Friday, September 11, 2009

We Still Need to Kill Bin Laden


9/11's Unfinished Business
USA Today
September 11, 2009

In the eight years since 19 al-Qaeda terrorists struck at America's heart, the nation has taken significant strides both here and abroad to make its citizens safer.

Security around everything from ports to pipelines to jetliners has been hardened. Intelligence agencies are vigilant in a way that was tragically lacking before Sept. 11, 2001.

The government has disrupted the terrorists' financial networks and imprisoned Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the reputed tactical mastermind behind the attacks. The military has eliminated al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, and Predator drones have taken out dozens of terrorists along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

Yet amid all the success in weakening the al-Qaeda network, vulnerabilities remain, and one gaping piece of unfinished business stands out. Osama bin Laden and his partner, Ayman al-Zawahri, remain at large.

After 9/11, getting bin Laden seemed the only way to redress at least some of America's anger and hurt. But as the pain of that awful day has receded, so too has the urgency of bringing him to justice. (In a Fox News Poll in July, only 50% said the U.S. should attempt to assassinate bin Laden, down from 66% soon after 9/11.)

The excuses and rationalizations are plentiful: He's only one man, and one man is hard to find. He's weakened and in seclusion. If eliminated, he'd just be replaced. Al-Qaeda has splintered into a fractured network of franchises. Even in the Muslim world, its popularity is sinking: In Pakistan, a recent Pew Global Attitudes poll found that support of the terrorist group had plummeted to 9%.

Yet no matter what the state of al-Qaeda, the importance of getting the organization's leaders should not be downplayed. Bin Laden is the person most responsible for the collapsing New York skyline, the battered Pentagon and a smoldering hole in the Pennsylvania countryside. For would-be terrorists, he is inspirational proof that you can get away with mass murder.
The trail has gone cold since the U.S. botched an effort to get bin Laden in late 2001 in Afghanistan's Tora Bora region. The Times of London reported this week that a small band of CIA operatives and special operations officers remains on the hunt in Pakistan, where bin Laden is thought to be hiding.

Unrelenting pursuit is essential. For Islamic extremists, bin Laden's death or capture would deprive them of their charismatic leader. For the nearly 3,000 people who died on 9/11, it would bring justice. And for all other Americans, it would reinforce the message that anyone who attacks the USA will be hunted to the ends of the earth.

Saturday, September 5, 2009

Why We're Not Winning in Afghanistan


Afghanistan: The 'Good War' Gets Complicated
By David Wood
Afghanistan Journal (PoliticsDaily.com)
September 4, 2009


COMBAT OUTPOST ZORMAT, Afghanistan -- When a warning crackled over the radio of a suspected ambush ahead, Lt. Col. Rob Campbell swore softly and ordered his three armored trucks to a halt. What happened next illustrates why the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan is failing, why commanders here are asking for more manpower- and why they are pleading for more time.

Leaping out with his M-4 carbine, Campbell, a tall cavalry officer with sandy hair and freckles, strode through the empty, sun-baked fields flanking the road while his men fanned out, checking the ground for IEDs, sweeping the fields for snipers. The Afghan police assigned to patrol this stretch of road? Nowhere in sight.

"I can't be doing this all day," Campbell grumbled as he paused to examine a distant building through his rifle scope. Campbell is a senior officer. He commands a U.S. Army cavalry squadron of roughly 1,000 soldiers. Handling a suspected ambush is a job for a junior soldier with two or three years experience.

Carefully, they approached a tumbledown building beneath a dusty grove of wilted trees. Three disheveled young Afghans emerged, blinking in the sunlight: Afghan National Police. There was little sign of the U.S. training and equipment they'd received.

The ambush report was a false alarm, but for Campbell, it was a teachable moment.

"Who's in charge here? Where are your boots and helmets and uniforms?"Campbell demanded. "You have to look professional, then people will respect you and the Taliban will not attack!"

The young police managed to look both sheepish and skeptical. Through a translator, they complained that an overnight rain had left a foot of water in their sleeping quarters. When the Taliban mortars them at night, they have no mortar to shoot back.

"You have to go out and patrol," Campbell lectured them as they stood sullenly. "The Taliban will run away. That's how you stop them from attacking. You don't need a mortar." He climbed back in his multi-ton, air-conditioned armored truck. The police did not wave goodbye.

The plain fact in Afghanistan today is there are too few U.S. troops, and too few reliable Afghan security forces, to protect the population from the Taliban and other insurgents. But, in this complex war, simply pouring more American combat power into Afghanistan isn't enough, commanders here say.

"We need the support of the population; the insurgents only need to control the population -and they do that by making them scared to act." Col. Michael Howard told me. Hunting down and killing enemy insurgents is necessary, he and others argue, but it's not enough. Winning means enabling Afghans to resist the Taliban on their own- militarily, politically, socially and economically.

Howard is an intense, sinewy war-fighter who commands the 4th Brigade Combat Team of the 25th Infantry Division, which is spread across three provinces (Paktika, Paktiya and Khowst) of eastern Afghanistan. This is his fourth deployment in Afghanistan, and he's seen enough to know that firepower alone is insufficient to win. This time, he wields an impressive array of combat troops, plus military and civilian experts working on economic and agricultural development, mentoring local government officials, and training and advising Afghan army and police. In his secret daily battle-update briefing, officials from the State Department, Agriculture Department, USAID and other civilian agencies sit at his side. "And they're in charge of things and make decisions and produce results" Howard stressed.

But for U.S. soldiers and Marines trained to seize and hold a hilltop or other objective, this is a complicated, ambiguous and seemingly endless campaign. Their biggest fear is than an impatient American public or Congress will reach the same conclusion, and not understanding the complexity and long-term nature of this war, will pull the plug on what looks like a losing quagmire.

"We are winning here, but the requirement to win faster is real because at some point, people will lose faith," said Howard, referring both to Afghans and the American public. "The war is really over-simplified to the American public, and that's a function of how it's reported," Howard scolded me.

But another officer, an artillery officer, struggling here with small-town tribal and political dynamics, confessed: "Even my family doesn't understand what we're trying to do here."

Small wonder, for the requirements of this war turn conventional military thinking on its head. The very presence of American troops in body armor, helmets and ballistic sunglasses can be intimidating, Afghans say. And American combat power and tactics, no matter how judiciously applied, often alienate local people. An insurgent killed by U.S. forces is likely to have a local family committed to revenge, no matter how they view the war. Kill an insurgent, create four new ones, as the saying here goes.

"I could do nothing but kill the enemy all day long, while public support goes down to nothing," said Campbell. His men are excruciatingly careful about wielding their power. In seven months, they haven't kicked down a door- formerly a common practice by troops conducting house searches.

But Campbell also told me of an operation one night when overhead surveillance showed what looked like a team of insurgents planting IEDs beside a road. He and his staff watched until they were certain, and then called in a strike -on local farmers engaged in midnight planting.

"It was horrible, something I'll have to live with," Campbell said with anguish on his angular face. He took a goat and compensation payment to the family of the dead farmer, and apologized. "They forgave us, so we didn't create any new insurgents," he assured me.

Still, deadly errors like that have set back the war effort during the seven years that American forces have been operating here in east-central Afghanistan, a region of broad plains and towering mountains. In March 2002, two battalions of infantry, from the 10th Mountain and 101st Airborne Divisions, mounted an assault into the mountains above what is now Combat Outpost Zormat. The plan was to surround and kill fleeing remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Instead, the insurgents escaped into the jagged peaks and narrow defiles of the Shah-i-Khot Valley.

Having covered that operation first-hand, I was curious to see how seven years of U.S. military operations here, and costly training and equipping of the Afghan army and police -- $5.6 billion in Afghanistan this year alone -- had improved security.

Sadly, things have gotten worse.

In Gardez, the nearest city, a young Afghan told me the insurgents still hold the Shah-i-Khot, and U.S. commanders said they avoid that area, content for the moment to leave insurgents to themselves up in that relatively unpopulated area."We're focused on the population centers, which is not ideal," said Capt. Brian Johnson, the 27-year-old who commands the modest Zormat combat outpost. Insurgents travel through the area in groups of 10 or 20, he said, but a neighboring combat outpost that could intercept them is not manned "because of a lack of [U.S.] troops."
In the more populated valleys below, Johnson's men run joint patrols and targeted attacks with the Afghan army unit based next door. "There's more good news than bad news here,'' he insisted. A year ago, a trip up the road to another combat outpost required the brigade commander's permission and attack helicopters hovering overhead. "This morning, we went back and forth twice with no permission or escort needed," he said.

Still, U.S. and Afghan forces have been unable to effectively protect the civilian population across the region. Insurgents have set a record number of IEDs, about 45 percent more than a year ago. About half of those are detected or avoided before they detonate -- but Afghan civilian casualties have still risen sharply. Here in Paktiya Province, the number of civilians killed, mostly by insurgent IEDs, is up 29 percent from last year, while across the broader region of eastern Afghanistan the number of civilians killed and wounded rose about 45 percent.

Col. Howard, the brigade commander, told me the rising violence is a deep concern that has led him to raise the issue of getting additional U.S. troops, although he wouldn't say how many he needs.

"The violence has to come down to a level where it doesn't affect the daily lives of the people, to a point where people aren't afraid to take an active part in their government -- and right now we're not at that level,'' he said. In particular, he is struggling with IEDs and official corruption, the two scourges that Afghans complain about the most. Corruption, Howard said, "is a cancer without a cure in Afghanistan. If we don't come up with a cure, it will cause us to fail."

The IED problem is manageable, with more resources, he suggested. Jalaluddin Haqqani and his sons, who run a violently dangerous Taliban network in this region, have poured tens of thousands of dollars into attacking the civilian population. "Those IEDs cost a ton of money, those suicide vests, the suicide truck bombs, cost thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars' worth of explosives."

"If your enemy ups his resourcing by 10 percent and you don't -- and you're not already winning by 10 percent in the first place, you're gonna have a setback," Howard said, explaining his current situation. The result is an increasingly intimidated population unwilling to vote, for example, or even risk routine travel.

Doctors at the Afghan civilian hospital in Khowst used to regularly make the short drive to visit the U.S. military hospital at Forward Operating Base Salerno, Howard's sprawling headquarters. No longer.

"It's very dangerous to be known to be working with the Americans," said Lt. Col. Patricia Ten Haaf, the hospital commander. "Two years ago there was a lot of back-and-forth, but now I wouldn't send my only eye surgeon there, and their doctors won't come here for internships. And I regret that."

A middle-aged Afghan doctor also lamented the deterioration of security. "In 2002 to 2006, the security situation was better. It was easy for an American doctor to come to Khowst hospital. Walking around the city was no problem. Now..." he crinkled his eyes in an apologetic smile. "Not possible." He asked not to be identified by name.

U.S. agricultural experts hired four Afghans from Khowst to be agricultural advisers. Their families received threatening "night letters" from the Taliban, and two of the four advisers quit. With the safety of the Afghan people eroding, Howard acknowledged that "we have to have an increase in resources -- certainly an increase in ground troops."

U.S., Allied and Afghan forces are winning every fight with insurgents. "But are we winning fast enough, are we bringing the violence down fast enough? I don't think we are," he acknowledged.

That concern is widespread among American military officers here. "You can't be here and not want to help the Afghan people, and I do think Afghanistan could again become a breeding ground for international terrorism,'' said Col. Cindra Chastain, deputy commander of the Indiana National Guard's agricultural development team in Khowst Province.

"Is the public willing to have us stay long enough to do what we need to do? I don't think so,'' she told me. "But if not, everything we're doing here will be wasted."

Monday, August 31, 2009

Afghan Election Antics or Comedy Central??


U.S. Walks Fine Line In Afghan Vote

By Anand Gopal and Matthew Rosenberg
Wall Street Journal
August 31, 2009

The U.S. and its allies are walking a thin line by trying to monitor the count in Afghanistan's presidential vote without influencing the outcome, as results from the election trickle into public view.

Rampant allegations of electoral fraud, combative statements from candidates, and po! pular speculation about the U.S.'s role as kingmaker have made the balancing act more difficult.

According to the latest results, released Saturday, President Hamid Karzai's lead has widened, with votes from a third of the polling stations counted. At stake in the vote is not just the credibility of the new Afghan government, but also that of the U.S. and its allies, who have backed the democratic experiment with troops on the ground, say Western diplomats.

"If Afghans don't believe in these elections, then the international community will have failed here," said a European diplomat in Kabul.

Meetings between Western officials and Afghan presidential candidates have fed talk of efforts to shape a runoff between the two lead candidates, President Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah. In this context, an Aug. 21 meeting between Mr. Karzai and U.S. regional envoy Richard Holbrooke has also assumed importance, if only to highlight the prominent American role in the el! ection.

The U.S. Embassy in Kabul has said its only preference i s for a fair election. "We do not support or oppose any particular candidate, and whether there is a runoff is an issue for the Afghan electoral bodies to determine," the embassy said.

Saturday's results show Mr. Karzai has 46.2%, up three percentage points from earlier in the week and well ahead of the 31.4% obtained by Dr. Abdullah, a former foreign minister and the lead challenger -- but still short of the absolute majority needed to avoid a runoff.

The two million votes already counted represent one-third of Afghanistan's polling stations. The electoral commission said it will provide the next update Monday.

Fraud allegations have marred the election. Afghan and international observers say supporters of both candidates stuffed ballot boxes and intimidated voters. Critics of Mr. Karzai say his camp engaged in more widespread fraud, if only because there were fewer monitors in parts of the country where his support is strongest, and the Taliban insurgency! is at its most potent. The Karzai campaign denies engaging in any fraud.

The independent Electoral Complaints Commission had received more than 2,000 allegations of misconduct through Saturday. Nearly 700 were considered serious enough to affect the outcome, the commission said.

Dr. Abdullah has repeatedly said he will dispute the results only through legal means. At the same time, he has said Mr. Karzai can win only through "big fraud," and has presented photos and videos of alleged ballot-stuffing in favor of Mr. Karzai.

Over the weekend, Dr. Abdullah offered a bleak outlook for the country if people don't accept the election results. "If the democratic process does not survive, then Afghanistan doesn't survive," he told hundreds of supporters at a rally north of Kabul Friday.

Such talk, along with private suggestions from some in Dr. Abdullah's camp that a Karzai win could be met with violent protests, has prompted U.S. and European officials to ! press the doctor to rein in his people. Dr. Abdullah's comments are "s omething that certainly worries all of us. It's not at all helpful at this moment," said a U.S. diplomat in Kabul.

As the vote count becomes more contentious, the U.S. and its allies are finding it harder to play a hands-off role. Over the weekend, U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown called Dr. Abdullah to discuss the elections, according to Abdullah campaign spokesman Fazel Sangcharaki.

"The British were very concerned about the possibility of violence," said Mr. Sangcharaki. "But they were careful not to suggest anything to us except for asking us to respect the legal process."

The U.K. Embassy in Kabul didn't respond to requests to comment.

A meeting the day after the Aug. 20 vote between Mr. Karzai and Mr. Holbrooke, who was accompanied by U.S. Ambassador Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry and another senior American official, illustrated the delicacy of the U.S. role. U.S. and Afghan officials with knowledge of the meeting described it as tense but not especi! ally heated. The Americans raised concerns about electoral fraud. They avoided pointing fingers at the president, but urged Mr. Karzai's government to address endemic corruption, if he were indeed re-elected, according to people with knowledge of the meeting. Mr. Karzai and Mr. Holbrooke met again Sunday to discuss many of the same issues, these officials said.

But the exchange quickly became part of Afghanistan's political folklore, spun by some into a shouting match in which Mr. Karzai stormed out of the room -- a scenario both U.S. and Afghan officials deny. Supporters of Mr. Karzai painted it as a U.S. attempt to force the rightful winner into a runoff. Opponents sought to portray it as another sign that the president, who came to power with the backing of the Bush administration, has lost Washington's backing and could no longer effectively govern.

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Indians Orbit Moon 3,400x as US struggles to get Shuttles off the ground

India loses radio contact with moon orbiter
NEW DELHI, India (CNN) -- Indian space scientists were scrambling Sunday to regain contact with their unmanned moon mission a day after they abruptly lost contact with the orbiter.

System failures on the Chandrayaan-I apparently led to loss of contact, said S. Satish, a spokesman for the Indian Space Research Organization.

The craft was equipped with what officials said were highly-sophisticated gadgets.
"We are trying to revive the contact, but chances are slim," Satish said.

The space organization had originally announced that Chandrayaan-I would stay in orbit for two years. "That probably was a mistake because such craft do not have this much life," Satish said.

However, Chandrayaan-I had met most of its scientific objectives by providing "large volume of data," the space organization said. In 312 days, it completed more than 3,400 orbits around the moon, according to the space organization.

Chandrayaan-I aimed to take high-resolution, three-dimensional images of the lunar surface, especially the permanently-shadowed polar regions.

The craft carried payloads from the United States, the European Union and Bulgaria. One of its objectives was to search for evidence of water or ice and attempt to identify the chemical composition of certain lunar rocks.

Earlier this year, the Indian government increased the federal budget for space research to about $1 billion from $700 million.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Finally - Marines Do Right by Chessani


Marine Escapes Charges In 24 Killings In Iraq

Los Angeles Times
August 29, 2009

CAMP PENDLETON--The Marine Corps has decided not to seek to reinstate criminal charges against a former battalion commander for a 2005 incident in which his troops killed 24 civilians in Haditha, Iraq.

Instead, the Marine Corps will convene a Board of Inquiry to hear testimony and recommend whether Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani should be demoted to major for purposes of retirement.

Even if such a recommendation is made and then accepted by the Secretary of the Navy, Chessani's retirement pay would still be based on being a lieutenant colonel.

The Marine Corps had sought to try Chessani for dereliction of duty for not ordering a war-crimes investigation when his Marines killed the 24, including three women and seven children. Chessani, who was not present during the killings, reported to his superiors that the deaths, while tragic, were the result of fighting between Marines and insurgents.

A court-martial judge threw out the charges after ruling that it was improper for a Marine lawyer who investigated the Haditha shootings to sit in on meetings with the general who decided to bring the charges.

--Tony Perry

Saturday, August 22, 2009

CMC: In Iraq, but ready for Afghanistan!


Top Marine Checks Troops In Two Wars
By Lara Jakes, Associated Press

CAMP RAMADI, Iraq -- The top U.S. Marine is checking on troops in one war zone as he gets ready to send more to the next.

Gen. James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, visited Iraq this week on his way to Afghanistan, where the United States is considering adding more troops. Many of the fresh-faced Marines who met Conway are serving their first combat mission - and already are looking forward to the next battle.

They are part of a force that, between the years in Iraq and Afghanistan, could be fighting wars for a generation.

At a hot and dusty base outside Ramadi, the capital of Iraq's Anbar province, Conway made clear he does not yet know whether Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, will add to the 68,000 American troops already scheduled to be there by the end of the year. But Conway told the Marines he wants them to be ready.

"I'll be surprised if we don't get asked for more," Conway said. He predicted "more combat support in there."

McChrystal is preparing a review of his war - and his needs for fighting it. He is expected to deliver that review to the Pentagon by early September. Defense Secretary Robert Gates last week said the review will not address troop levels, but military officials privately believe McChrystal ultimately will ask for as many as 20,000 additional soldiers.

U.S. troops first invaded Afghanistan in 2001 after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and Iraq two years later. Although the United States is committed to pulling its combat forces from Iraq by the end of 2011, military officials and experts believe the battle in Afghanistan easily could last for up to a decade longer.

That has required the Pentagon to rethink how to prepare its forces. The Army is recruiting 22,000 new soldiers and extending time at home for troops returning from battle. The Marines are making physical fitness more rigorous for those headed into combat.

Marines being Marines - a force that prides itself on running from one fight to the next - appear eager to head from Iraq to Afghanistan. An estimated 13,200 Marines remain in Iraq, and the vast majority of them will be gone by Thanksgiving. About 11,400 Marines are currently in Afghanistan.

"We're an expeditionary force; we're very offensive-minded, and it would be a better use of our time to be in Afghanistan," said Capt. John Roma, commander of a Marine company that deployed to Iraq just two weeks ago. It's his second tour of duty in Iraq; he has also fought in Afghanistan.

"But we still have a job to do here, and we're doing it to the best of our ability."

All troops will receive at least as much time at home between deployments as they spent in combat, meaning those currently in Iraq will not go to Afghanistan immediately.

Whether the U.S. should send more troops to Afghanistan is part of a simmering debate in Washington over how much money, and ultimately, time should be spent on the war. A recent policy paper by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, warned against shortchanging the war in Afghanistan.

"Adequate resources win in Iraq, inadequate resources lose in Afghanistan: Late in one case, still waiting in the other," the CSIS paper concluded.

Under a security agreement with the Iraqi government, U.S. troops no longer operate in Iraqi cities without permission or escort by local Iraqi forces. In Anbar, that means Marines have scaled back their missions to the point of being bored, even though violence between Iraqis continues.

A pair of deadly bombs this week in Baghdad killed nearly 100 people and wounded hundreds more. In July 2007, 203 coalition forces were killed by improvised explosive devices, military figures show. By comparison, IED blasts killed nine troops last month.

But security remains fragile, and some local Iraqi officials are evasive about whether they want Americans to help protect them from insurgents and other threats even as the troops prepare to move on.

Saeed Hamadan, mayor-elect of Hit, in Anbar, said Baghdad gets the most attention but his city faces the same threats as the rest of Iraq. "We see explosions every day," Hamadan said in his office last week.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Conway said that in Afghanistan up to 700 troops should be added or, at the least, retasked to focus on IED attacks. He estimates such attacks have caused 80 percent of Marine deaths since May, when the U.S. launched a major offensive against the Taliban in southern Afghanistan.

He would not discuss how many troops ultimately could be added to the fight, except to say that he does not want it to go beyond 18,000 more Marines, or he won't be able to protect the length of Marines' time at home between war zones.

"The most important thing that's happening is right here in Iraq," Conway said during a question-and-answer session with troops at Camp Taqqadum air base, 35 miles west of Baghdad. "The most difficult thing that's happening for our Corps today is in Afghanistan. And I think we're going to be there for a while, and if you all want to go to Afghanistan - that's been my experience from talking to most Marines - then you may well get that chance."

Friday, August 21, 2009

Massive Voter Fraud by Karzai


No Sign Of Voters On Election Day In Afghanistan Despite Official Claims
By Tom Coghlan, in Pul-e-Charki, Kabul
London Times
August 21, 2009

At 8am, an hour after the Afghanistan's presidential polls opened, the polling station at the Haji Janat Gul High School, a dusty collection half-finished buildings designated for use by Kuchi nomads, was entirely empty of voters.

But the apparent lack of voter activity was deceptive, insisted election officials; the ballot boxes were already full almost to the brim. "The people have already come. They came here with lorries at 7 am, now they have gone to the fields with their sheep" said Lawan Geen proudly.

The grey bearded election worker from the Independent Election Commission seemed rather less than happy at the unannounced arrival of two Times journalists at his polling centre just outside Kabul.

The absence of voters witnessed by The Times yesterday in this centre on the edge of the capital was replicated across the country, with fearful Afghans staying away from the polls after repeated threats from the Taleban.

But the polling station in Pul-e-Charki painted a suspiciously different picture. In total 5,530 votes had already been cast for the Presidential Elections, according to the records being kept by the election staff beside each ballot box. In each box there were an oddly uniform 500 to 510 votes. More impressive still, some 3,025 of the ballots were womens votes.

Assuming that the last voter disappeared at least two minutes before the Times arrived at 7.55am, the staff working on the 12 separate ballot boxes at the site must have been processing at least 100 voters per minute since polling began.

There were no sign of any election monitors at the site and nor were there any female staff to oversee the women?s ballot boxes, as the electoral commission required.

For an hour The Times waited at the polling site. The polling staff fidgeted. But no one came to vote.

"This area is controlled by Haji Mullah Lewani Khan. He is the chief of the Tarokhail tribe and an MP" said Lawan Geen, the election official. "He said that there is a threat from the Taleban to cut the fingers off the people. So people came early in the morning" he added, hopping from one foot to the other, looking uncomfortable.

The tribal chief, he confided, was a supporter of President Karzai. “All the people here are Tarokhail, they are all voting for Karzai.” His co-workers were unhelpful. “You are not allowed to see these things, this is a woman?s area” said one male worker as The Times asked to see the lists of voter card numbers for ballots already cast.

Suddenly a lorry chugged into view. “Look there are voters!” shouted Lawan Geen, scampering towards the approaching vehicle. About thirty men were helped off the lorry, several were elderly and one was almost entirely blind. They trooped into the polling station and prepared to vote.

A burly middle-aged man called Lal Mohammad stepped forward and held out two voting cards. At the sight the election officials went into collective convulsion and shooed one back into his pocket.

After he had voted he explained that he had voted for President Karzai. Asked about the second voting card in his pocket he showed the contents of his several other pockets before finally pulling out the card. "It is my wife's," he said. "I will bring her later."

Other voters also said they were voting for Mr Karzai. "If Doctor Abdullah wins it will be a shame on all Pashtun people because he is a Tajik" said Haji Abdullah, a pistol-toting young man who looked about 16 but whose voter registration card put him at 21. He insisted that he was old enough to vote, pointing out that he had voted in 2004. “Maybe Afghanistan will be destroyed if he wins,” he added. “Certainly there will be fighting.”

As the thirty voters each made their way to the ballot box it became evident that the staff were able to process a maximum four voters every three minutes, or at best 80 voters per ballot box per hour, or 960 for the entire polling centre per hour. How was it possible then to process 5,530 in an hour, The Times wondered. Did the election officials suspect any sort of fraud?

Lawan Geen pursed his lips. "Maybe there has been a little bit by some people. Maybe 5 per cent," he ventured.

Outside the polling station five policemen stood guard. They had been at the station since the night before and explained what they had seen. “At about 4am the IEC staff came to the polling station,” said one policeman named Iqbal. “Since then we haven?t seen a lot of people. Maybe four lorries of people and three or four Corolla cars. I have not seen any women here.” The other policemen corroborated the tale.

A mile away The Times found the tribal chief Haji Mullah Lewani Khan MP in his grand, high-walled compound. Thirty metres from his front door was another polling station in the Haji Janat Gul Madrassa. Both were buildings originally built by Mr Lewani in memory of his father.

Outside the madrassa polling centre stood half a dozen armed men, supporters of Mr Lewani. One of them wore a badge with Mr Karzai?s face on it.

Mr Lewani, a diminutive 35-year-old with a regal air, welcomed The Times with a large group of retainers at his shoulder, several of whom wore the blue armbands, meant to mark them out as Independent Election Commission workers. All such workers are supposed to be vetted for their impartiality.

"They are helping the IEC just for today," said Haji Mullah casually. "They are not getting any wages." His two phones rang continuously. "We need more ballot papers," he shouted into one. "Call the election commission and tell them we need more." Asked if he had voted, the MP replied: “Of course, for Karzai.” Oddly none of his fingers displayed any of the indelible ink used to identify those who had voted. “I washed my hands,” he said.

What did he think of suggestions that vote rigging might be taking place locally, wondered The Times. “These claims of corruption are just shit, maybe they are publicity against us by Dr Abdullah supporters,” he said without blinking.

An hour after voting closed last night sources from the Independent Election Commission admitted that an investigation had begun into allegations that up to 70,000 illegal votes had been cast in polling centres around the Haji Janat Gul polling centre, east of Kabul.