Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiUS Accepts Hamid Karzai as Afghan Leader Despite Poll Fraud Claims
Abandoning its previous policy of not prejudging investigations of vote rigging, the Obama Administration has conceded that Mr Karzai will be President for another five years on the basis that even if he were forced into a second round of voting he would almost certainly win it.
![[Afghan President Hamid Karzai, pictured here on September 17, 2009. (AFP/File/Shah Marai)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/karzai_usacceptsaspres.jpg "karzai_usacceptsaspres.jpg")
The decision will increase pressure on President Obama to justify further US
troop deployments to Afghanistan to prop up a regime now regarded as
systemically corrupt.
The acceptance was conveyed by Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, in a meeting with her Afghan counterpart hours before Mr Obama received a formal request from General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, for up to 40,000 more troops.
Mrs Clinton told Rangin Dadfar Spanta, the Afghan Foreign Minister, that she and her Nato colleagues — including David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary — had reached a consensus that Mr Karzai would remain President even if investigations now under way cut his share of the first-round vote to below 50 per cent. The meeting took place last Friday but details emerged yesterday.
The Administration has also told Kabul that it will support what Mr Karzai calls a policy of “reconciliation”, which is intended to induce low and mid-ranking Taleban fighters into swapping sides or at least to lay down their arms. The same tactic, which boils down to paying fighters to leave the insurgency, is central to a new counter-insurgency strategy recommended by General McChrystal in a bleak assessment of Afghan security leaked last week to the journalist Bob Woodward.
The effort, modelled on the “Sons of Iraq” movement that proved critical to the success of the US-led surge in Iraq two years ago, is to be led by the British general Sir Graeme Lamb, according to Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Discussions on whether to grant General McChrystal’s troop request will dominate a meeting of the National Security Council today. It will be the first of a series that Mr Obama will chair as he chooses between the advice of his military to flood Afghanistan’s towns and cities with fresh troops, and that of his Vice-President and others to tear up his strategy lest it drag him into a Vietnam-style quagmire.
Publicly Mr Obama has insisted that General McChrystal, whom he handpicked in March, retains his full confidence. Reports of tension gained credibility, though, with the disclosure by the general on Sunday that they had spoken only once since he took up his post in Kabul. “I’ve talked to the President, since I’ve been here, once on a VTC [video teleconference],” he told the CBS programme 60 Minutes.
British officials said yesterday that accepting Mr Karzai as winner of the election was “a recognition of the facts on the ground”. The British preference had been for Mr Karzai to form a national unity government taking in his main rival, Abdullah Abdullah — a scenario that the White House would also have welcomed — but Dr Abdullah appears to have ruled it out.
23 Comments so far
Show AllWhat nobody has mentioned here, which is sad because it lies at the centre of the problem, is that many Afghans risked their lives to vote at this election and their courage is treated with complete disregard by the neo-colonial powers that impose their puppets to reach their own ends.
For no other reason I would say that the foreign occupiers have proven their worth in the rebuilding of this country and should get the hell out before they do any more damage. And then calculate and pay the reparations they owe the Afghan people. Some hope!
Even the UN has to bend over double to avoid the truth, kicking out Peter Galbraith for sticking to it. How pathetic and disgraceful!
So now we have an illegitimate occupation, supporting an illegitimate government, using corrupt and criminal drug dealing war lords, being fought against by an ever growing popular resistance. That sounds like a cause worth sending US and NATO kids, as well as thousands of Afghans, to die for!
And as far as the whole relation to 9/11, Bin Laden, the WOT, Al Qaeda and the Taleban is concerned I think that it has been pretty well shown that the CIA, Pentagon, MI5 and 6, Mossad and the rest of the alphabet soup of so called "intelligence agencies" has been flogging those brands of dead horses far beyond their sell by date. I guess my scepticism indicates that it must be time for a new "attack" on the "homeland" to insure the continued expansion of the MIC and congessional or parlamentery budgets for homland insurgent defences and tightened security laws in failing western economies.
How unfortunate that they will not be doing America the favour this time of taking out the whole of Wall Street and all the bankers that hold the world by its “short and hairies” and who, with the help of their cronies in governments, have led us up the garden path this far.
lucitanian - I agree with pretty much everything you say.
Joe
Lucitanian September 30th, 2009 7:23 am
"So now we have an illegitimate occupation, supporting an illegitimate government, using corrupt and criminal drug dealing war lords, being fought against by an ever growing popular resistance. That sounds like a cause worth sending US and NATO kids, as well as thousands of Afghans, to die for!"
“Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light.” – George Washington
"U.S. accepts Karzai" are these guys trying to be funny or is it unintentional? Goddess protect us Hamid "UNOCAL" Karzai was INStALLED in office by the u.s.! So I guess you could say they approve of their choice.
What? Say it ain't so.... WE accept that OUR PUPPET is the one true leader? Yeah, right. Next you'll be trying to tell me that Pakistan harbors terrorist....
Obama's corporate-bankrolled political campaign bought him the presidency. So from his perspective, what's so bad about Karzai stealing an election in Afghanistan. BAN CAMPAIGN SPENDING ALL OVER THE WORLD!
Yes, President Obama, why bother waiting til the political process in Afghanistan is resolved. Declare a winner, despite the widespread fraud found on Karzai's behalf. Any punishment for the fraud? Naahh, let bygones by bygones.
Not legitimate? No problem, the US has no problem propping up other illegimate governments: Honduras coup, Abbas in Palestine, Saudi government, Egyptian government...
If Bush can 'win' two presidential elections, which were mired in controversy and provable allegations of vote tampering, why shouldn't a former CIA asset?
And when you consider that Brand Obama completely pulled the wool over the eyes of the US populace, why shouldn't massive election rigging and vote tampering be the 'new normal'?
I have been saying this for almost ten years now: DEMOCRACY IS DEAD!
What is left is a shambling corpse that is playacting, pretending that the opinion of the body public actually matters, that mass movements can make a change.
We all know that this is a LIE!
It is money that controls the world. If you have money you can commit any crime, no matter how heinous. Rape, murder, massacre.
All can be concealed behind the wall of money.
Walk in peace.
What was the name of that show host on "Let's Make a Deal"?
Monty Hall. "Come On Down!"
· Yr Obd't Servant
"British officials said yesterday that accepting Mr Karzai as winner of the election was “a recognition of the facts on the ground”
Ah, those lovely "facts on the ground," where have we heard this before? Very much we have heard it as the de facto policy for the illegal Jewish settlements in Palestine from their Zionist origins to the facts of the day: a policy of going ahead with what they know will outrage the international community but knowing as well that by the time that community gets round to acting, they'll be "settled" there as a fact on the ground that will be accepted, rather than paying the price of forcible opposition. Isn't it the "policy" of the U.S. with reference to the Honduran coup: we don't like it, we say that the coup is a naughty thing but we do nothing effective to stop it until the coup leader has as a fact on the ground the possession of the country's police and military: if the Brazilian embassy is invaded, we'll scream bloody murder but what can we do about a fact on the ground? So Karzai's election was illegitimate, but the fact on the ground is that he is the only game in town that we can play in Afghanistan. Violence and corruption need have no fear of being stopped, it is too inconvenient to everyone to deal with one of these forces when it becomes a fait accompli.
Eventually all countries will have appointed presidents. Why not? Like Bush, he took our money he did not represent the people. He was selected by the nasty five on the surpreme court to be president, he appointed himself to be king. He represented the money man. The U.S. cant stay there always. When they have to leave just stand back and watch what the people think of their buddy. Those people should be trying to get to the thugs. But we didnt get to the ones we had and have.
Karzai is Obama's Diem. He may end up the same way as Diem did if he continues to embarrass us.
I'm not embarrassed by him--I'm outraged.
Karzai is up to his ears in corruption whether it is drug dealing by his brother or stealing elections, but then again--- he is our thug!
Karzai's second term--Bush's third term--nothing new here--except that it's all going to end sooner than we think...
Is it any wonder that the US accepts Karzai? He is the man that Bush and Cheney installed into that position.
Hamid Karzai was a top adviser to the El Segundo, California-based UNOCAL Corporation which was negotiating with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan.
Is there any money in the federal budget to build a puppet dictator museum in DC with statues of Karzai, Marcos, Sadam Hussein, Pinochet, etc. ?
The museum could include statues of the corresponding US Secretaries of State.
A Whacks Museum?
Joe
Great idea! Obviously it will have a Grand Guignol ambience.
Even if they only get as far as as Dean Rusk in a blood-soaked business suit, and Madeleine Albright seated in a sort of diabolical Pietà, smiling down with satisfaction upon the famished remains of an Iraqi child, they could open on Halloween and clean up!
· Yr Obd't Servant
"...The White House has ended weeks of hesitation over how to respond to the Afghan election by accepting President Karzai as the winner despite evidence that up to 20 per cent of ballots cast may have been fraudulent..."
- There's an instructive contrast between the White House reaction to the Afghan election, which was clearly fraudulent; & the Iranian election in June, which was never proven to be fraudulent (despite hysterical claims & allegations from US officialdom).
Once again we see that the "outrage" of US media & officialdom has nothing to do with "democracy." It's purely a question of whether a given event is favorable or unfavorable for advancing US influence in a given region. If a clearly fraudulent election in Afghanistan or Mexico is compatible with perceived "US interests," it's deemed acceptable. If a probably legitimate election in Venezuela or Iran cuts against US interests, it's denounced as "fraudulent" (or the winner is a "dictator").
All true, RichM. May I add also in contrast to the election of Zelaya, which was perfectly legal and has not been defended by our government.
Joe
Very well said, RichM.
Since we are broke, anyway, let's give up the expensive charade of running elections in the countries we invade, and just announce the winners from the git-go, since the outcome is never, for us, in question, no matter how the people actually vote.
When will Obama not fail to disappoint?