Blogs and Stories
Why the Taliban Won
Hamed Zalmy, AFP / Getty Images
Despite both sides declaring victory in last week’s Afghanistan election, the Taliban is the real winner. Leslie H. Gelb on violence—including chopping off ink-stained fingers—at the polls.
To Americans, watching Muslims participate in free and fair democratic elections seems to be the 21st-century equivalent of converting them to Christianity. In American eyes, elections are the path out of tyranny and civil strife and toward legitimacy, good government, and peace. Elections help Americans justify and feel good about their sacrifices in blood and treasure on behalf of troubled and troubling Muslim societies. So it was in Iraq. And to a lesser degree, so it was last week when Afghans went to the polls to select a president.
The low participation also demonstrated that U.S. forces, as good as they are, could not afford the protection Afghans felt they needed to cast ballots in the face of Taliban threats.
No one in the Obama administration is crowing about the transformative power of that election. The turnout was less than 50 percent, far lower than the last election over four years ago. Then, a majority of voters on the first round chose Hamid Karzai, and it seemed a clarifying and unifying moment. Not so in this election, where neither President Karzai nor his former foreign minister and main opponent Abdullah Abdullah appears to have approached a decisive majority. Preliminary results announced Tuesday gave Karzai 41 percent of the votes processed so far, a slight lead over Abdullah. If Karzai does not have more than half of the votes when the counting is over, a runoff contest between the top two vote-getters in early October.
But few, if any, Americans or friendly Afghans are thrilled with the situation. Outside inspectors and the candidates themselves are charging widespread fraud and ballot stuffing and gross violations of womens’ voting rights. Some international observers are suggesting the level of electoral thievery could invalidate the results. Karzai and Abdullah both claim victory. American officials have asked them to stop for fear of inflaming their supporters to civil strife. The Americans are trying to explain to the candidates that they aren’t the same as the Republican and Democratic contenders for the Minnesota U.S. Senate seat, both of whom claimed victory for eight months. And one can only hope that Afghanistan’s highest court will not intervene to proclaim Karzai the victor as the U.S. Supreme Court did in proclaiming George W. Bush the winner over Al Gore. Americans would look askance if Afghans mimicked their own banana-republic justice.
The only ones gloating over this presidential election seem to be the Taliban. They wanted to suppress the voter turnout to demonstrate their power, and they largely did. In southern provinces, the percentage going to the polls fell to under 10. This was a deep wound to Karzai because these areas are overwhelmingly Pashtun, and he’s a Pashtun who expected upward of 80 percent of that vote. The low participation also demonstrated that U.S. forces, as good as they are, could not afford the protection Afghans felt they needed to cast ballots in the face of Taliban threats. And to some of those who, nonetheless, sported the purple fingers advertising their voting bravery, the Taliban carried out its threat to cut off those fingers.
It’s worth dwelling on the purple finger for a moment because Americans invested so much emotion in that symbol. The finger-dipping began with Iraq’s first real election about six years ago. To prevent extra voting, the fingers of those who had voted were dipped in supposedly indelible purple ink. Iraqis waved their purple digits wildly and proudly, and Americans seemed most gratified at their protégés' enthusiasm for democracy. With each passing election and with elections producing no miracles of political reconciliation or government performance, the voter lines thinned in Iraq. There were fewer and fewer purple fingers to proudly flaunt. Last week, the Afghans did a bit of flaunting, but some also pointed out a new use for a holy modern liquid called “bleach.” It turns out, these Afghans showed, that bleach could remove the purple, thus permitting enthusiastic voters to register multiple X’s for their guy.
Americans as well as the beneficiaries of American sacrifices are coming to realize that elections are not cure-alls, that they are a necessary ingredient for democracy but very far from a sufficient one. Nor are elections providing the basis for resolving nasty civil strife in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, elections in these countries could even prove counterproductive. The great majority cast their votes along ethnic, tribal, and religious lines. This, in turn, serves to amplify and aggravate differences of interest and power among the competing national groups.
The issue, of course, is what to do now, after such an inconclusive and possibly deeply tainted election with low voter participation, and now that the Taliban has made its power point. Where U.S. and Afghan officials seem headed is toward waiting, trying to keep charges and claims as low-key as possible, set up that October election between Karzai and Abdullah, and pray. Their expectation remains that Karzai will ultimately prevail and will then attempt to bring a slew of opponents into his already bloated government, give them each a piece of the poppy profits or a nice slice of American aid, and pray.
The problem is that Obama officials know well that this is not nearly enough to dig America out of the Afghan quagmire. These officials really do understand counterinsurgency warfare. They know this cannot be done without nation building, and that nation building depends directly and mostly on good and effective government. The central government in Kabul is corrupt and inefficient, and it inspires little or no loyalty among the people. The Obama strategy cannot work without a Kabul government that works. Last week’s elections were most certainly not President Obama’s fault, but they were a serious setback to the cause he now labels America’s “war of necessity.”
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Justice Clinton?
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono. McKinnon is co-chair of Arts & Labs, a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today's rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products to consumers.
Obama's Dangerous China Game
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Speech Had Potential
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
New Doubts About Afghanistan
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Trilby16
The sight of those burkas makes me so mad. It's like telling women to live their lives covered by a giant garbage bag. The fact they do it infuriates me too. The fact that some of them emigrate and then insist on the "right" to keep wearing it makes my blood boil.
Just saying....
mcmchugh99
I lived in that part of the world, so I know the Taliban and Al Qaeda are Islamic Nazis, and they want to set up totalitarian-fascist police states wherever they can. They should be shot on sight, but that is not enough. Obama should never make the LBJ mistake of forgetting about the "Other War", all the political, social and economic development on the grassroots level. (Forget the central government, it's a corrupt joke like South Vietnam and a real hindrance and detriment to to overall mission since the people hate it.) The best they could do at the central government level is put another king of the tribes in there or something.
Of course, there are also political considerations in all this, as there are in any way. There are plenty of people waiting in the wings to jump all over Obama for getting into Another Vietnam--for either not winning it or for being there at all in the first place.
If there is a strategy to win it quickly, it should be carried out sooner rather than later.
speakingout101
Not to belittle women's rights or anything, but I really think that Afghanistan has bigger issues to worry about (rampant corruption in a puppet government, a breakdown of the tribal system that worked in Afghanistan quite nicely for a couple thousand years caused by said government, ethnic violence, etc) than their women wearing burqas.
deegeezee
not to belittle gov't or anything, but there really isn't a more important issue than the brutal repression of 50% of a country's population.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--mblipsspeakingout101
What I'm saying is that whereas the rampant abuses of women's rights in Afghanistan are deplorable, rectifying that issue won't fix any of the other problems that Afghanistan faces.
There is no quick fix to Afghanistan's problems, and a prolonged presence of the US army in Afghanistan will only make things worse. Afghanistan must be given a chance to fix itself.
And as mblips says, that brutal repression extends to 100% of the population.
Things will get better, but it will take time. An entire culture cannot be undone in 8 years.
mcmchugh99
I'm afraid of Mitt Romney in the 2012 election, playing an oily, Nixonian role, attacking Obama from left, right and center for getting bogged down in Another Vietnam. In the war is still going full blast at that time, Obama will facing a full scale revolt from the middle class left in the name of peace, love, tofu and Woodstock.
It could turn into another Chicago 1968 situation for him with a fractured Democratic Party running against Nixon II. It will not be the big victory that Obama has every right to expect given that we will still be in the reform wave.
Not good. Obama risks further alienating his left while giving the right a potential winning issue to block all his reforms. He's better make sure they have the best strategy possible firmly in place to AVOID a quagmire, before he sends 15,000 or 45,000 more troops--or any more troops.
Once he starts sending more, it becomes another Vietnam, with all the "in for a penny, in for a pound" mentality. If we have to go for it--and I think we do--then I would go big and go quickly. Deliver an absolute knock out blow to the enemy right away, as much as possible, because it will be much harder to do this as silly season approaches in 2012.
Have a strategy in place that will knock the socks off the Taliban and Al Qaeda for a while, and then use the hiatus while they are regrouping to put in all the social, political and economic development programs on the local and regional level, me that aid gets down to the grassroots level. Then turn it over to the locals as quickly as possible.
If this can be done at all, it has to be done right now. Later will be too late.
Like I said before, the Democrats should also pass as many of their domestic reforms right now, in case Iraq and Afghanistan go south on them.
khepri
The belief that the US can deliver "an absolute knock out blow to the enemy" is an incredible statement. It derives from the myth that America has the magical ability to manage these distant places--a myth that has done more harm to America than any terrorist group could ever accomplish. As for your last statement: Iraq and Afghanistan have already gone south. We're just in a state of collective denial about the obvious.
mcmchugh99
This why I keep thinking of LBJ, who was damned if he did and damned if he didn't in Vietnam. If the war becomes another quagmire, Obama will be gutted from left and right. If he gets out and the whole thing collapses, he will still be attacked ruthlessly from the right--and from everyone if the Islamic fascists attack the US again.
Unless he finds some way to achieve certain minimal goals relatively quickly, then his presidency will be undermined along with all the domestic reforms he wants to pass. That's what happened to LBJ's Great Society.
The minimal goal, militarily and in domestic policies, is to leave these countries in such a condition so the enemy cannot use them as bases to attack us. I just don't see any way around that.
They aren't like the Viet Cong and north Vietnamese, who just wanted to control their country and didn't care at all about attacking us over here. these Al Qaeda types have a long track record of trying to get at us anywhere they can, which actually makes it harder to get out that was the case in Vietnam. Once we were out of the country, the Vietnamese could care less what we did back home. that's not the case with this situation, however.
joymars
That picture prompted me to post as well. It's unfathomable how this could be a reality. What this does to women is make the world NOT their home. They only have one place which can be counted in square feet, and even there their husbands, fathers and sons are the bosses. How can this be going on? Anywhere?!!!
On the flip side:
I went to the Hollywood farmers' market here in L.A. a few weeks ago -- right in the heart of the western culture beast. A tall woman covered from head to toe in a black burka walked passed me. She had the fabric grill covering her face AND even black gloves on her hands. Can't show the skin on her hands either -- heaven forbid! She had a child with her who was talking to her and they were obviously both American.
I got a major rush of anger and antipathy coming from her black fabric. Anger meant for everything around her. She was daring the culture she was gliding through to tolerate her antipathy toward it.
Sure she has a right to do that to herself. And I have a right to see it as NOT a spiritual choice but as a psychological problem, plain and simple.
pricklypear
It is an affront to me as well.
I could understand it if this woman were a nun or holy person. But for my husband? Furgit it!
spinozareader
joy
I agree.
It takes a particularly virulent and potent form of Stockholm Syndrome--or just plain, outright hostility--for a woman to parade around in a burka among us here in the States.
It'd be the equivalent of parading around in an SS uniform at a kibbutz.
Leaves me angry.
tillkan
I feel like throwing up when I see a woman in 4 inch high heels. But I keep it to myself. I also feel like throwing up when I read comments like this.
inexpugnable0199
I have no problem with high heels, but the intolerance toward the extreme modesty of these Muslim women seems a bit overwrought. When in Rome and all that, don't you know?
joymars
Oh yeah, high heels are really analogous to burkas! It is no secret that each and every culture is repressive in its own way. But to compare ANYTHING to the burka -- except for Chinese foot binding and female genital mutilation (euphemistically called circumcision) -- is ludicrous. I'd go in for a rationality check up if I were you.
JGooch
I had such a disgusted, physical reaction to seeing these women in burkas. How can they even breathe let alone think or feel. The Taliban makes me sick.
pricklypear
Real men don't make their women walk around in a camping tent.
There is something totally wrong with a society that treats their supposed loved ones this way.
inexpugnable0199
If Britney can show her twat (which I absolutely support her right to do so) then Fatima can wear a burka, can't she?
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--mblipscampaignman
I love the discussion on this thread. It is intelligent and compassionate.
For the record, I am a man. As I see it, women's rights are critical to the creation of civil society in every part of the world. If we can protect and free the women in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we will have achieved victory. Still, it is far from easy to do so.
One step in the right direction would be to face up to the reality that drug money is funding the Taliban. It is also funding serious criminal activity in America and undermining the governmental stability of Mexico. We can no longer pretend that we are winning the drug war and win this more important war.
We need a world summit to confront this issue. We should legalize, regulate and tax all drugs. In doing so, we would no longer have to spend billions on eradicating drugs and the profits earned would be seen and tracked. Growers would no longer need the help of criminals to produce and distribute their products. The criminals would soon see the primary source of their income dry up.
Lacking anywhere near the funding stream it has now, the Taliban would be undercut. The Western World would then be in a far stronger position to use its funds to provide the schools, basic health care and investments needed for jobs that would win over the millions of young people who would prefer a real future.
Our military alone cannot win this fight. We need to face reality. If we end the unnatural prohibition on drugs, while providing an honest education about them and more money to research ways to eliminate or diminish the addictive nature of the drugs, we will go a long way towards winning our real fight.
The politicians will not lead this change. The people must lead this change. Politicians who agree are fearful that calling for this change would end their political careers. Other politicians care less about the actual consequences of their positions, than in using an issue to beat up their opponent.
A perfect example of politicians who care less about policy, as opposed to politics, are the Republicans who have touted "death panels" and the other lies in our current health care debate.
We the people are the answer. I hope we the people wake up and assert ourselves.
akcita
So, would pot be legal? How does the government regulate the home grower? (and there would be plenty)
What is the predicted market impact? What is the predicted Social, and health care impact?
Great Idea, let's make a gargantuan societal change to take money out of the Taliban's pocket...
Stop smoking the illegal stuff bubba, this won't happen.
inexpugnable0199
As long as we occupy Afghanistan, we effectively neutralize the threat of the Taliban, though if we cannot control Pakistan (and we cannot) and will not clean up the Afghan govt, we cannot really defeat them though we can always keep on with the LeMay doctrine and keep bombing the rubble into smaller chunks of rubble until we get sick of it and go home. It may be interesting in 5 or 10 years time to watch the remnants of the Taliban try to pick up the pieces. Or, maybe by then will will have a fully robotic infantry to add to our drone airforce and perpetual occupation will become cost effective. Send in the roombas!
mcmchugh99
Obama is suffering from LBJ Dilemma Disorder, and it's not good. He can't just walk away or the Republicans will jump all over him in the usual McCarthyite way and accuse him of being a coward-wimp-weakling-traitor, like they always do.
We have decades of experience with the Republicans by now and we know their whole playbook, and we know exactly what they're going to do before they do it themselves.
On the other hand, if Obama gets bogged down in an endless, drawn out quagmire like Vietnam, he is going to be attacked by Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats will be angry that he's there at all, while the Republicans will again say he's a weak, indecisive wimp who won't let the army fight, and so on.
LBJ was faced with exactly this dilemma in 1964-65, and he was given some kind of memo with three options--go small, go big, or take a middle course. In general, they assume the president will take the middle course--select plan B or option 2.
Most presidents do that, since it looks just about right--not too hot, not too cold.
In this case, I suggest that Obama leave the 3-option memo aside and look at the whole problem carefully, before the thing escalates out of his control and takes on a momentum of its own. Is there enough emphasis on the "Other War", all those social and economic development projects on the local and regional level, including local forces?
These are the thinks he needs to consider carefully before picking the Middle Option, keeping in mind that the Republicans want only to destroy his presidency and block his reforms like they did with LBJ. I have called them on this before, and I struck a nerve. I KNOW what they're going to do because I've seen them do it all before
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--mblipsThank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.