One of the two run-off candidates, Mr. Ghani, used the ‘victory’ word following the big election day in Afghanistan. Is he right?
“Today, the Afghan nation is victorious and the enemies have been defeated,” Mr. Ghani said after the Taliban, who had threatened to disrupt the election, failed to mount any major attacks in Afghanistan’s main cities."
The other candidate, Mr. Abdullah, said “The people of Afghanistan demonstrated their commitment to democracy,” Is he right?
One year and a month ago, I recall many posters here had very negative and pessimistic views on Afghanistan’s future after the US Military leaves. But now this report tells us that, “both potential successors to Karzai say they will sign the bilateral security agreement, which is needed to maintain American aid and a limited U.S. military presence in Afghanistan once the international coalition’s current mandate expires in December.” http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304819004579485482622918584?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304819004579485482622918584.html
This proves The People of Afghanistan, just like all the other The Peoples, decisively reject Violence and Hatred and fully embrace and love Democracy. Also Capitalism and the American Way.
All that is needed to solve any problem is Love — and the commitment to a fully participatory democracy with guaranteed rights for minorities and the suppression of bad thoughts. If the bad men come back with their rifles and bombs, the Afghanis can defeat them by coming out and holding hands in a long chain, possibly singing, until the Men of Violence run away.
My point is much more significant than that. Perhaps you missed it. It is that the two candidates in the run-off if there is a run-off will both agree with a US SOFA agreement that will keep a US Military presence in Afghanistan after the end of this year. Seven million voters have spoken. They want among other things to have US troops remain to support their Army and Police to continue their sustained fight against the
insurgents.
That is a victorious milestone for the people of Afghanistan and another battle one in the ongoing war. No need to be dubious about a major battle won for our side in that fight.
Karzai’s opposition and refusal to the SOFA is seeing his influence wane because his favored candidate lost. It is a significant election result thus far.
I see we have two pessimists weighing in so far. I expect there will be more.
I was speaking about Ghani claiming a victory for democracy because the Taliban haven’t stirred up trouble in Kabul and other major cities where all the security is clustered ; while in the provinces little people get blown away left and right.
Which is unsurprising or really anything novel - the Taliban has always had support in the backwaters and mountains, never attacked the major population centers. And, again, if victory is “not getting blown up in our stronghold”, well…
As for me, I’ll say that the kind of assholes who wave their little flags and cry “the enemy has been defeated” while their own people and officials suffer with no help whatsoever in sight is not on my side, or rather I’m really not on theirs. To say nothing of “our side”.
As for calling American troops back in, that’s no victory and not a “battle won” either - it’s a capitulation and an open avowal of weakness and insufficiency.
Sounds like we lost. I was hoping they’d kick us out. We have no business there and should exit ASAP. I want no more American blood shed on Afghan soil and I want no more Afghan blood shed by American hands.
Although I’m not sure I’d agree that “we lost,” because I’m not sure that we had a coherent, “winnable” objective. What was our objective there?
If it was “ending the threat of Al Qaeda membership based in Afghanistan,” it was kind of a push. If it was “eliminating the Taliban as an effective political force in Afghanistan,” also kind of a push. If it was “eliminating the Taliban,” we lost. If it was “re-creating Afghanistan in our image,” we lost. If it was “re-shaping Afghanistan into a viable, Democratic, pro-Western state,” we lost.
If, as I tend to feel in my more cynical moments, our only real objective was “bread and circuses in the wake of 9/11,” then the military-industrial complex definitely won. And the rest of us–and most Afghans–lost big.
You are wrong that the Taliban never attacked the major population centers.
And do you call Afghan Securiity Forces out in the provinces ‘little people’ ? All but four of the twenty killed on Election Day was government forces combating the Taliban were Afghan Security.
The Taliban did not pull off the major disruption of the election that they promised they would do. I see most people naturally fear the Taliban for what they can do, but mostly they didnt cower in fear and not vote. Those little people are very brave and committed to democracy and are showing it.
And how many wars are fought with elected leaders fighting in the trenches with the little people.
Your two ‘kinds of a push’ separately are close enough to the original military objectives for going in as part of our inherent right to self defense in response to the 9/11 attacks. That is why we and our NATO allies and others sent military forces there. That being said the joining of those two stated military objectives has another aspect to them. And that was to prevent the Taliban from returning to power and offering a safe/haven for al Qaeda to operate ever again.
On that basis can you tell me how those defined objectives could have become a coherent winnable objective had we not stayed beyond toppling the Taliban and fought all these years to weaken the Taliban as well as to assist in the establishment of an Afghan central government that could on its own someday keep the Taliban down far enough that they will never have an opportunity to rule Afghanistan as they did in August of 2001.
I believe there is a disconnect from reasonable logic to assume that the USA could have toppled the Taliban regime and expect to see the much better people in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban on their own.
Knocking the Taliban off but then letting them return to what they had before would have left a more unstable mess for al Qaeda to exploit as I see it.
What’s too bad about 6300 polling stations being opened and serving record turnout to vote? In 2001 when the US was attacked by terrorists that were residing there under Taliban assent, there were zero polling stations opened in Afghanistan. So going from zero to 6300 open polling stations with 400,000 Afghan security forces in the lead protecting them, to you, is ‘too bad’. I’d say if over half had to be closed it would be too bad, but that is not the case is it?
You can say whatever you want. but having to close 10% of the polling stations is not good for them. The security situation is going to get worse as we draw down our troops, not better. I wish them the best for them, but I’m not optimistic. I see no reason to be.
And I want us out of there now. Not 10 years from now.
What are you even trying to debate in this thread? Is it defeat for Taliban? No, it’s not. If it were, we wouldn’t need to be there any longer.
In Post #003 on 03-10-2013 at 11:17 AM John Mace wrote:
On 03-10-2013 at 03:02 PM **I posted **a crucial part of the report containing and explanation about (Taliban attack data) that you failed to show on 03-10-2013 at 11:17 AM and never really acknowledged later on that thread:
http://news.yahoo.com/taliban-attack-trends-never-mind-204049648--politics.html
I am sure that your ‘simple tally’ of 10% closed polling places … is a flawed analysis just as … a simple tally of (attacks)… last year … was “not the most complete measure of the campaign’s progress” … .because it was… “at a time when more than 80 percent of the (attacks) … were … happening in areas where less than 20 percent of Afghans live, this single facet of the campaign is not particularly accurate in describing the complete effect of the insurgency’s violence on the people of Afghanistan.”
You drew a conclusion based upon the **number of attacks **without understanding the fact that 80 percent of the recorded attacks were not in areas where 80 percent of the population lived.
So if closing 10% of the polling places took place where 'attacks were still high, then it is most likely to also be where very few of the population lives.
I can understand that protecting very remote areas … or areas where Taliban have a presence … can be difficult.
The Taliban could not stop an election although they threatened to try to do so, where 80 percent of the people of Afghanistan lives.
That’s easy. The troops involved in day to fay combat missions are coming home at the end of this year because the Afghans have taken the lead.
When the combat mission ends at the end of this year, there is a security deal to keep (perhaps 10,000) trainers and special forces in the country to obviously continue training but also to rapudly respond to any attempt by al Qaeads and Taliban to mount any kind of massive or major attack against ANA and ANP units in the upcoming years.
