http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvWEqwq3CrRvaQCmt21MfoYhjZJQD9BE9OM81

<quotes>

KABUL - U.N.-backed fraud investigators on Monday threw out nearly a third 
of President Hamid Karzai's ballots from Afghanistan's disputed August 
election, setting the stage for a runoff.

It was unclear, however, whether the Afghan-led Independent Election 
Commission would accept the findings of the fraud panel and announce a 
runoff.

</quotes>

Hard to tally the latest figures with the previous estimates but they were 
provisional.

If the Afghan IEC doesn't announce a run-off it seems certain there will be 
a fair section of the Afghan peoples who claim the election was 'stolen', 
the government has neither legitimacy nor mandate. If the US and NATO then 
chose to support such a government there could be troubling times ahead, 
with an increase in insurgency against the Afghan government and those who 
support it.

British forces went into Afghanistan to deny AQ the ability to use the 
country as a base. Somehow it appears we got roped into helping Karzai rid 
himself of dissenters. Despite little legitimate authority to undertake 
'nation building', 'spreading democracy', or working as Karzai's proxy 
military force it seems we could be stuck there for a long time to come. It 
seems likely that British casualties will rise, the backlash grow.

For those who say we are and should be 'nation building', 'democratising 
Afghanistan', it appears that, with a seemingly corrupt incumbent, we've 
little to show for eight years of military operations and huge costs.

The Happy Hippy wrote:

> 
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvWEqwq3CrRvaQCmt21MfoYhjZJQD9BE9OM81
> 
> <quotes>
> 
> KABUL - U.N.-backed fraud investigators on Monday threw out nearly a third
> of President Hamid Karzai's ballots from Afghanistan's disputed August
> election, setting the stage for a runoff.
> 
> It was unclear, however, whether the Afghan-led Independent Election
> Commission would accept the findings of the fraud panel and announce a
> runoff.
> 
> </quotes>
> 
> Hard to tally the latest figures with the previous estimates but they were
> provisional.
> 
> If the Afghan IEC doesn't announce a run-off it seems certain there will
> be a fair section of the Afghan peoples who claim the election was
> 'stolen', the government has neither legitimacy nor mandate. If the US and
> NATO then chose to support such a government there could be troubling
> times ahead, with an increase in insurgency against the Afghan government
> and those who support it.
> 
> British forces went into Afghanistan to deny AQ the ability to use the
> country as a base. Somehow it appears we got roped into helping Karzai rid
> himself of dissenters. Despite little legitimate authority to undertake
> 'nation building', 'spreading democracy', or working as Karzai's proxy
> military force it seems we could be stuck there for a long time to come.
> It seems likely that British casualties will rise, the backlash grow.
> 
> For those who say we are and should be 'nation building', 'democratising
> Afghanistan', it appears that, with a seemingly corrupt incumbent, we've
> little to show for eight years of military operations and huge costs.

It seems that, as far as the Westminster government are concerned, and also 
the Tories, all the old justifications have been jettisoned. Education for 
girls is no longer a cause worthy of the bones of a British Tommy. Only the 
security reason remains, and this is based on the shaky notion that AQ are 
somehow unable to base themselves anywhere else in the rest of the world, 
but need Afghanistan/Pakistan to survive.

In view of Obama's reluctance, backed by Kerry and others, to commit further 
US forces until some semblance of political legitimacy can be established in 
Afghanistan, most likely as a result of a run-off between Karzai and 
Abdullah, it seems that even the latest batch of 500 UK troops may be 
delayed as well. Unfortunately, with winter approaching, and the logistics 
of holding a run-off free from the corruption of last time's election 
problematic, it seems that further delay is inevitable, with the sense of 
quagmire certain to deepen still further the problems both Washington and 
Westminster face with domestic public opinion.

The pressure for withdrawal seems likely to continue to grow, and the case 
for 'one more heave' to get shakier.

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

On 2009-10-20 11:30:36 +0200, Robin T Cox  said:

> The Happy Hippy wrote:
> 
>> 
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvWEqwq3CrRvaQCmt21MfoYhjZJQD9BE9OM81

<quotes>

KABUL 
> 
>> - U.N.-backed fraud investigators on Monday threw out nearly a third
>> of President Hamid Karzai's ballots from Afghanistan's disputed August
>> election, setting the stage for a runoff.
>> 
>> It was unclear, however, whether the Afghan-led Independent Election
>> Commission would accept the findings of the fraud panel and announce a
>> runoff.
>> 
>> </quotes>
>> 
>> Hard to tally the latest figures with the previous estimates but they were
>> provisional.
>> 
>> If the Afghan IEC doesn't announce a run-off it seems certain there will
>> be a fair section of the Afghan peoples who claim the election was
>> 'stolen', the government has neither legitimacy nor mandate. If the US and
>> NATO then chose to support such a government there could be troubling
>> times ahead, with an increase in insurgency against the Afghan government
>> and those who support it.
>> 
>> British forces went into Afghanistan to deny AQ the ability to use the
>> country as a base. Somehow it appears we got roped into helping Karzai rid
>> himself of dissenters. Despite little legitimate authority to undertake
>> 'nation building', 'spreading democracy', or working as Karzai's proxy
>> military force it seems we could be stuck there for a long time to come.
>> It seems likely that British casualties will rise, the backlash grow.
>> 
>> For those who say we are and should be 'nation building', 'democratising
>> Afghanistan', it appears that, with a seemingly corrupt incumbent, we've
>> little to show for eight years of military operations and huge costs.
> 
> It seems that, as far as the Westminster government are concerned, and also
> the Tories, all the old justifications have been jettisoned. Education for
> girls is no longer a cause worthy of the bones of a British Tommy. Only the
> security reason remains, and this is based on the shaky notion that AQ are
> somehow unable to base themselves anywhere else in the rest of the world,
> but need Afghanistan/Pakistan to survive.
> 
> In view of Obama's reluctance, backed by Kerry and others, to commit further
> US forces until some semblance of political legitimacy can be established in
> Afghanistan, most likely as a result of a run-off between Karzai and
> Abdullah, it seems that even the latest batch of 500 UK troops may be
> delayed as well. Unfortunately, with winter approaching, and the logistics
> of holding a run-off free from the corruption of last time's election
> problematic, it seems that further delay is inevitable, with the sense of
> quagmire certain to deepen still further the problems both Washington and
> Westminster face with domestic public opinion.
> 
> The pressure for withdrawal seems likely to continue to grow, and the case
> for 'one more heave' to get shakier.


See 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/20/afghanistan-election-karzai-liberal-arrogance

which 

is a pretty good response to the desire for the West to insist that the 
rest of the world (in this case Afghanistan) have elctions like what 
they are at home.