Well it appears hes out. A coalition agreement was not amendable to Karzai. Frankly that would not have solved anything, it would have been a kicked can down the road imho, as the evidence of Karzai electoral corruption is not a question. In effect it would have been seen as guy whom had no legal right to, was sharing the gov. just as to Karzai sppters. it would seem same if Abdullah had gov. office and power.

This certainly throws Obamas chessboard into confusion. So where do we go from here? With no other candidate, having the election and Karzai acclaimed pres. will only enforce feelings that hes been given some blessing by Obama no matter what we say, because he’ll be in office. Fair or not that’s the way it will be seen.

We could ask them to scrap it all and start from scratch but, will that bring Abdullah back to the table and would Karzai agree?

As far as blame goes, I personally blame Bush for allowing this situation to develop long range and I blame Obama for not getting ahead of this back in June- July ( he knew how bad karzai was back in jan., many articles attest to this- ala http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...874953,00.html ) when reports from Afghan. factional leaders whom came to Kabul and complained directly to American officials ( which they did and they told the Taliban they would not vote for Karzai too) of the election fraud brewing etc.




Karzai rival Abdullah quits Afghan run-off

By Golnar Motevalli and Sayed Salahuddin Golnar Motevalli And Sayed Salahuddin – 14 mins ago

KABUL (Reuters) – Afghan presidential challenger Abdullah Abdullah quit an election run-off on Sunday after accusing the government of not meeting his demand for a fair vote, leaving doubts over the legitimacy of the next government.

A weakened Afghan government under President Hamid Karzai would also be a blow for U.S. President Barack Obama as he decides whether to send up to 40,000 more U.S. troops to fight a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.

Karzai's spokesman also ruled out a coalition with Abdullah, dashing hopes that it might have been a way out of the impasse.

Election officials said the November 7 vote would go ahead with both names on the ballot but with Karzai the only candidate.

"Based on election laws and based on the constitution there should be a second round. The constitution is clear," Daoud Ali Najafi, chief electoral officer of the government-appointed Independent Election Commission (IEC), told Reuters.


Karzai rival Abdullah quits Afghan run-off - Yahoo! News

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Sounds like a really bad move and more trouble on the horizon for the Afghans and Nato.

It's allready tough to sell the war (in Germany it's not even possible to call it that way ) in Europe, now the election being a total mess doesn't help at all. People rightfully ask questions and being over there to protect the (if the election process stays that way) illegimite Major of Kabul is not enough of a reason to be there nor a situation, which will lead to success.

Damn can't one secret service do us all a favour and eliminate Karzai or at least initiate a coup?

__________________
"Homo Homini Lupus"
Thomas Hobbes

I have to agree Stapo. If I were Nato and Karzai is in office, I’d have to say, that’s a no go. We have had wide spread reports as far back 2005.

In Jan. Karzai had to defend himself to Nato and addressed them directly as to their valid accusations, I can only assume they thought Obama would be on it.

IF Karzai ‘wins’, I have to say, I cannot sppt. sending any more troops there and would be supportive of a pull out. Hes no different than some African dictator whom counted on past colonial guilt to wring concessions and the like from their former masters and then used it to ravage their nation.

Can we pull a Diem and have him gone one way or another? I think Emerson said; When you strike at a king, you must kill him. I don't think that would be constructive, but....

And for the record; Bush has no small part in this either.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

For the record; all Western countries politicans have their negative part in this.

It was fine and understandable of some European countries to critizise the Bush administrations approach to Afghanistan/war on terror, but just whinning around and doing not enough on their own is not excussable as well.

Anyway given how many Nato soldiers are dieing over there, pulling a Diem is acceptable and Karzai having a heart attack, car accident or being the victim of a "Taliban" bomb can't be that much more counterproductive than letting him stay alive and continue to spoil the mission.

Under normal conditions I'd be with you and call for a withdrawl if things don't get better on the political front in Afghansitan, but as Nato (at least some politicans) has transformed this, in the grant scheme of things rather little war, into an endourance and credibility test for the most powerful military alliance, so a withdrawl would easily be the end of Nato in its current form.

Militarily Nato can't lose in Afghanistan, but the political situation over there and at home could be its neckbreaker.

The coming weeks and months will be interesting, that's for sure.

__________________
"Homo Homini Lupus"
Thomas Hobbes

wow, well, I hear you. But frankly without the US in with both feet and for the long run, we will just be wasting our soldiers lives and treasure.


Interesting take. You feel Nato has gone past the point of no return? I am not sure I see it that way and frankly empires and nations have died living on our enemies presumptions ala 'credibility', yet, then again ala Somalia your point is well taken.

I think at this point we can withdraw without that feeling becoming prevalent....




And of course the larger question is what is Obama waiting for now? He has along with many here made the case that they wanted to wait for the election….well?

The result will be Karzai, that’s plain….so?

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Exactly! Do it right with as much ressources + power as possible (sorry but e.g. my country just sending 50- 100 police instructors is not what I'd call commitment or in general turning a blind eye on illegal drug production, instead of making Afghanistan the world's leading producer of legal, medical morphin products and so on)

Credibility would be lost, if Nato left without manageing to establish some sort of stability over there (if necessary even due to a deal with the Talibs, but of course not AlQueda). As long as such a state of stability is reached, a withdraw would be not too damaging for Nato.

But a quick withdraw, not including stability, would just damage the organisation/structure of Nato, but of course not the member countries themselves. The Afghanistan conflict is not a war capable to cause real damage to our countries, just on the way we operate as a military alliance.

That's truely the more interesting question and as Obama made Afghanistan his war by turning the focus more on this - long overshadowed by Iraq- conflict theater, he'll now have to live with it and grow some balls to finaly come to a workable desicion/strategy.

__________________
"Homo Homini Lupus"
Thomas Hobbes

Both Karzai and Abdullah would have been figure heads with as much or as little influence as western military control and the loyalty of western trained agents of the Afghan govt allowed.

Further dithering by Obama makes this even more irrelevant.

__________________
January 21, 2013: The End of an ERROR.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
---Benjamin Franklin