Afghan candidate says 'dramatic' surge needed, backs McChrystal

I favour the women of Afghanistan who recently sent a petition back with a Code Pink member to give to Obama. They do NOT want more troops. McCrystal can't see his weapons and storm troopers from their point of view. Abdullah Abdullah's time would be better spent talking to the people of Afghanistan, rather than the likes of Chris Wallace on Faux News.

The concern is Abdullah Abdullah may say one thing prior to the election run off and may reverse his position later, should he wins. 

From The Christian Science Monitor gives a fair assessment of him, and one I would tend to agree with, and changing these basic concepts would not be to his benefit.

Abdullah wants power in Afghan politics to be disbursed more evenly among the president, legislature, and local authorities. The platform is self-serving, since Abdullah is a member of the opposition. He is backed by the National Front, a group of former warlords now pushed to the margins of power.

Yet the commander of US forces in Afghanistan agrees with at least one aspect of Abdullah's assessment: Afghanistan's centralized government goes against the country's political traditions and is in part responsible for the lack of law and order in rural areas.

"The top-down approach to developing government capacity has failed to provide services that reach local communities," Gen. Stanley McChrystal wrote in his battlefield assessment. "The Afghan government has not integrated or supported traditional community governance structures – historically an important component of Afghan civil society – leaving communities vulnerable to being undermined by insurgent groups and power-brokers."

Thank you for everyone's comments.  I agree with Pythiian that Abdullah Abdullah may reverse his position if he were elected.  That doesn't make him all that different from most politicians.  

The Christian Science Monitor's description of Abdullah Abdullah may be spot on and in his intent to create a top-down apporach may be sincere and noble.  The question is, is that possible in a country like Afghanistan in one or two election cycles.  I would venture to guess NO.

What we know to this point is that Karzai's reach doesn't go much beyond Kabul.  We know that there has been wide-spread corruption and that according to the International Election Commission, that most of the ballots seen as fraud were in favour of Karzai.

In the end it will be up to the Afghan people to select their man in the run-off election.  The Taliban have already issued threats again.  Will the run-off be more successful than the first round?  Will Afghan's be interested in another round if they see no hope?

is that possible in a country like Afghanistan in one or two election cycles.  I would venture to guess NO.

I agree, and have stated before it will take many years, but at least it would be a start towards a representative government whose reach is at least attempting to expand beyond Kabul.

I cannot imagine the Afghans wanting another run off if the November fails.  This election needs to be for the most legitimate.  Supposedly the sites where fraud was rampant are being eliminated, so at least thats a step in the right direction. 

I agree with your assessment and hope for the Afghan people.  Security for the population will be an issue for a long time to come.  I think Abdullah Abdullah recognizes that if he is sincere. 

It appears to me that most NATO countries recognize the need for security as well, will they step up to the plate though? 

As far as Canadian troops go, they still believe in this mission, although the population is more and more concerned about the eventual end result and if this has all been in vane?

I have said it before and, at the risk of repeating myself, willl state it again.  The Afhan people need a government that works, security to go about their daily life and an economy that provides them a livelihood.  With those conditions met they will lose their reason to fight.

The Wild Card still remains Pakistan. 

The Wild Card still remains Pakistan. 

The discussion now is centering around Pakistan support versus Afghanistan, and which country's stability effects the safety of Americans more. Mathematics is not my strong point, but I can tell the difference in these numbers.  Pakistan has 60 nuclear devices.  Afghanistan has none.  Military support and American dollars need to go where it serves the American people and supports stability in the region--not to mention the world! 

That would be my take on it as well.  Hopefully the Pakistani Government is strong enough to contain Al Quaeda and the Taliban.  Total U.S. involvement in Pakistan would open up a different can of worms. 

Hopefully those "worms" don't have nuclear weapons!

Agreed:)

From my vantage point - admittedly a long, long way from Bagdad - it sounds as if Abdullah is looking for American votes, no?

That out of the way, everything i have read about Karzai says he is corrupt.  Don't know if that is just western ideals speaking, and also don't know if that isn't the correct way of doing things by Afghani standards.

With that out of the way as well, i can't seem to see any real progress towards the Afghans actually ruling themselves - at least with a central government.

In a brief summary of my rambling thoughts, it appears Kabul needs a change, Karzai is likely corrupt, and Abdullah is the only option.

Abdullah was foreign minister before.  Hard to say if he would do business any different, perhaps?

Abdullah Abdullah  has to pussy foot with the Americans, he is a politician with a problem if he does get the vote to elect him. That problem is to have his country secured and protected from any attempt of a Taliban take over.

The answer is eradicate the Taliban and he knows that needs many more troops. Both prospective leaders will agree about eradicating the Taliban. 

As for corruption that's one thing that will remain after US leaves Afghanistan, no stopping it.  

cowpoke

I think we talked about this on one of Milan's posts about the generational component of the Taliban.    Families have many children and usually three or four sons, and if one son dies fighting with the Taliban, it is the responsibility of the family to send their next son.  With this kind of continuous sacrifice of life and familial dedication, there is an endless supply of human life for their cause.  

With enough force the Talibam could be 99% eliminated. It would cost many lives and much money but could be done. The question is if the results would be worth the cost.

When you speak of eliminating the Taliban, you are speaking of women and children as well, indeed, whole families.  Are you willing to support this kind of action?  I would not.

Not what I meant.  I referred to the fighting strength, those who go out to kill and destroy.

And I was saying what could be done, not what should be done. In all wars civilians are killed. Obama mjust decide which way this war goes.