Parliamentary Elections in Afghanistan: Observations from the Ground
The Afghanis and the global community will be sorting out the effects of the September 18 Parliamentary elections for weeks if not months. Reports from the Independent Election Commission, and thousands of local and international observers, including those deployed by Democracy International (of which I served as a short term observer), will no doubt be mixed. Nine years after the U.S. – led invasion and months after the American military “surge”, much of the country remains in the control of insurgents. For up to date election-related information check the Democracy International website www.afghan2010.com.
President Obama said he believes the “Afghans have done a commendable job in setting up as best as they can a structure for a fair and important election.” This understated sentiment certainly does not do justice to the tremendous, and perhaps overwhelming, challenges facing the Karzai administration. A significant number of polling centers did not open or closed early due to Taliban attacks. I counted at least twelve mortar attacks, a firefight, and a Taliban truck blaring threats to anyone who voted in one contested provincial capital. Even the Afghan security forces were unable to deploy to many polling sites. Over three thousand formal complaints, allegations of fraud, intimidation, and technical problems further degraded the poll’s legitimacy in the minds of many voters.
That said, it was truly remarkable to witness voters, particularly women, scatter after hearing explosions near the site only to return and cast their vote hours later. The Election commission reported that 4.3 million votes had been cast. Whatever the actual turnout, millions of Afghans felt voting was worth risking their lives.
I have to agree with a prominent observer serving (who also served with Democracy International), “[F]or all the inspiring images I saw of Afghans at the polls, at its core Afghanistan remains a deeply dysfunctional and dispirited country.” (Michael Cohen, AOL)
Many Afghans told observers that the announcement that U.S. troops will withdraw next year emboldened the Taliban and local warlords. An American commander opined that the strategy of pushing the Taliban out of the population centers only made the insurgents more difficult to root out. As so many invading forces have experienced since this country became independent, the mountains serve as an intractable refuge for guerilla forces.
529 foreign troops killed since January from the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), make this the deadliest year since the 2001 invasion. The previous record was 521 in 2009.
Check out Gregg Carlstrom’s recent opinion piece about the lack of consensus among policymakers from both sides of the aisle, Searching for Plan B in Afghanistan. “Obama’s Afghan strategy, unveiled last winter after a lengthy strategy review, has always sat uneasily with many observers. Some doubted his decision to escalate the war at all; others questioned his focus on southern Afghanistan, his lofty goals for training the Afghan army and police, his confidence in the Afghan government’s ability to deliver basic services…Today that consensus has all but collapsed,” according to Carlstrom. Carlstrom goes on to survey the various policy options from conservatives to anti-war experts, none of which seem to provide a realistic blueprint for bringing about a peaceful, unified Afghanistan in the near term.
In response to the press reports about internal debates, Secretary Gates said that while he believes “we will find some areas where we can make some adjustments and tweaks”, he does not expect “any basic changes are likely to occur”. Adm. Mullen agreed, saying that “there certainly could be some adjustments, but we think the strategy is sound.”
James Prince is currently blogging from Afghanistan, where he is serving as an election observer. His full bio can be accessed here.
As the debate over exiting from Afghanistan rages and the role of NATO Allies is questioned, you might find my article on united Germany’s twenty year security debate and the prospects for German forces in Afghanistan in the future. Of course the war in Afghanistan will impact NATO in ways undetermined and Germany will play an important role in shaping NATO’s future. This particularly true when it comes to complex operations; i.e. civil-military operations/capacity building and reconstruction. I wrote an article for the National Defense University publication, PRISM, on Afghanistan and the German national security debate, which is attached You can also download it from http://ccoportal.org/prism (Archives, PRISM Vol 1, No. 4).
I make the point than during the Cold War American and German Forces planned, trained and carried out operations together. Can NATO forces plan, train and execute both joint (e.g., German-American-Afghan) combat operations and reconstruction/capacity building? I have several questions. Can Afghanistan find a governance model – decentralized democracy or internal mixed sovereignty (Biddle, Christian and Thier in Foreign Affairs) that shares power between Kabul and the regions and wins legitimacy? Are such joint U.S.-German combat and civilian operations are reasonable politically in Germany? If so, would the Bundestag approve of them in light of some 80% and growing disapproval of the Afghan mission by the German public?
In the meantime, President Karzai plans to expel contact security companies that provide security to ngos, which is a concern for civilian agencies in Afghanistan. The FT had recently an excellent article by Ahmed Rashid that from his discussions with diplomats, generals and politicians, he has seen that every “European government faces pressure to withdraw or reduce troop numbers, whether because of defence cuts, recession, public anger or parliamentary opposition.” As we move toward another assessment of Afghanistan in the fall and a NATO summit, to say nothing of the Bundestag debate on continuing the German mandate, we have little time to reach a Western consensus on our Afghanistan strategy. Maybe we just don’t need our NATO allies for this or other missions. At least that is what I keep hearing from Washington; e.g., allies are nice, but not necessary.
My view on the key need in Afghanistan remains unchanged. Clearly an approach, different from the current one concentrated on centralized governance, is sorely needed. Afghanistan is made primarily of ethnic groups, warlords and tribal leaders who reject the exclusive control of the central government in Kabul and want to govern themselves. Without legitimacy based on power sharing with the regions, the Kabul government will fall back on coercion used against regional powers and may turn even to the Taliban for cooperation. Then the Taliban/Karzai government can replace NATO.
Best regards,
JD Bindenagel
U.S. Ambassador (ret)
Vice President, DePaul University
Chicago
Comment on September 26, 2010 @ 8:56 am
Mr. Prince’s eye-witness account of the progress and the problems, the achievements and the challenges in Afghanistan is quite illuminating. The determination of many Afghanis to cast their votes amidst threats and obstacles is particularly encouraging. Mr. Prince also engages in an interesting discussion about whether the solution for the pathway forward is found by implementing “some adjustments” or a broader “Plan B”.
Comment on October 5, 2010 @ 1:39 pm
It is a very interesting article in which Mr. Prince addresses the problems that many people had to confront and overcome in order to vote, which may indicate that the situation in Afghanistan is changing in a positive way. Mr. Prince, in your point of view, what impact did the international observers bring to these elections?
Comment on October 8, 2010 @ 11:14 am
Ms. Araujo, international observers can help legitimize an election in the eyes of the global community and provide impartial, nonvested analysis and observations. Unfortunately, in Afghanistan security considerations precluded international observers from being deployed in many provinces. However, the foreign contingent were critical in validating not only positive elements of the poll but also that allegations of irregularities were processed in an honest and effective manner.
Comment on October 14, 2010 @ 7:17 pm