said, adding that they get materials from the market and using up to 220 pounds of explosives.

I wonder if this A-HOLE Chief Petty Officer Brian Naranjo, a U.S. military spokesman, even knows where Afghanistnam is on a map of the world ...

Most likely, he is making these statements of his from deep within a very secure bunker located somewhere in the bowels of Bagram Air Base ...

How come we always end up with these military A-HOLES speaking for us?

If this Naranjo dude ever actually saw a Taliban in real life, he would probably crap his pants and fall down crying like a baby ....

And so ...

"Analysis: Big task ahead for new Afghan president - Afghan presidential winner faces daunting game of catch-up after years of US neglect"

By JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press

Last updated: 3:55 p.m., Tuesday, August 18, 2009

KABUL -- An open secret among U.S. officials in Kabul is that Afghanistan was the Bush administration's second-string war.

After years of neglect, Taliban violence skyrocketed, prompting President Barack Obama to boost the American commitment -- in guns and gold.

Now, both the winner of Thursday's presidential election and his international partners face a daunting game of catch-up if they are to turn the tide of the Taliban insurgency.

They will all confront the added challenge of growing war-weariness among Afghans, Americans and other nations that provide troops.

Resources are tight among coalition members facing their own domestic economic problems.

The international community is desperate for an Afghan president seen as capable of tackling the problems of insurgency, narcotics and government corruption.

Obama and other world leaders need such a colleague to give hope to their own constituents as casualty figures rise.

President Hamid Karzai leads in the polls.

Most analysts believe he will win a second five-year term, barring a surge in support for his top competitor, former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah.

The two could also find themselves in an October run-off if Karzai doesn't get more than 50 percent of the votes this week.

The articulate, multilingual Karzai was once seen as a dynamic leader.

Years of corruption, ineffectual government and rising violence have tarnished that image.

To hold on to power, Karzai has again surrounded himself with tainted warlord power brokers, raising the question of whether Afghanistan was moving backward.

The Obama administration has declared itself neutral in the contest, representing a step away from the warm embrace that the Bush leadership once held for Karzai.

U.S. officials have made clear that although they would work with Karzai, they won't accept business as usual during a second term.

"If you get a new government in place that is more of the same, you fail to satisfy expectations of the people, and that would not advance the national process in the way that is so sorely needed," said Timothy Michael Carney, a former U.S. ambassador who heads the U.S. electoral support team in Kabul.

For the Obama administration, the stakes are high.

With troops moving out of Iraq, Afghanistan has become Obama's war, and his administration has spent political capital to increase troop levels and financial resources for the country at a time when many of the president's supporters want an end to the conflicts of his predecessor.

The U.S. hopes the election will give Afghanistan's leader a broad mandate allowing the president to carry out reform and reach out to supposed moderates in the Taliban -- if any are willing to break ranks with the hard-liners.

However, it is unlikely that significant elements in the Taliban would agree to talks without a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign forces.

For now, however, the focus is not on withdrawal timetables but adding more troops.

U.S. troop numbers have soared.

Just three years ago, the U.S. had only about 20,000 forces in the country.

Today, it has more than triple that, on its way to 68,000 by year's end.

U.S. deaths in Afghanistan will set a record in 2009.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in the country, is carrying out a 60-day review of Afghanistan, and some of the members of his panel have recommended a substantial increase in American troops, even as the U.S. reduces its numbers in Iraq.

Sen. John McCain, the former presidential candidate, called Tuesday for troop levels to be "significantly increased," including an additional three Marine battalions in the most violent province -- Helmand.

No matter the number of troops, reform after the election will still be slow.

If Karzai wins, his government could be beholden to power brokers with ties to organized crime, narcotics and in some cases even to the Taliban, said Anthony Cordesman, an analyst for the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"There will be no meaningful government services in far too many areas."

"There will be no Afghan source of security."

"Instead, there will be a corrupt and ineffective police, no courts, and no jails," he said.

"The Taliban and other jihadist movements will still be able to exploit a near power vacuum in many rural parts of the country, and the central government's failures in a good part of the rest."

Carney, the U.S. election official, believes Thursday's vote will be a referendum on Karzai's stewardship, and a test of how far Afghanistan has "moved away from the old think of ethnic politics, or of deal making, smoke-filled room politics."

But Karzai, in the run-up to the election, has engaged in crony politics, bringing back two notorious warlords, moves that drew the ire of the top U.N. official in the country and the U.S. government.

On Karzai's ticket as vice president is Mohammad Qasim Fahim, a former Tajik warlord whom Human Rights Watch has accused of human rights abuses during the 1990s Afghan civil war.

On Sunday, Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum arrived in Kabul -- a powerful Uzbek warlord accused of involvement in the deaths of 2,000 Taliban fighters shortly after the 2001 U.S. invasion.

Both men, in theory, can bring Karzai votes.

Karzai's top challenger, Abdullah, is the one of the few national leaders not swept up in Karzai's electoral family gathering.

And as the threat of Taliban violence hangs over the election, there are some indications Abdullah supporters could take to the streets if the election outcome is not to their liking.

The top U.N. official in the country, Kai Eide, said Tuesday that elections are divisive by nature, but after the vote the various camps must come together to "address the most critical problems this country faces."

Eide noted that international community has a long-term commitment to Afghanistan but would insist that Afghan leaders "take responsibility for their security and their development."

Karzai says his top priority if re-elected will be peace through reconciliation, but the president has so far failed to attract militants to the negotiating table, and there is no indication that talks will start soon.

Taliban leader Mullah Omar has demanded that U.S. and NATO troops first leave the country.

The more realistic of Karzai's goals is to double the size of the Afghan army and police -- something many U.S. commanders believe needs to happen, but a move that will cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars to train and equip troops.

That in turn could draw resources away from programs to promote economic development and effective governance -- often cited as goals that are critical to undermining the Taliban.

"Whoever that winner is going to be needs to understand the state of their country," Sen. Lindsay Graham, who traveled here with McCain, told reporters.

"The institutions in this country are not working."

------

Jason Straziuso has covered Afghanistan for The Associated Press since 2006.

COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OBAMA IS LOSING TROOPS IN AFGHANISTNAM LIKE FLIES, LATELY ....

And so ...

"6 US troops die in Afghanistan ahead of election"

By JASON STRAZIUSO and AMIR SHAH, Associated Press Writers

19 AUGUST 2009

KABUL – The U.S. military said Wednesday six American troops were killed in Afghanistan, as militants killed six election workers amid growing fears on the eve of the presidential election that insurgents would mar the vote.

Two troops were killed in gunfire in the south on Wednesday, the U.S. military said, while a third was killed in an unspecified hostile attack.

The U.S. also said a roadside bomb Tuesday in the south killed two troops, while another died of noncombat-related injuries.

No other details were released.

The deaths bring to at least 32 the number of American troops killed in the country this month, a record pace.

Forty-four U.S. troops died in Afghanistan last month, the deadliest month of the eight-year war.

Attacks in the countryside killed six election workers, officials said Wednesday, one day before Afghanistan decides whether President Hamid Karzai deserves a second five-year term.

In Kabul, three Taliban militants took over a bank, and gunfire and small explosions reverberated throughout the capital.

Police stormed the bank and killed the three militants.

The drumbeat of attacks would appear to signal the intent of Taliban insurgents and their militant allies to disrupt Thursday's vote.

Karzai faces some three dozen presidential candidates at the polls, including his former foreign minister and top challenger, Abdullah Abdullah.

Islamist insurgents have threatened violence against those who take part in the election — a crucial step in President Barack Obama's campaign to turn around the deteriorating war.

Afghanistan's electoral commission said all but one of the country's 364 districts had received voting materials.

Polls open at 7 a.m. Thursday (0230 GMT Thursday, 10:30 p.m. EDT Wednesday).

In a region generally considered safe, four election workers were killed Tuesday when their vehicle struck a roadside bomb about 20 miles (30 kilometers) outside the capital of northeastern Badakhshan province.

Officials said the four were delivering materials to a polling station.

Another two election workers were killed in Shorabak district of Kandahar province on Tuesday when their vehicle hit a roadside bomb, said Abdul Wasai Alakozai, the chief electoral officer for southern Afghanistan.

A remote-controlled roadside bomb exploded early Wednesday near a vehicle taking voting supplies to a poll in the Chaparhar district of the eastern province of Nangarhar, said Ahmad Zia Abdulzai, the governor's spokesman.

The driver was slightly wounded, but the voting materials were not damaged, he said.

Security forces arrested the man who detonated the bomb, he said.

The Interior Ministry says about a third of Afghanistan is at high-risk of militant attack, and that no polling stations will open in eight Afghan districts under control of militants.

The three armed men took over a branch of the Pashtani bank early Wednesday in a section of Kabul's old city still in ruins from the country's 1990s civil war.

Police surrounded the building, exchanging gunfire with the attackers.

Abdul Ghafar Sayedzada, head of Kabul's criminal investigations unit, said police eventually stormed the building and killed three "terrorists."

Few civilians were in the area because government ministries and businesses were closed Wednesday in observance of Afghanistan's independence from British rule.

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said 20 armed suicide attackers wearing explosive vests had entered Kabul and that five of them battled police.

The claim could not be confirmed, but the Taliban in recent months have unleashed several attacks involving teams of insurgents assaulting government or high-profile sites.

The latest attacks were an ominous sign that the Taliban and their militant allies are determined to disrupt Thursday's election.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that the rise in insurgent violence in Afghanistan reflected a deliberate campaign to intimidate voters.

A shopkeeper near Wednesday's gunfire attack in Kabul, Abdul Jalal, said that if violence persisted into Thursday, he and his wife would not vote.

"Tomorrow we plan to go the polling center," said Jalal.

"But if it was like today, we will not vote."

"Elections are a good thing for Afghanistan, but security is more important."

Attacks nationwide have increased in recent days from a daily average of about 32 to 48, said Brig. Gen. E. Tremblay, the spokesman for the NATO-led force.

Even with the increase, Tremblay said that insurgents do not have the ability to widely disrupt voting at the country's 6,500 or so polling sites.

"When you're looking purely at statistics ... they're not going to be able to attack even 1 percent of the entire polling sites in this country," he said on Tuesday.

U.N. Secretery-General Ban Ki-moon encouraged all Afghans to vote and said that by participating in the election Afghans will help "bring fresh vigor to the country's political life, and ultimately reaffirm their commitment to contribute to the peace and prosperity of their nation."

The next president will face challenges on several fronts: the rising Taliban insurgency, internal political divisions, ethnic tensions, unemployment, the country's drug trade and corruption.

Karzai is favored to win, but if he does not get more than 50 percent of Thursday's vote he and the second-place finisher will face off in an October run-off.

Polls show Abdullah in second place with around 25 percent support and Karzai's support around 45 percent.

Preliminary official results of the presidential election should be announced sometime Saturday evening.

Fearing that violence may dampen turnout, the Foreign Ministry issued a statement Tuesday demanding that news organizations to avoid "broadcasting any incidence of violence" between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. on election day "to ensure the wide participation of the Afghan people."

In other violence, a roadside bomb killed a district government leader and a tribal elder early Wednesday in the Registan district of Kandahar, said Ghulam Ali Wahadat, a police commander in southern Afghanistan.

Another roadside bomb in Tirin Kot, in Uruzgan province, killed three policemen, said Ali Jan, a provincial police official.
___

Associated Press reporters Fisnik Abrashi and Rahim Faiez in Kabul and Noor Khan in Kandahar contributed to this report.

The US seems to always select exactly the wrong person to act as a puppet.

The West never gets its puppets right. Russia does much better.

He will win
He will steal it.

Doesn’t everyone in the Free World do it?

Battle over ballot boxes in Afghanistan
AFGHANISTAN’S TOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

A look at the men vying for the country’s leadership in the Aug. 20 election.

ABDULLAH ABDULLAH

Abdullah is a former foreign minister who has risen in the polls to about 25 per cent support and could force President Hamid Karzai into a run-off election. The trained ophthalmologist was a leading member of the Northern Alliance – a group of warlords and politicians from Afghanistan’s north who helped oust the Taliban during the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. His father was Pashtun and his mother was Tajik. He is seen as the favourite of the Tajiks, who dominate the north and make up around a quarter of the Afghan population. Abdullah has talked about cleaning up government corruption as well as changing the government to a parliamentary system.

RAMAZAN BASHARDOST

Bashardost is a parliamentarian and former planning minister with a somewhat eccentric reputation. When not out campaigning, he spends much of his time working in a tent near the parliament building. His frugal style and populist rhetoric, criticizing corruption and cronyism in the government, have earned him enough of a fan base that he’s garnering as much as 10 per cent in polls. Bashardost is Hazara, a minority ethnic group that is largely Shiite Muslim and thus was a major target of the Sunni Muslim Taliban during their reign. He spent many years abroad, including in France, and according to his website, has an extensive academic background.

ASHRAF GHANI

Ghani is a 60-year-old, Western-educated former World Bank official who previously served as Afghanistan’s finance minister. Considered a technocrat with a focus on detail, Ghani has been floated as a potential chief executive for the government – someone who runs the day-to-day affairs under the president. The multilingual Ghani, an ethnic Pashtun, has made eliminating corruption from government a major theme of his campaign, and has pledged such programs as establishing model economic zones in the country and starting a women’s-only university, but he is still considered a long shot. He also is a leading advocate for foreign investment.

HAMID KARZAI

Karzai was named the interim Afghan leader in December 2001 after the ouster of the Taliban, then won a five-year-term as president in 2004. He briefly supported the Taliban in the 1990s, but broke with them amid signs they were falling under the influence of foreign Islamist extremists. His father, a Pashtun tribal chief, was assassinated in 1999 – purportedly by the Taliban. Karzai was among the few Pashtun exiles to mount armed resistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan after the U.S.-led attack of 2001. The 51-year-old is the front-runner, but his popularity has slipped amid Afghan anger over government corruption.

– Associated Press

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/682392
More…

MAYBE ONE DAY, THE USA WILL BE POPULATED BY A RACE OF PEOPLE WITH THE BRAINS TO NOT HAVE PUPPETS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES ....

BUT I DON'T HOLD OUT ANY HOPE FOR THAT IN MY LIFETIME ....

NOR WITH THIS OBAMA ADMINISTRATION THAT APPEARS TO BE THE BIGGEST LOSER HERE ...

And so ...

"Afghan vote raises doubts - Poor voter turnout, likely runoff, has U.S. mapping plans for uncertain future"

By HELENE COOPER AND CARLOTTA GALL, New York Times

First published in print: Saturday, August 22, 2009

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Obama administration officials hoped the Afghan election would demonstrate that eight years after the U.S. invasion, the country was stable enough to justify an expanded commitment of money and troops from an increasingly skeptical American public.

Instead, the election did more to underscore the challenges Afghanistan faces, particularly if the election goes to a runoff, as seems increasingly likely, between President Hamid Karzai and his main challenger, Abdullah Abdullah.

Both men claimed to be winning as ballots were counted Friday, though election officials said preliminary results would not be announced until Tuesday, and final results at least two weeks after that.

In the meantime, complaints of fraud and specific episodes of ballot stuffing mounted, and may assume increasing importance.

Western officials here expressed relief that many Afghans defied Taliban threats of reprisals and came out to vote.

But they were clearly concerned Friday that a second round of voting could extend the paralysis of a government that already barely functions and deepen ethnic tensions, in the worst case, to the point of a north-south civil war.

The new uncertainties come on top of the stiff military challenges facing the Obama administration as it sends thousands more troops to southern Afghanistan, where Taliban attacks and very low turnout on election day made clear the insurgents' influence.

The southern province of Kandahar alone was hit by 122 Taliban rockets on election day, mainly aimed at the towns, according to one Western official.

In a broad southern swath -- provinces like Kandahar, Helmand, Uruzgan and Zabul -- turnout was as low as 5 percent to 10 percent, the official said, effectively disenfranchising the region viewed as the most crucial in the U.S.-led military campaign.

Privately, U.S. officials gamed out a number of possible ways the election aftermath could affect their operations.

During a meeting on Thursday, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the leader of U.S. and NATO combat operations here, discussed how the military would have to adapt to each.

BUT IT IS THE ONLY REAL WAR WE HAVE GOING NOW, SO WE ALL HAVE TO SUPPORT IT ....

And so ...

"Mullen: Afghan fight 'serious and deteriorating'"

By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press Writer

23 AUGUST 2009

WASHINGTON – The top U.S. military officer described the situation in Afghanistan as "serious and deteriorating," but refused to say Sunday whether defeating a resilient enemy would require more than the 68,000 American troops already committed.

Adm. Mike Mullen also expressed concern about eroding public support as the U.S. and NATO enter their ninth year of combat and reconstruction operations.

The comments from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff underscore the challenges that the U.S. and its allies face against a resurgent Taliban and al-Qaida fighters who use safe havens in neighboring Pakistan to hide and launch attacks.

In broadcast interviews, Mullen and U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry said that last week's presidential election in Afghanistan was historic, given the threats of intimidation voters faced as they headed to polling stations.

It could be several weeks before it's known whether incumbent Hamid Karzai or one of his challengers won.

"We're not sure exactly what the level of voter turnout was," said Eikenberry, a retired three-star Army general.

"Taliban intimidation, especially in southern Afghanistan, certainly limited those numbers."

President Barack Obama's strategy for defeating the Taliban and al-Qaida is a work in progress as more U.S. troops are put in place, Mullen said.

The situation in Afghanistan needs to be reversed in the next 12 month to 18 months, he said.

But Mullen wouldn't say whether more American forces troops would be needed.

A large number of civilian experts is also required to help bring stability to Afghanistan's government and develop the economy, he said.

"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," Mullen said.

Three years ago, the U.S. had about 20,000 forces in the country.

Today, it has triple that, on the way to 68,000 by year's end when all the extra 17,000 troops that Obama announced in March are to be in place.

An additional 4,000 troops are arriving to help train Afghan forces.

"I recognize that we've been there over eight years," he said.

"But this is the first time we've really resourced a strategy on both the civilian and military sides."

"So in certain ways, we're starting anew."

"We're just getting the pieces in place from the president's new strategy on the ground now," he said.

"I don't see this a mission of endless drift."

"I think we know what to do."

The Obama administration is awaiting an assessment about the situation from the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

That report is expected in about two weeks and will lead to decisions about whether more troops are necessary.

"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," Mullen said.

"And we'll get to that point."

"And 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."

Just over 50 percent of respondents to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released this past week said the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting.

Mullen, a Vietnam veteran, said he's aware that public support for the war is critical.

"Certainly the numbers are of concern," he said.

But, he added, "this is the war we're in."

Arizona Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he wants the military leadership in Afghanistan to use the same aggressive approach that Gen. David Petraeus used successfully in Iraq.

McChrystal should say exactly how many troops he needs in Afghanistan, let the Congress debate it and Obama would make the ultimate decision, McCain said.

Troops in Afghanistan should "clear and hold" an environment for people so that economic and political progress can be made, he said.

McCain said he worries McChrystal will be pressured to ask for lower troop totals than he needs.

"I don't think it's necessarily from the president," he said.

"I think it's from the people around him and others and that I think don't want to see a significant increase in our troops' presence there."

On the question of what it will take to turn the tide in Afghanistan, McCain echoed Mullen's projection:

"I think within a year to 18 months you could start to see progress."

McCain acknowledged that public opinion on Afghanistan is slipping.

But he said that opinion could be reversed.

"I think you need to see a reversal of these very alarming and disturbing trends on attacks, casualties, areas of the country that the Taliban has increased control of."

Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Obama's leadership on Afghanistan to bolstering public support.

"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," Lugar said.

Mullen and Eikenberry appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" and CNN's "State of the Union."

Lugar was on CNN. McCain's interview Friday with ABC's "This Week" was aired Sunday.
___

On the Net:

Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil/

"Vote fraud allegations mount in Afghanistan"

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer

23 AUGUST 2009

KABUL – The outcry over alleged vote fraud in Afghanistan's election escalated Sunday, with President Hamid Karzai's chief opponent charging that turnout figures were padded and the chief fraud investigator saying some of the allegations were serious enough to influence the outcome if true.

The controversy threatens to discredit an election that the Obama administration considers a key step in a new strategy to turn back the Taliban insurgency.

It could also delay formation of a new government and fuel growing doubts in the United States about whether its worth continuing to fight the war in Afghanistan.

Millions of Afghans voted Thursday in the country's second-ever direct presidential election, although Taliban threats and attacks appeared to hold down the turnout, especially in the south where support for Karzai is strong.

Final certified results will not come until next month although partial preliminary figures are expected Tuesday.

If none of the 36 candidates wins a majority, the top two finishers will face a runoff in October.

Karzai's top challenger, former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah, widened allegations of fraud against Karzai and his government Sunday, saying ballots marked for the incumbent were coming in from volatile southern districts where no vote was held, and that turnout was being reported as 40 percent in areas where only 10 percent of voters cast ballots.

"This is a sign or evidence of widespread rigging," said Abdullah, who draws his strength from the Tajik minority in the north.

Abdullah said a border security commander in the Spin Boldak district of southern Kandahar province, Gen. Abdul Raziq, used his house as a polling station and stuffed the ballot box for Karzai.

Other polling sites were in border police posts that Raziq controls, Abdullah said.

Another presidential candidate has displayed mangled ballots that he said were cast for him in Spin Boldak and then thrown out by election workers.

Raziq denied the charges, saying that everyone in Spin Boldak voted in the appointed polling centers, which were schools and mosques.

He said he and his border police were busy maintaining security and did nothing to tamper with the process.

"They are just spreading propaganda, the people who are saying there was fraud," Raziq said.

"If there is any proof of it, please show me."

Abdullah said he hoped fraud would be prevented through legal appeals with the electoral complaints commission.

But he also said he had no faith in the chief of the Afghan Independent Election Commission, a Karzai appointee.

The Canadian head of the electoral complaints commission, Grant Kippen, said his group had received 225 complaints since polls opened Thursday, including 35 allegations that are "material to the election results," which means if true they could influence the outcome.

Kippen told reporters the most common complaint in the 35 high-priority allegations was ballot box tampering and that the number was likely to grow.

The commission has only received complaints filed at provincial capitals and Kabul and is still waiting for complaints that were filed at polling sites.

The commission must complete its investigation into major complaints before a winner can be certified or a runoff announced.

The top Afghan monitoring group has said there were widespread problems with supposedly independent election officials at polling stations trying to influence how people voted.

That group, the Free and Fair Elections Foundation of Afghanistan, also catalogued violations such as people using multiple voter cards so they could vote more than once, and underage voting.

U.S. and NATO officials, who were hoping for a successful Afghan election, have been quick to point out that it's too early to determine if the fraud allegations were true and whether they were extensive enough to undermine the credibility of the balloting.

The Obama administration is anxious for a winner with a clear mandate to confront the Taliban, combat corruption, curb drug trafficking and rebuild the economy.

Without a credible election, all that is at risk.

The U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan said allegations of vote rigging and fraud are to be expected, but observers should wait for the official complaints process to run its course before judging the vote's legitimacy.

"We have disputed elections in the United States."

"There may be some questions here."

"That wouldn't surprise me at all."

"I expect it," Richard Holbrooke told AP Television News in the western city of Herat.

"But let's not get out ahead of the situation."

Holbrooke said the U.S. government would wait for rulings from Afghanistan's monitoring bodies — the Independent Election Commission and the complaints commission — before trying to judge the legitimacy of the vote.

"The United States and the international community will respect the process set up by Afghanistan itself," Holbrooke said.

He has been in Afghanistan observing the vote, following a trip to Pakistan last week.

As the days pass, however, it's becoming clear that the balloting was deeply flawed in areas of the country where the Taliban threat is greatest.

Afghan officials acknowledge that turnout was low in the Taliban's southern heartland but have released no detailed figures.

The Times of London, reporting from southern Helmand province, said barely 500 people managed to vote in one district of 70,000 people.

In another part of Helmand, where U.S. Marines have been battling the Taliban, only 75 people registered in a town of 2,000 residents — and only 50 of them voted, according to an Associated Press reporter who saw local figures.
___

Associated Press Writers Heidi Vogt and Jason Straziuso contributed to this report.

Could Obama Lose Afghanistan? -- A Commentary

From The Wall Street Journal:

Why support is wavering for the "good war."

It was like an unwelcome specter from an unhappy past: "Could Afghanistan Become Obama's Vietnam?" asked the New York Times headline this past Sunday.

"President Obama had not even taken office before supporters were etching his likeness onto Mount Rushmore as another Abraham Lincoln or the second coming of Franklin D. Roosevelt," wrote the paper's Peter Baker:

Read more ....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...1482587678.html

A long and thoughtful analysis. This is a must read.

So .... could President Obama lose Afghanistan?

Hmmm .... from where I stand .... he (we) already have.

A few days ago another commentary suggested why we have already lost Afghanistan .... Saturday, August 22, 2009
Could Afghanistan Become Obama’s Vietnam? -- A Commentary From The WNU Editor
http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.com/2009/08...as-vietnam.html

Perception, Snuf ....

You are doomed to lose that which you cannot win ....

That is straight out of Sun Tzu from some 2500 years ago ...

Hannibal never really did grasp that when he crossed over the Alps into Rome, and thus, made untenable his logistical support in a foreign land where he thought that the people would come over to him ....

And the French did not grasp that after WWII when they tried to go back and re-conquer Viet Nam ....

And of course, mighty America, which has its head up its @$$ most of the time, also did not grasp that concept when it tried to re-conquer Viet Nam after the French had failed at the task ....

And here we are, all over again, because now, it is Obama's EGO and LEGACY that is at issue here, just as it was the EGO of Alexander the Great back when, and the EGO of George W. Bush back in 2001 and after ....

And so ...

If Obama's ego is all that is keeping us there, the people holding the real power will soon pull the rug out from under him and cut a deal with the Talliband...

They have other wars to fight...

Afghan Vote Reveals Growing Doubts About War
http://original.antiwar.com/luban/2009/08/...ubts-about-war/

Admiral Mullen Says US 'Starting Over' in Afghanistan
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/26/admiral...in-afghanistan/

As Slow Afghan Vote Count Trudges Along, Questions Mount
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/26/as-slow...estions-remain/

The Long Vote Count in Afghanistan: Room for Mischief?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090826/wl_time/08599191885000

Mounting Casualties Leave British Questioning Afghan War
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/26/rising-...ing-afghan-war/

Taliban Condemn Kandahar Blast
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/sou...r-blast-Roundup

Petraeus: More Tough Fighting Ahead in Afghanistan
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../a135527D64.DTL

Afghanistan Needs a Military Solution
from RealClearWorld
IN Kabul these days, those wishing to sound knowledgeable fire one phrase at visiting reporters: "This has no military solution!" One hears it from President Hamid Karzai, UN "experts" and diplomats. Yet they appear stuck when asked: What precisely is the "this" that has no military solution? If pressed, they offer various answers: Afghanistan's poverty, gender inequality, corruption, the drug trade, ethnic rivalries and intrigues by rival powers such as Pakistan and Iran. Obviously, none of those problems has a military solution. But the main problem...

http://www.realclearworld.com/2009/08/27/a...ion_103856.html

The "safe haven" myth
from Stephen M. Walt by Stephen M. Walt


At an appearance before the Veterans of Foreign Wars yesterday, President Obama defended U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, calling it a "war of necessity." He claimed that "our new strategy has a clear mission and defined goals -- to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies," and he declared that “If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.”

This is a significant statement. In effect, the president was acknowledging that the only strategic rationale for an increased commitment in Afghanistan is the fear that if the Taliban isn't defeated in Afghanistan, they will eventually allow al Qaeda to re-establish itself there, which would then enable it to mount increasingly threatening attacks on the United States.

This is the kind of assertion that often leads foreign policy insiders to nod their heads in agreement, but it shouldn't be accepted uncritically. Here are a few reasons why the "safe haven" argument ought to be viewed with some skepticism.

First, this argument tends to lump the various groups we are contending with together, and it suggests that all of them are equally committed to attacking the United States. In fact, most of the people we are fighting in Afghanistan aren't dedicated jihadis seeking to overthrow Arab monarchies, establish a Muslim caliphate, or mount attacks on U.S. soil. Their agenda is focused on local affairs, such as what they regard as the political disempowerment of Pashtuns and illegitimate foreign interference in their country. Moreover, the Taliban itself is more of a loose coalition of different groups than a tightly unified and hierarchical organization, which is why some experts believe we ought to be doing more to divide the movement and "flip" the moderate elements to our side. Unfortunately, the "safe haven" argument wrongly suggests that the Taliban care as much about attacking America as bin Laden does.

Second, while it is true that Mullah Omar gave Osama bin Laden a sanctuary both before and after 9/11, it is by no means clear that they would give him free rein to attack the United States again. Protecting al Qaeda back in 2001 brought no end of trouble to Mullah Omar and his associates, and if they were lucky enough to regain power, it is hard to believe they would give us a reason to come back in force.

Third, it is hardly obvious that Afghan territory provides an ideal "safe haven" for mounting attacks on the United States. The 9/11 plot was organized out of Hamburg, not Kabul or Kandahar, but nobody is proposing that we send troops to Germany to make sure there aren't "safe havens" operating there. In fact, if al Qaeda has to hide out somewhere, I’d rather they were in a remote, impoverished, land-locked and isolated area from which it is hard to do almost anything. The "bases" or "training camps" they could organize in Pakistan or Afghanistan might be useful for organizing a Mumbai-style attack, but they would not be particularly valuable if you were trying to do a replay of 9/11 (not many flight schools there), or if you were trying to build a weapon of mass destruction. And in a post-9/11 environment, it wouldn’t be easy for a group of al Qaeda operatives bent on a Mumbia-style operation get all the way to the United States. One cannot rule this sort of thing out, of course, but does that unlikely danger justify an open-ended commitment that is going to cost us more than $60 billion next year?

Fourth, in the unlikely event that a new Taliban government did give al Qaeda carte blanche to prepare attacks on the United States or its allies, the United States isn't going to sit around and allow them to go about their business undisturbed. The Clinton administration wasn't sure it was a good idea to go after al Qaeda's training camps back in the 1990s (though they eventually did, albeit somewhat half-heartedly), but that was before 9/11. We know more now and the U.S. government is hardly going to be bashful about attacking such camps in the future. (Remember: we are already doing that in Pakistan, with the tacit approval of the Pakistani government). Put differently, having a Taliban government in Kabul would hardly make Afghanistan a "safe haven" today or in the future, because the United States has lots of weapons it can use against al Qaeda that don’t require a large U.S. military presence on the ground.

Fifth, as well-informed critics have already observed, the primary motivation for extremist organizations like the Taliban and Al Qaeda is their opposition to what they regard as unwarranted outside interference in their own societies. Increasing the U.S. military presence and engaging in various forms of social engineering is as likely to reinforce such motivations as it is to eliminate them. Obama is hoping that a different strategy will eventually undercut support for the Taliban and strengthen the central government, but it is still an open question whether more American involvement will have positive or negative effects. If we are in fact making things worse, then we may be encouraging precisely the outcome we are trying to avoid.

Sixth, one might also take comfort from the Soviet experience. When the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, the mujaheddin didn't "follow them home." Were the United States to withdraw from Aghanistan and the Taliban to regain power (or end up sharing power, which is more likely), going after the United States won't even be on their "to do" list.

One can of course make a moral argument for an extended commitment in Afghanistan, but that's not the argument Obama made (and it probably wouldn't sell very well here at home). For a realist, the "safe haven" argument is the only possible rationale for a large military commitment in Afghanistan. But the case is actually quite dubious, and somebody in the administration really ought to take a hard look at it. I doubt anyone will, however, because Obama is now committed, and his administration is filled with "can-do" types who never saw an international problem they didn't think the United States could fix.I sure hope they're right and I'm wrong, but I also wish that I didn’t have that feeling quite as often as I seem to these days.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/0...safe_haven_myth

A sham vote for a sham war of necessity
from War in Context by Paul Woodward
The ultimate burden By Bob Herbert, New York Times, August 25, 2009 If we had a draft — or merely the threat of a draft — we would not be in Iraq or Afghanistan. But we don’t have a draft so it’s safe for most of the nation to be mindless about waging war. Other people’s children [...]

http://warincontext.org/2009/08/26/a-sham-...r-of-necessity/

Hornberger’s Blog

Get Out of Afghanistan and Everywhere Else
by Jacob G. Hornberger

If there was ever a classic example of a quagmire, it has got to be Afghanistan. Hey, they’re going on 8 or 9 years of killing the terrorists and just now getting a good start. What began out as a quest to kill or capture Osama bin Laden has morphed into long-term occupation of the country.

Hardly a week goes by without reports of new deaths, including Afghani citizens and U.S. soldiers or allied foreign soldiers.

Yet, despite the constant death toll and the lack of a well-defined mission, the Pentagon insists on the importance of continuing the occupation of Afghanistan.

Why?

Because the Pentagon knows that if the troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan and the Middle East, Americans might well begin asking the questions they should have asked in 1989, when the Berlin Wall came crashing down and the Soviet Empire disintegrated: What do we need a huge standing military force for? What do we need an overseas empire for? What do we need the enormous expanse of military bases across America for? Indeed, what do we need the Pentagon for?

The fact is that despite deeply seeded fears and anxieties that the federal government has succeeded in engendering within the psyches of the American people, there is no nation on earth that has the military capability of invading and occupying the United States. To cross either the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans with an invasion force would require tens of thousands of ships and planes, a capability that is nonexistent among all foreign nations.

Of course, the big bugaboo that the Pentagon now uses to justify its existence (along with the enormous tax burden necessary to sustain its enormous military) is terrorism (as compared to communism, which was the bugaboo prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dismantling of the Soviet Empire).

But the threat of terrorism is a direct result of what the Pentagon did both prior to and after 9/11 as part of its aggressive, interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East. That threat has remained constant, of course, given the continuous killing of people in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 8 years.

But the Pentagon knows that by withdrawing from Afghanistan and the Middle East, that constant threat of terrorist retaliation plummets. At that point, the only risk of terrorist retaliation would be from some disgruntled person whose family members or friends were killed by the U.S. military sometime in the past. There’s no need for an enormous military to deal with that possibility, and the Pentagon knows it.

If the Pentagon withdrew from the Middle East, military officials know that people might well ask, Why stop there? Why not withdraw from Europe? After all, the Cold War ended long ago. Why not withdraw from Japan. It surrendered soon after the atomic bombs were dropped. Why not withdraw from Korea? The war there ended decades ago. Why not withdraw from Africa? What business do the troops have there?

In fact, the only argument that the Pentagon will have left is the one it was making in 1989 to justify its continued existence: the drug war, especially in Latin America.

The Pentagon knows, however, that there are risks with that justification. One big risk is that people all over the world, including the United States, might finally decide to bring an end to this decrepit old war by legalizing drugs. Reputable and credible people from all over the world are now arguing that that is the only solution to the drug-war horror. In fact, in a move toward legalization Mexico recently legalized possession of small quantities of illicit drugs.

Moreover, the Pentagon knows that one of these days Latin Americans might start asking a discomforting question: If the American people will not permit the U.S. military to wage the war on drugs in the United States, why should Latin Americans permit it to wage the drug war in their countries?

The best way to avoid having Americans asking why we still need a big military force is simply to continue the occupation of Afghanistan. Not only does the occupation provide constant proof that there are still terrorists to kill, it also generates its own never-ending supply of terrorists. The Pentagon knows that under those circumstance people are less likely to question the existence of an enormous military, along with all the hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to support it.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
http://fff.org/blog/index.asp

"In southern Afghan city, fears of Taliban takeover - In southern Afghan city, deteriorating security stokes fears of a Taliban takeover"

By NOOR KHAN and NAHAL TOOSI, Associated Press

Last updated: 4:56 p.m., Thursday, August 27, 2009

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- Southern Afghanistan's largest city, Kandahar, is slipping back under Taliban control as overstretched U.S. troops focus on clearing insurgents from the countryside -- a potentially alarming setback for President Barack Obama's war strategy.

Afghan authorities promise a counteroffensive against the militants in Kandahar -- a pledge that appears aimed primarily at boosting public morale after a devastating bombing killed 43 people on Tuesday.

Losing Kandahar, a city of nearly 1 million and the Taliban's former headquarters, would be a huge symbolic blow because it is effectively the capital of the ethnic Pashtun-dominated south, the main battlefield of the Afghan war.

It is difficult to measure the extent of Taliban control, and NATO officials publicly discount the possibility that Kandahar is about to fall to the militants.

Thousands of U.S. and Canadian troops are deployed throughout the province and around the city, which includes a major NATO base.

NATO officials say the U.S. troop buildup in Afghanistan will enable them to send more troops into Kandahar.

"Because there's one bombing, it doesn't mean the situation is going down the tubes," said Maj. Mario Couture, a spokesman for NATO in Kandahar province.

Nevertheless, many Afghans believe more Taliban forces are operating clandestinely in the city, while the Islamist movement tightens its grip on districts just outside the urban center.

As guerrillas, the Taliban doubtless don't want to capture and run the city.

Instead their goal is probably to wield enough influence to block any government efforts to expand services, prevent international relief agencies from operating there, force merchants to pay protection money and undermine the government's image in one of the country's major cities.

"The Taliban are inside the city."

"They are very active."

"They can do anything they want," said an Afghan employee of an international aid organization who requested anonymity because he feared reprisals from the militants.

The Taliban's resurgence in Kandahar city, the movement's main power base during the 1990s, has been slow and gradual over the past four years, said an international security official who is familiar with the area.

These days, the Taliban control many of the city's streets at night, the official said.

Residents who spoke to The Associated Press also said militants were active at night, though they did not describe them as being in control.

The security official also pointed to a number of attacks, aside from Tuesday's bombing, that indicate the Taliban want to take over the city.

One was last year's brazen bomb and rocket attack on a major prison that freed hundreds of militants and other prisoners.

The militants have targeted tribal elders in surrounding districts, and have a notable presence in the city's north, south and west, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

A chilling indicator of the militant presence are fliers posted in the city.

Haji Tooryalai, a 45-year-old Kandahar resident, said he'd seen some of the so-called shabnamas, or "night letters," ahead of the Aug. 20 elections warning people not to vote.

No voting figures have been released from Kandahar but turnout appears to have been low.

"Poor men, rich men -- everyone is worried about their security," Tooryalai said.

"A few months ago, business was good, but now we are just sitting in our shops and there are just not that many customers."

Tuesday's explosion was especially unnerving.

It struck near a Japanese construction company involved in reconstruction efforts.

The Taliban denied responsibility, as they typically do when attacks kill many civilians.

Since the blast, people talk of little else.

A radio announcement asking for blood donations for the wounded spurred a huge response.

Early Thursday, about 200 men gathered to sacrifice seven cows and pray for the victims.

Farid Ahmad, a real estate worker who appeared to be in his 50s, said people feel hopeless.

"Everybody can't afford security guards, and if you are hiring security guards it means you are an important person and that will make you a target," Ahmad said.

Kandahar province Gov. Tooryalai Wesa said authorities planned to review the security of the city as part of their investigation of the attack, a report likely to be finished in the next three or four days.

Gen. Sher Mohammad Zazai, the Afghan National Army commander in Kandahar, said security forces were planning to launch an operation in the city.

He would not give a date for the crackdown or detail its size and scope, but said it would be "soon" and spearheaded by Afghan security forces.

NATO forces will be offering backup, but in districts surrounding the city, he said.

NATO officials would not comment on any planned operation.

The U.S. is sending additional 21,000 U.S. troops this year to turn the tide against the Taliban, part of Obama's effort to shift the focus of the fight against terrorism away from Iraq and toward the Pakistan-Afghanistan region.

The American military effort so far, however, has focused primarily on the countryside.

U.S. military officials have not explained their strategy publicly but it was believed they wanted to cut Taliban supply lines, interrupt poppy production and attack insurgent units in areas unlikely to produce significant civilian casualties.

The Taliban have also set up Islamic courts in some rural communities.

U.S. Marines have launched operations in nearby Helmand province to wrest control of the Helmand River valley and the Now Zad district from Taliban fighters.

But some officials believe securing Kandahar and the surrounding areas is more important because of the large civilian populations and the city's role as the political and economic center of the south.

They would like to see more of the extra troops in Kandahar and not Helmand.

NATO spokesman Capt. Glen Parent, however, noted that over the past month 4,000 more U.S. troops were deployed to both Kandahar and Zabul provinces, including vast stretches around the city.

About 2,000 Canadian troops are based in and around Kandahar, said Couture, the other NATO spokesman.

He said it's been difficult for the Canadians to deal with the city because they lacked enough troops and were busy battling the militants in nearby Zhari and Panjwai districts.

"With the massive arrival of the Americans, that allows us to focus on Kandahar and surrounding areas of the city," he said.

------

Associated Press writers Heidi Vogt in Kabul and Kathy Gannon in New York contributed to this report.

"July, August deadliest months of Afghan war for US - July, August deadliest months for US troops in 8-year war in Afghanistan"

By JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press

Last updated: 4:35 p.m., Thursday, August 27, 2009

KABUL -- A roadside bomb and gunfire attack killed a U.S. service member in southern Afghanistan on Thursday, a death that pushed August into a tie with July as the deadliest months of the eight-year war.

The death brought to 44 the number of U.S. troops who have died in Afghanistan this month with four days left in August.

More than 60,000 U.S. troops are in the country -- a record number -- to fight rising insurgent violence.

The number of roadside bombs deployed by militants across the country has skyrocketed, and U.S. forces have moved into new and deadlier areas this summer, in part to help secure the country's Aug. 20 presidential election.

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan released his new counterinsurgency strategy Thursday, telling troops that the supply of militants is "effectively endless" and that U.S. and NATO forces need to see the country through the eyes of its villagers.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal said troops "must change the way that we think, act and operate."

McChrystal hopes to install a new approach to counterinsurgency where troops will make the safety of villagers the top priority, above killing an endless supply of militants.

"An insurgency cannot be defeated by attrition; its supply of fighters, and even leadership, is effectively endless," the new guidelines said.

When U.S. and NATO troops battle a group of 10 militants and kill two of them, the relatives of the two dead insurgents will want revenge and will likely join the insurgency, the guidelines say, spelling out the formula: "10 minus 2 equals 20 (or more) rather than 8."

"This is part of the reason why eight years of individually successful kinetic actions have resulted in more violence," McChrystal said.

He called on troops to think of how they would expect a foreign army to operate in their home countries, "among your families and your children, and act accordingly," to try to win over the Afghan population.

If there were foreign troops in this country, we would be out there blowing their $*** away every chance we had and every way we could ....

Those of us who were not collaborating with them, anyway ....

And so ...

This is a cynical explanation for WIGO but it's compelling.

Makes an awfull lot of sense to me...

Obama is going to have McChrystal have the Marines start playing "PAT-A-CAKE, PAT-A-CAKE, BAKER'S MAN" with the Afghans and singing KUMBAYA, and the world will be a better place for it ....

At least it will stop the bloodshed, anyway ....

Until somebody sings out of tune and has an airstrike called in on top of them ....

And so ....

THE U.S. IS PROMOTING CIVIL WAR IN AFGHANISTNAM, AND IT IS SURPRISED THAT IT NOW HAS ONE ...

EXACTLY HOW STUPID A NATION IS AMERICA, ANYWAY?

IS THERE EVEN A SCALE TO MEASURE IT ON?

And so ...

"August deadliest month for US in Afghanistan"

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer

28 AUGUST 2009

KABUL – An American service member died Friday when his vehicle struck a bomb in eastern Afghanistan, making August the deadliest month for U.S. forces in the nearly eight-year war.

The grim milestone comes as the top U.S. commander prepares to submit his assessment of the conflict — a report expected to trigger intense debate on the Obama administration's strategy in an increasingly unpopular war.

The latest death was reported as Afghan officials announced an 80 percent increase in the number of major fraud allegations submitted after last week's disputed presidential election — a sign of the deep challenges facing the U.S. and its allies in shoring up a legitimate Afghan government capable of withstanding the Taliban insurgency, corruption and drug trafficking.

A brief statement by the NATO command gave few details of the blast and did not say precisely where it occurred.

U.S. military spokeswoman Capt. Elizabeth Mathias said the service member who died was American.

That brought to 45 the number of U.S. service members killed this month in the Afghan war — one more than the previous monthly record, set in July.

American casualties have been rising steadily following President Barack Obama's decision to send 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan to combat a resurgent Taliban and train Afghan security forces to assume a greater role in battling the insurgents.

Obama's decision was part of a strategic shift in the U.S. war against international Islamic extremism — moving resources from Iraq, which had been center stage since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion but where violence has declined sharply from levels of two years ago.

A record 62,000 U.S. troops are now in the country, with 4,000 more due before year's end.

That compares with about 130,000 in Iraq, most due to leave next year.

Since the fresh troops began arriving in Afghanistan last spring, U.S. deaths have climbed steadily — from 12 in May to more than 40 for the past two months as American forces have taken the fight to the Taliban in areas of the country which have long been under insurgent control.

At least 732 U.S. service members have died in the Afghan war since the U.S.-led invasion of late 2001.

Nearly 60 percent of those deaths occurred since the Taliban insurgency began to rebound in 2007.

The latest spike in U.S. deaths has raised doubts among the United States and its allies about the course of the war, which was launched by the Bush administration after the Taliban government refused to hand over Osama bin Laden for his role in the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States.

A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that just over 50 percent of the American respondents said the war in Afghanistan was not worth fighting.

Anti-war sentiment is also growing in Britain following a spike in deaths among British forces in Afghanistan.

The debate over the war is likely to accelerate when the new top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, submits an assessment of the conflict by the end of this month.

McChrystal, who commanded special operations troops in Iraq, is expected to give a bleak assessment of the war, pointing to deficiencies in the Afghan government and recommending vastly expanding the size of Afghanistan's own security forces.

Those weaknesses in the Afghan government have come into sharp focus since the flawed Aug. 20 presidential election, which produced allegations of widespread fraud — most leveled by opponents of President Hamid Karzai.

Final results are not expected for weeks, but preliminary figures released this week show Karzai leading the 36-candidate field with 44.8 percent of the vote, followed by ex-Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah with 35.1 percent.

A runoff must be held if no candidate wins more than 50 percent.

Abdullah has accused Karzai of rigging the election, a charge the incumbent denies.

On Friday, the U.N.-backed Electoral Complaints Commission said the number of major fraud complaints which could "materially affect" the outcome had soared to 270.

On Wednesday, the commission said it had received 150 major complaints, which could delay announcement of the final results.

The lengthy election process has added to strains in U.S.-Afghan relations, which had already cooled since the Obama administration took office.

On Friday, two officials said Karzai angrily accused the U.S. of pushing for a runoff vote during a heated meeting with the special envoy to the region.

According to officials familiar with the encounter, the verbal exchange occurred the day after the Aug. 20 vote during a meeting in Kabul between Karzai and U.S. special envoy Richard Holbrooke.

The officials were briefed about the meeting and spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.

Karzai assured Holbrooke he would accept the election results but bristled when Holbrooke asked if he would also agree to a runoff.

An angry Karzai accused the U.S. of urging a second round before all votes had been counted.

Karzai said he would accept the election commission's tabulation as long as it reflected the facts.

He did not elaborate, according to the officials.

The U.S. Embassy confirmed the Aug. 21 meeting and said the two discussed the election but would not go into details.

"There was no shouting and no one stormed out," said Caitlin Hayden, an embassy spokeswoman.

She noted Holbrooke and Karzai met again a few days later.

Karzai spokesman Humayun Hamidzada also confirmed the meeting but gave no further details.

Karzai enjoyed close ties with the Bush administration, which helped propel him to power after the collapse of the Taliban government in the U.S.-led invasion.

Since the Obama administration took office, U.S. officials have accused Karzai of weak leadership as well as tolerating corruption and a flourishing drug trade.

The New York Times reported this week that the Obama administration is alarmed at the prospect that Karzai's running mate, Mohammad Qasim Fahim, may be linked to the drug trade.

Quoting an unidentified administration official, the newspaper said if Fahim becomes vice president, the U.S. would likely consider imposing sanctions such as refusing him a U.S. visa or going after his personal finances.

A U.S. official in Washington confirmed the essence of the report, saying there were "a number of individuals" whom the U.S. would not like to see in a future Afghan government.

He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive subject matter.
___

Associated Press writers Heidi Vogt and Nahal Toosi in Kabul and Matthew Lee in Washington and AP researcher Monika Mathur in New York contributed to this report.

And we cannot even trust or tolerate our own PUPPET over there ....

This fiasco makes Viet Nam look well run by comparison ....

Maybe Obama will call in a drone strike on this Mohammad Qasim Fahim dude to take him out of the big picture, and then, all will be right with Obama's world in Afghanistnam ....

And so ...

"Complaints of Afghan election fraud pour in"

By Peter Graff

Fri Aug 28, 9:04 am ET

KABUL (Reuters) – Afghanistan's Electoral Complaints Commission has received more than 2,000 complaints of fraud or abuse in last week's disputed presidential election, with 270 now listed as serious enough to affect the result, it said on Friday.

More than a week after the election, Afghanistan remains in a state of political limbo, with authorities having published results from just 17 percent of polling stations, giving inconclusive figures.

President Hamid Karzai's main rival, Abdullah Abdullah, has complained about fraud and said he would not accept the result if large-scale abuse was found to have played a decisive role.

The complaints commission, which was partly appointed by the United Nations and includes Afghan and foreign members, said more allegations from polling day are still arriving.

The numbers of serious complaints reported on Friday were far higher than it had listed in the initial days after the voting took place.

It has received 2,207 complaints, including 1,740 since polling day.

It has so far categorized 984 of the complaints, and listed 270 as Category A, "which, if proved valid, could have material effects on the results", it said in a statement.

"Received complaints vary."

"They include allegations of ballot stuffing, poor quality ink, intimidation and accusations against polling staff."

Partial results released so far show Karzai leading with 44.8 percent, with Abdullah winning 35.1 percent.

If no candidate wins 50 percent of the vote, a run-off must be held between the two top candidates.

Although the results so far suggest a run-off would be needed, it is still too early to predict the eventual outcome.

Many provinces in the south -- where Karzai draws much of his support but fraud allegations are widest and turnout was most affected by Taliban threats -- have yet to be tallied.

Taliban fighters threatened to disrupt the poll and launched rocket attacks across the country on polling day, especially in the south.

Those attacks failed to halt the election itself, but do seem to have dampened turnout, especially in the south.

The complete preliminary results are due on September 3, with another two weeks for complaints to be investigated before the final outcome is announced.

A second round if needed should be held two weeks later, presumably October 1, though dates can change.

The initial tallies suggest only about 5.5 million Afghans voted, a disappointing figure in a country with about 30 million people and an estimated 15 million eligible voters.

Pour turnout in the violent south could increase the chance of a run-off, by restricting votes cast for Karzai by his fellow Pashtuns.

Endemic government corruption and Karzai's close ties with former militia leaders have eroded his support, both with the Afghan people and with Washington policymakers.

(For more Reuters coverage of Afghanistan and Pakistan, see: http://www.reuters.com/news/globalcoverage...nistanpakistan)

(Editing by Nick Macfie)

It has come to me that Obama is going to have to "HELLENIZE" his war in Afghanistnam, from the sounds of what his war general McChrystal is saying here, if Obama has any hopes at all of winning ....

Alexander the Great and other Greeks solved these kinds of problems by having their troops marry into the families of the people they were trying to conquer ....

Perhaps that explains the presence of these female Marines ....

Obama is going to betroth them to powerful warlords over there to set up tribal alliances with them ....

And he will have the male Marines inter-marrying over there as well ....

And a big cheese like McChrystal will probably have ten or fifteen wives, maybe five each from each of the three major tribes over there .....

And peace will finally reign in the land ....

And so ...

Derrick Crowe: In Afghanistan, We Know Failure When We See It
I've been mulling over the inability of Ambassador Holbrooke and Secretary Gates to define success in Afghanistan or to speculate about how long we should expect to be fighting a war there.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/derrick-crow...a_b_272674.html

Outside View: Strategic command posts
Washington (UPI) Aug 28, 2009 - According to numerous recent news reports, it is widely expected that U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, will recommend a shift in the operational culture to one requiring greater interaction with the Afghan civilian population. Although such an approach, at least initially, carries an inherent risk of greater military casualties, it ... more

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Outside_Vi..._posts_999.html

Anthony DiMaggio
What Obama Isn't Telling You About Afghanistan

http://www.counterpunch.org/dimaggio08312009.html

Mulling Mullen's Message: Admiral Mullen seems to believe that if America builds trust and delivers, then it will earn respect and admiration - and win its wars. But America’s wars are the problem, notes Nadia Hijab – Middle East Online: "Reading about the essay by Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I thought, at last! An American official who really gets it -- and the highest-ranking military officer, no less. At a time when the Obama Administration plans to invest heavily in strategic communication as part of 'winning' the war in Afghanistan, Mullen writes that what appear to be communication problems are actually 'policy and execution problems.'”

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/opinion/?id=34000