Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Two elections, a real one and a Bush-style one

Two important elections are coming up on Sunday, one in Germany and one in Afghanistan.

In Germany, a new national parliament will be selected, probably forcing a change in the current "red-green" (Social Democrats and Greens) coalition.  The SPD (Social Democrats) is the largest party, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) the second, with the Green and the Free Democrats (FDP) the main smaller parties.  In addition, a "Left Alliance," essentially the PDS (Party for Democratic Socialism, the "post-communist" party) plus some disaffected Social Democrats is making a pitch for voters in the eastern states.

As of Tuesday, the CDU is around 41% and declining, the SPD at 34% and rising, with the Left Alliance at 8% and the Greens and FDP each at around 7%.  At this point, the most likely outcomes are three: a red-red-green coalition (SPD/Left Alliance/Greens), a black-yellow coalition (CDU/FDP) or a Grand Coalition (SPD/CDU).  The advantage to a Grand Coalition is that it would have a parliamentary super-majority and could push through reforms that otherwise might be impossible.  On the other hand, it deprives the country of a proper opposition party, since the two largest parties by far are both part of the government.  And that can encourage demagogery among the other parties.

A red-red-green coalition would be tricky to put together, because a coalition with the PDS (former East German Communists), would be hard for either the SPD or the Greens to swallow.

If a Grand Coalition or a black-yellow coalition is the result, it means that the Greens' Joschka Fischer would no longer be the Foreign Minister.  Fischer has been not only a skillful foreign minister, but he is also known as distinctly pro-American.  I know you're not likely to hear that on OxyContin radio, where the descriptions of European politics tend strongly toward the delusional.  But it's true.  Yes, the Greens are "left" of the SPD, but real life is more complicated than blowhard white-guy radio fantasies.

In his book that was published this year, Die Rückkehr der Geschichte, Fischer expresses an appreciation for the American democratic tradition that we will never hear from the likes of Rummy or Dick Cheney.  His successor, either CDU or SPD, is unlikely to be as favorably inclined toward the United States as Fischer has been.

The parliamentary elections in Afghanistan will immediately enter the litany of alleged successes in the "global war on terror," or anti-terrorism-related program activities", or whatever its label is this week.  But they seem more like a hollow exercise. Most of Afghanistan is under the rule of local warlords.  Without having basic security, much less the many other elements that are part of democracy besides voting, it is scarcely possible to have meaningful campaigns and informed voter choices.

Given the American press' characteristic level of interest in important foreign policy issues, you have to concentrate to find coverage of the Afghan elections.  (Or the German one, either, for that matter.)  But there is some.  For example:

Afghans Urged to Back Honest Candidates by Amir Shah, AP 09/13/05.

Afghanistan's president urged voters Tuesday to support honest candidates in landmark legislative elections this weekend amid concerns that warlords and others with violent backgrounds are on the ballot. ...

In the Afghan capital, Kabul, about 100 people protested a decision by U.N.-backed election observers to disqualify one of the 21 candidates removed from the ballot for suspected links to armed groups. ...

Despite the disqualifications, human rights groups claim several other regional strongmen with ties to militias remain on the ballot, raising fears that this weekend's key step toward democracy may be undermined by the very men it is trying to marginalize.

The article also talks about the slow but continuing escalation of the Afghan War.  The report of a roadside bomb attack is a reminder that tactics of the Iraqi guerrillas have been seeping into Afghanistan.

Knight-Ridder recently ran a set of features under the general title "Afghanistan: America's Forgotten War".  And despite the Soviet-style proclamations of progress that stream forth from the Pentagon and other parts of the government, the war is escalating: War in Afghanistan has intensified by Jonathan Landay, Knight-Ridder 08/19/05.

The Bush administration declared more than two years ago that major combat in Afghanistan was over. Tell that to the 60 young men of Battle Company. ...

The Taliban have killed more than 40 U.S. soldiers and more than 800 Afghan officials, police, troops, aid workers and civilians since March in a campaign aimed at derailing Sept. 18 parliamentary and provincial elections and eroding confidence in President Hamid Karzai and his American-led backers.

Borrowing tactics from their counterparts in Iraq, they've beheaded alleged informers and staged two suicide bombings, a form of terrorism rarely seen in Afghanistan. ...

The war has evolved into a bloody game of cat and mouse, a classic guerrilla struggle with echoes of the much larger and far bloodier conflicts in Iraq, Chechnya and Vietnam.

The outcome may well come down to which side can outlast the other.

And which side at this point has the greater stake in success?

The situation is not radically different, but has continued to deteriorate, from what it was in 2004 when John Poole wrote in Tactics of the Crescent Moon: Militant Muslim Combat Methods:

Right across from Wana lies the Afghan province of Paktika. From firebases Shkin and Orgun, motorized U.S. troops patrol the border. As the Russians before them, they have been repeatedly ambushed at various chokepoints in the road. These chokepoints are often situated in ravines close to tree cover. "The ousted militia has staged several ambushes and frequently fires rockets at U.S. bases in the area, with fighters retreating across the border into Pakistan afterward." [Quote from Gretchen Peters of the Christian Science Monitor.] After one such encounter, the U.S. reaction platoon narrowly avoided ambush by paralleling (instead of following) clearly defined footprints in a gully. According to the 10th Mountain Division troops, the enemy was inflicting casualties to get a shot at a medical-evacuation helicopter.

There is ample evidence of cross-country infiltration routes, but they have yet to be exploited. As in Vietnam, U.S. units may have failed to use enemy sightings to establish each approximate trace and mantrackers to pinpoint its trail. While the CIA is using a few mantrackers in the region, most guerrillas in transit have probably eluded the U.S. interdiction effort. U.S. forces cannot enter Pakistan without undermining the political position of its friendly President Musharraf.

One has to wonder whether that procedure of no US troops in Pakistan has been scrupulously adhered to.  He continues:

Afghanistan has long been a place that is easier to enter than to leave. As did the Russians in their second invasion of Chechnya, U.S. forces have already resorted to thermobaric bombs. In the initial fighting, not all were launched against tunnel entrances. Unfortunately, such weapons violate the Geneva Conventions, and the guerrilla phase of the Afghan-American War is just getting started.

This is worth keeping in mind when we hear the ritual praise for the great democratic progress in Afghanistan next week, as evidenced by Sunday's elections.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

As bad as Iraq is, Afghanistan is the worse screw-up.  In fact, if you were physically capable of stacking the Bush screw-ups, one on top of the other, with the smallest screw-up at the bottom (is that Bernie Kerik I see down there?) and the biggest on top, it is hard to say whether Iraq is on top or Afghanistan.

Now, I was all for invading Afghanistan.  I was willing to go myself.  But it was easier for Osama bin laden to escape Tora Bora than it is to escape the conclusion that we have totally fucked up in Afghanistan.  As I know you know, we are still fighting the bleepin' Taliban, and Osama is still making movies.  Incredible!

I can't tell you which is worse -- invading Iraq for WMD that didn't exist and then failing to secure the country, or failing to defeat the Taliban.

We are in for a long struggle against Islamic jihadis / salafis.  They have enjoyed a substantial boost in prestige and recruitment thanks to Bush lite (referring of course to W's failure even to rise to the lackluster standard of his dad).  Our pitiful demonstration of weakness and incompetence in both Iraq and Afghanistan will surely inspire our enemies.

But the American people still can't find Afghanistan on a map.

Idiots.

Anonymous said...

I had pretty much the same opinion of the Afghan War.  I thought it was necessary to do as much short-term damage as possible to Al Qaeda and also to remove Afghanistan as a terrorist haven.

Unofrtunately, the Bush administration settled for the minimum they could get away with, which was to install a new national government (formally, anyway) in Kabul.  Then they were off to Iraq.

I find it harder to think about what should be done now in Afghanistan than in Iraq.  The situation has changed radically in four years.  Given the international support we had, it might have been possible to achieve a long-term reconstruction and restructuring in Afghanistan that would not have been especially costly in terms of military casualties.

Now, I don't know.  Surprisingly, we still have strong support from the NATO allies in Afghanistan.  But when do the US and NATO say, it's too late, we're too identified as foreign invaders/occupiers and the war is now hurting us more than any likely outcome can help us?  It looks to me like we're close to that point now. - Bruce

Anonymous said...

Also, unlike the Iraq War, the Afghan War was a legitimate response to the 9/11 attacks, given the degree to which Al Qaeda and the Taliban government were connected and depended on each other at that time. - Bruce