Right now an election is the last thing Afghanistan needs

[struggle4progress]

These bullet-ridden ballots may obstruct, rather than promote, peace

Jonathan Steele
Saturday October 9, 2004
The Guardian

<snip> It is not just anti-government forces who are behind the violence. Local and regional warlords may not be rocketing polling stations or ambushing registrars, but they are making threats to opposition candidates and their supporters. Women voters are particular targets.

Several of the 18 presidential candidates are thought to have entered the race merely to strengthen their bargaining power in the closed-door meetings which have already got underway among Afghanistan's strongmen to discuss ministerial portfolios and the post-polling pace of reform. What was meant as an expression of democracy becomes a device to resist, rather than promote, change.

In Iraq, the black and white image of a government that wants elections, and insurgents who are ready to use violence to stop it, is even less accurate. The greatest risk of pre-election violence in today's Iraq comes from the United States, not from the various groups of insurgents.

In the name of recapturing Iraqi cities so that polling can take place, US forces have already started - and are planning to widen - a campaign of air strikes which will probably cause more civilian casualties than last year's invasion. <snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1323423,00.html

[Roachman]

1. It has already been determined it won't be a fair election...

Like ours, elections are decided before the vote, in the campaign. Did anyone have the opportunity to campaign as much as the US candidate?

There are no free elections under occupation.

[bemildred]

2. Hand it to the warlords

Pepe Escobar agrees ...

In May 2003, Taliban guerrillas were ripping in south and southeast Afghanistan, al-Qaeda was alive and kicking along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and President Hamid Karzai could barely enforce his writ outside of Kabul.

US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld flew to Kabul and declared "victory". It was a bluff. Just like it was in Iraq.

In October 2004, Taliban guerrillas are still ripping in the south and southeast, al-Qaeda, albeit with reduced numbers, is present along the border, and Karzai is still confined to Kabul - he even had to abort an election rally in Gardez for fear of attack, despite massive US security backup. Yet Karzai is already the virtual winner of Saturday's presidential elections.

US President George W Bush told the United Nations General Assembly last month that "the Afghan people are on the path to democracy and freedom". It was a bluff. Just like it was in Iraq.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/FJ09Ag03.html

[Briar]

3. More

from this excellent article:

"In fact, a greater toll is mounting up, unfilmed, in Sadr City, Falluja, Samarra and other cities where the US uses airstrikes. According to the health ministry, two Iraqis are being killed by the government side for each one killed by insurgents.

"As for giving Iraqis a choice in the upcoming elections which will pick a constituent assembly and government, the danger that they will be disappointed is coming from backroom deals similar to the Afghan ones. A recent poll by the Iraqi Centre for Research and Strategic Studies shows that 61% believe suitable candidates will be prevented from campaigning.

"One reason for scepticism is that Prime minister Ayad Allawi, supported by Washington, is trying to put together a "consensus list" of himself and the formerly exiled parties in the current government, including Kurds, Shias and Sunnis. Voters would be presented with a take-it-or-leave-it offer."

And here's the mystery: the truth is out there, but the lies have it! Given a choice between either believing the propaganda that the US is staying the "hard" course and bringing freedom and democracy to benighted muslim countries or the fact that it is slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians and fixing phoney elections - guess which the voters pick!