The paradox of Afghan elections
Published: 20 August, 2009, 17:40
Electoral billboard with the picture of incumbent president Hamid Karzai (C) and running mates Mohamad Qasim Fahim (L) and Karim Khalili (R) in Kabul, Afghanistan (AFP Photo / Pedro Ugarte)
(11.8Mb) embed videoTAGS: Election, Middle East, Politics, Terrorism
"Everybody knows Hamid Karzai is inefficient, weak and unpopular leader, still everybody would tell you he’s going to win," says Georgy Mirsky, a professor from the Institute of World Economy & International Relations.
“Still, Taliban is unable to disrupt polls in the main central provinces as they already tried before to no effect so the election is going to be all right.”
Afghans must rally around national leaderThe Chairman of the Russian State Duma's Constitutional Law Committee Vladimir Pligin assures that “Russia is ready to co-operate with any political figure in Afghanistan properly elected by the Afghan people.” |
Credibility challenge for Afghan victorWhoever wins matters less than how that government will be capable of governing and how it will be viewed by the Afghan people, argues Tony Blankley, a contributor to the Washington Times. |
I really like Russia's upgraded reasoning on Afghanistan. Considering way back when the Soviets were in Afghanistan the Americans helped the Taliban with all their military needs to defeat the Soviets. Something the Taleban did. However the Soviets remained strong. One would have expected the Russians to help the Taleban Al Qaeida militarily. However the Russians acted smarter. They are 'HELPING' the Americans to get their country bankrupted faster.











Elections in war torn Afghanistan? Give me a break. The charade of "democracy" by casting a few ballots is becoming increasingly more ludicrous. I still don't understand what the US is trying to prove. Or, for that matter, what a victory for the Afghan people, aka American strategists, means. This is a war with no end in sight unless the Americans pack up and leave the whole region.