That’s Debatable

A U.N. audit of the Aug. 20 Afghanistan general election has confirmed widespread reports that massive vote-rigging marred President Hamid Karzai’s victory. The confirmation of this electoral fraud, which throws into question the legitimacy of the Karzai government, now sets the stage for a runoff in that nation’s disputed election. This comes as President Obama is busy making up his mind on whether to deploy another 40,000 American troops to Afghanistan — as recommended by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the supreme commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Top Obama administration officials now are talking about postponing that decision until the Afghan election is resolved. However, Defense Secretary Robert Gates appears to have contradicted that by telling reporters that the president may not be able to wait to see how the election pans out before he makes his decision. Should such a critical decision be influenced by the outcome of Afghanistan’s election, and should the deployment of additional troops carry with it the condition that the Afghan government be a legitimate and democratically elected one?

There is no rush at this moment to send troops into Afghanistan and if we rush into sending more troops today we may find it more difficult to take them out tomorrow.

The outcome of the election is irrelevant. What’s relevant is how the election was held and whether it meets our standards of a fair election. An election mired in fraud like the first round would allow the corrupt plunders of that country to thumb their nose at the efforts of the United States.

If our soldiers are going to continue putting their lives on the line, they need to at least expect to have an honest election in the country they are fighting for. Our support should be based on an honest election, not necessarily the result.

U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher

(R-Huntington Beach)

Did not respond.

U.S. Rep. John Campbell