# Recipe for Election Disaster?



## The Bread Guy (13 Aug 2009)

Am I the only one seeing this, given the Taliban's history of not respecting the "cease" in "ceasefire, as a recipe for a Taliban free-fire zone on election day?

"A series of secret ceasefire deals have been agreed with Taliban commanders to ensure that voting can go ahead in Afghanistan's volatile south during next week's presidential elections.  Under the deals, brokered by Ahmed Wali Karzai – the controversial brother and campaign manager of the president, Hamid Karzai – individual Taliban commanders will agree to pull back on election day and allow the Afghan army and police to secure the polling centres...."
+
"Afghanistan's president says he's ordering Afghan security forces to observe a cease-fire during the upcoming election day.  Hamid Karzai also demanded Taliban fighters not carry out violence during next Thursday's vote...."

I know there's still international troops there, but this just feels creepy....


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Aug 2009)

This isnt the first election in Afghanistan so I dont think it will be a failure. A failure is if no one turns out to vote and I dont see that happening.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Aug 2009)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> This isnt the first election in Afghanistan so I dont think it will be a failure. A failure is if no one turns out to vote and I dont see that happening.


I agree the polls will open, and people will turn out, but I worry that the Taliban will take advantage and kill an awful lot of people in spite of their "ceasefire".

I'm also guessing that ISAF troops WON'T be standing down, so it's not like there's zero security, but nonetheless...


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Aug 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I agree the polls will open, and people will turn out, but I worry that the Taliban will take advantage and kill an awful lot of people in spite of their "ceasefire".



Where upon the stop war crowd will use the slaughter in a effort to bolster their position that international troops can't defeat the freedom fighters Taliban and should get out.


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Aug 2009)

The same arguments were made in Iraq and people turned out in massive numbers.


----------



## Gunner98 (14 Aug 2009)

Many things in Afghanistan must have an Afghan face and lead.

Security vital to give Afghans confidence to vote:  http://www.smh.com.au/world/security-vital-to-give-afghans-confidence-to-vote-20090814-el7n.html

Excerpts - more at link 

Brigadier Damien Cantwell commands Afghanistan's election taskforce, which provides the link between coalition commanders and the Afghan authorities and co-ordinates military support to presidential and provincial elections.

Afghanistan's Independent Electoral Commission has estimated that enough polling booths will be operating to allow 85 to 90 per cent of registered voters to reach a polling centre.

Others are in areas still under Taliban control.

About 19 million Afghans are expected to vote.

Brigadier Cantwell said the Taliban clearly would try to frighten people away. The answer was to present the best possible security picture so that voters felt confident and safe to travel from their homes to polling stations.

*He said the coalition was doing everything it could to help with security but the Afghan security forces were in charge.

''This is an Afghan security challenge,'' he said.*

''I am confident that the Afghan national security forces, supported by the international security assistance force, are doing everything we can to present the secure environment in which the elections are going to take place.

''Having said that there are always challenges. Security challenges abound in the country.'


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Aug 2009)

The latest, from ISAF:


> Following the call from the government of Afghanistan for a Day of Peace, the International Security Assistance Force will suspend offensive operations during the election.
> 
> In support of the Afghan national security forces who lead the security efforts during the electoral process, only those operations that are deemed necessary to protect the population will be conducted on that day.
> 
> ...


----------



## PMedMoe (21 Aug 2009)

*Were Afghans brave enough?*
Observers worry election turnout was too low for results to be legitimate
Article Link

Millions of Afghans braved Taliban threats to cast their ballot in a crucial presidential election Thursday as doubts surged over whether the turnout was enough to deliver a credible result. 

The election is a crucial test of the strength of Afghanistan's fledgling democracy against insurgent violence, and a measure of the costly and faltering international effort to bring stability to the country. 

Incidents of insurgent violence fell short of fears, but some remote districts reported turnouts of just 10 per cent. There is, however, growing concern that the national turnout will fail to cross a 50-per-cent threshold – a benchmark being privately floated by officials as a minimum to render the results legitimate. 

Accusations of electoral fraud flew, meanwhile, triggering fears of potentially violent demonstrations in the coming days. 

Despite these concerns, United Nations, American, Canadian and Afghan officials praised the election as a success, with Washington expressing cautious optimism that Afghans would respect the result. 

More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Aug 2009)

See my comments on the election elsewhere on this page.

The election isn't/wasn't terribly important and, therefore, it *could not have been a disaster*. The mere fact that there was an election and that it was remarkably unremarkable (for violence or chicanery) is a good thing. It gives one some hope for both the requisite strong social capital and the lawful institutions upon which successful societies rest.

But: Afghanistan is, still, a *failed state* and it will be a long long time until it climbs out of that hole.

Elections are nice; _nation building_ is necessary. Another But: Rumsfeld was right, _"The objective is not for us to engage in "nation building"- it is to help Afghans, so they can build their own nation.  That is an important distinction."_ Anything "we" build will be without foundation; whatever the Afghans build, with our help, to be sure, will endure. We should help them to build well.


----------



## GAP (21 Aug 2009)

What you say if very true ER, but more importantly, repeated successful, (somewhat) corruption free elections, will do more to show people that they too can participate in deciding what to do within their own country, than anything the West could tell them. It might take 10 actual elections for people to get used to the idea that this is their chance.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Aug 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> See my comments on the election elsewhere on this page.
> 
> The election isn't/wasn't terribly important and, therefore, it *could not have been a disaster*. The mere fact that there was an election and that it was remarkably unremarkable (for violence or chicanery) is a good thing. It gives one some hope for both the requisite strong social capital and the lawful institutions upon which successful societies rest.  But: Afghanistan is, still, a *failed state* and it will be a long long time until it climbs out of that hole.


Not too long after the polling, I'd have to agree that I over-reacted.  Can't get 'em all right - otherwise I'd be buying a lot more lottery tickets.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But: Afghanistan is, still, a *failed state* and it will be a long long time until it climbs out of that hole.
> 
> Elections are nice; _nation building_ is necessary. Another But: Rumsfeld was right, _"The objective is not for us to engage in "nation building"- *it is to help Afghans, so they can build their own nation.*  That is an important distinction."_ Anything "we" build will be without foundation; whatever the Afghans build, with our help, to be sure, will endure. We should help them to build well.


You're right - it'll be interesting to see how much government messaging will become more nuanced to reflect that view.

Also a warning - if government wants to take the credit for helping (even if it is not completely within their control) when it goes well, they have to be braced for flak if it doesn't.  Not saying it's right, but wait for it from the other side.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Aug 2009)

Some reaction and counter reaction:

http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/08/people-will-win-long-live-afghanistan.html



> *The People Will Win. Long Live Afghanistan.*
> 
> The spinning on Afghanistan's elections and their meaning will be fast and crazy over the next few days. As things have turned out so far, voting day wasn't anywhere near as calamitous as we'd been warned to expect.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Aug 2009)

If you want to read/hear it from the horse's mouth, instead of through MSM filters, here's some _*initial*_ reports from some observers.

Independent Election Commission of Afghanistan
http://www.iec.org.af/Content.asp?sect=6&page=pressreleases

European Union
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/cfsp/109801.pdf

Free and Fair Election Foundation of Afghanistan
http://fefa.org.af/pressrelease/FEFA-Election%20Day%20Statement-Aug20.pdf


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Aug 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Some reaction and counter reaction:
> 
> http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/08/people-will-win-long-live-afghanistan.html
> 
> ...



See my comments on the Canadian "anti-war" movement elswewhere on Army.ca. It doesn't bear repeating but most "peace activists" are stupid, lazy, spoiled children - and they reflect their parents and too much of Canadian society at large.

Simply _having elections_ is an order of magnitude "better" than not having elections. It helps to plant the idea that government with the consent of the governed is possible, and that's "good news."


----------



## GAP (23 Aug 2009)

225 complaints filed about fraud in Afghan election
Updated Sun. Aug. 23 2009 6:50 AM ET The Associated Press
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090823/afghan_election_090823/20090823?hub=TopStories

KABUL -- Charges of fraud in Afghanistan's presidential election are extensive enough that they could sway the final result, the commission investigating the complaints said Sunday. 

The independent Electoral Complaints Commission has received 225 complaints since polls opened Thursday, including 35 allegations that are "material to the election results," said Grant Kippen, the head of the U.N.-backed body. The figures include complaints about both the presidential balloting and provincial council polls. 

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

President Hamid Karzai's top challenger, former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah, accused the president of rigging the vote in an interview with The Associated Press on Saturday. Another presidential candidate has displayed mangled ballots that he said were cast for him and then thrown out by election workers. 

Election observers have said the voting process was mostly credible, but are cataloging instances of fraud and violence. 

The most common complaint in the 35 high-priority allegations was ballot box tampering, Kippen said. He stressed that the number was likely to grow. The commission has only received complaints filed at provincial capitals and Kabul so far and is still waiting for complaints that were filed at polling sites. 

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

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 Electoral Complaints Commission -- before trying to judge the legitimacy of the vote. 

More on Link


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Aug 2009)

*Reports* of election fraud are common, everywhere.

Some of the reports are, almost always, true - in *A*fghanistan, in *B*elgium, in *C*anada and so on all the way through to *Z*imbabwe.

Most reports of election fraud are self-serving complaints from losers. That's most often the case in America and in Afghanistan, too.


----------

