White House chief of staff says Afghan war ‘adrift,’ calls more troops ‘reckless’

By Stephen C. Webster
Sunday, October 18th, 2009 -- 5:40 pm
Share on Facebook Stumble This!

afghan White House chief of staff says Afghan war adrift, calls more troops recklessCalling the eight year war in Afghanistan "adrift," White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel explained on Sunday that the Obama administration considers sending more troops now to be "reckless" without a "credible" election result and a regime ready to begin securing the country.

"The process [of establishing a credible government] will be determined by the Afghan people," Emanuel said during an interview with CNN's John King. "The result for us and for the president is whether there is a credible government and a legitimate process that the Afghan people can think, 'This has worked its process through.'"

"The issue of developing an effective Afghan central government has dogged the U.S. mission virtually from the war's start after the attacks against the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001. It gained new urgency after an Aug. 20 presidential election marred by charges of ballot-stuffing and voter coercion," the Associated Press noted. "An election fraud investigation could lead to a runoff election between President Hamid Karzai and his top challenger, former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah."

Amid thousands of credible reports on Afghan election fraud, President Hamid Karzai's electoral commission is trying to block the United Nations' Election Complaints Commission from tossing enough ballots for Karzai to cause a runoff vote.

The UN commission's investigation findings "are expected to reduce Karzai's preliminary result of 55% to less than half of the votes," The Guardian reported.

Story continues below...

A former U.N. official assigned to the investigation said last week that his ex-boss should resign or be fired for helping cover up evidence of fraud which mostly benefited Karzai.

"[The] United Nations could have done something to prevent the fraud before it took place," Peter Galbraith said during an interview with CBS anchor Katie Courric. "I tried to do that. But my boss, Kai Eide, stopped me."

"[Karzai] is continually trying to deflect the blame for the fraud that was committed on his behalf by suggesting that this is just bad news story, that it's a foreign propaganda," Galbraith continued. "When I tried to intervene to preserve the integrity of the electoral process, he complained that I was engaged in foreign interference.

"This, incidentally, in an election that the international community -- and above all, the Americans, had paid $300 million to conduct and in a country where 100,000 troops are fighting on behalf of the Afghan government. So, that this has been a continuing theme on his part. And it should not be taken at all seriously. In fact one should speak firmly to him and say, 'This is unacceptable.'"

Emanuel told King on Sunday there are "two roads" forward for the Afghan leadership.

"One is another runoff election between the two top candidates," he said. "Or, a negotiation between those candidates. But, the end result must be a legitimate and credible government to the Afghan people. That's what's important. It's the Afghans making a decision about what type of government they're going to have and what road they take to that point."

While the news of President Obama's hesitation to commit more troops to the Afghan war may hearten some peace activists, Emanuel said the White House will continue to review the situation, leaving open the door to a greater commitment in the future.

"When you go through all the analysis, it's clear that basically we had a war for eight years that was going on, that's adrift," he said. "We're beginning from scratch. From the starting point, after eight years. There's not a security force, an army, the type of services that are important for the Afghans to become a true partner.

"So, that is the question, and what I think, it would be irresponsible. And it's clear that -- I saw the clip earlier -- Senator Kerry, who is now in Kabul, in Afghanistan, noted that it would be reckless to make a decision regarding U.S. troop level if in fact you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether in fact there is an Afghan partner ready to fill that space, that the U.S. troops would create, and become a true partner in governing the Afghan country."

Senator John Kerry (D-MA), speaking to King earlier in the program, said it would be "entirely irresponsible" for President Obama to send more troops to Afghanistan "when we don't even have an election finished and know who the president is and what kind of government we're working with."

This video was broadcast by CNN's State of the Union on Oct. 18, 2009.

This video was broadcast by CNN's State of the Union on Oct. 18, 2009.

Share this article:
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Story comments are below...

  • imwc
    well, it bankrupted the soviets...now it`s our turn...
  • OldAtlantic
    But the Soviets didn't have Bernanke dollars or Goldman Men.
  • imwc
    at least somebody is making sense,,,and guess who??...the other 43rd president...an Al Gore wanna be...diebold had other ideas...
  • OldAtlantic
    Muslim in charge. Born in Mombasa. Won't show his doctor signed birth certificate. Won't show his dual citizenship college applications.
  • oh, geeze old fella, you're a real,"show me your papers" kinda guy, aren't you? did it ever occur to you that if obama was born in mombasa, his birth at kapiolani hospital wouldn't be on record as having been announced in two honolulu newspapers?
  • love that headline running under the swiftboated kerry, "vfw head says enemy may be emboldened". who gives a flying fart what that old fart has to say? ask him who the enemy in afghanistan is and marvel at the misinformed opinion. this question in the process of developing a tenable victory and exit strategy is completely ignored by the media. like iraq - what is the mission people?
  • Sad to say, two more pertinent questions are, "How important is promotion in the military" and "What are the chances of promotion in peacetime, compared to chances of promotion in wartime?".

    Promotion in wartime is like stepping onto an escalator, It's basically a given that everybody involved gets promoted. That means money, and power.

    One more question that should be asked is, "When was the last time a general ever asked for fewer troops?"
  • airjackie
    Obama might want to call on an old from of the Taliban to help end this conflict. A Texas Governor invited the Taliban to the United States as his guest and gave them a tour. He called the Taliban his friends but it looks like the friendship has problems now. Yes Bush was Governor of Texas and had a close friendship with the Taliban. Like the American people, the Taliban was tricked and told lies by George W. Bush. Now trust is the issue and Obama/Biden knows no one will end the conflict by War. Karzai is a Bush appointee who has stolen every cent the US has given Afghanistan. Cheney's pipeline in Afghanistan might be closed if their is a new Afghan President.
  • "Like the American people, the Taliban was tricked and told lies by George W. Bush"

    Like the whole world, moreover. The Europeans were reluctantly dragged into the mess as well. The Talibs were promised "a carpet of gold, or a carpet of bombs", only the gold was fool's gold, and they didn't go for it.

    My guess is they'll still be around when the neocons are long gone. Pashtun-wali is an indomitable creed.
  • starvapor
    History 101:
    Afghanistan, the Graveyard of Empires...

    How convenient for the White House... that it has taken the exposure of a corrupt election that they can now claim as an excuse to hopefully get the fuck out of Afghanistan.

    It's too bad they had to use this excuse instead of just having read their history books to understand that nobody has ever been victorious in that country including Alexander the Great, Genghis Kahn, the British and the Russians among others.
blog comments powered by Disqus