The Afghanistanization of Iraq

CNN reported from the United Nations on Tuesday that

[e]lection officials in Afghanistan have announced the start of nationwide campaigning for the troubled nation's October 9 presidential election.

The Joint Electoral Management Body (JEMB), which includes representatives of the United Nations and Afghanistan, said the campaigning would end on October 7. ...

But [senior UN official Filippo] Grandi also expressed some concerns, citing problems with intimidation, "local pressure" and a lack of information. ...

Security has been an overriding concern.

Close to 1,000 people, including security forces, militants, election workers, aid workers and civilians, have been killed in a campaign of violence over the past 12 months.

The violence continues despite the efforts of an 18,000-strong U.S.-led force hunting the militants.

In its coverage of the announcement, Agence France Presse added that

[Hamid] Karzai has tried and largely failed to extend his control outside the capital and into medieval-era provinces which remain under the sway of regional warlords. ...

The European Union and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) have scaled back their election monitoring teams because of rife insecurity.

"If it is too dangerous for monitors to monitor, isn't it too dangerous for Afghans to vote?" asked Andrew Wilder, head of the Afghan Research and Evaluation Unit, voicing the views of many in the aid community that the polls are taking place prematurely.

And, in fact, CNN noted that

Both the presidential and parliamentary polls were due to be held last June, but were delayed due to security and logistical concerns.

Parliamentary elections were put off until next April.

The same security concerns exist, but the idea of not having the elections before November, of not having them at a time when they can be held up by the WHS^* as a great victory for Shrub and the Shrubberies, just can't be contemplated.

Meanwhile, the September 6 Boston Globe reported that

Iraq remains on course to hold landmark elections in January, but violence could force authorities to exclude hot spots such as the western city of Fallujah from voting, a top US general said yesterday.

Lieutenant General Thomas F. Metz, operations chief of more than 150,000 mostly US troops in Iraq, said anti-American militancy in places such as Fallujah would not derail the national elections. A contingency plan, Metz said, is to bypass Fallujah, and perhaps other violent enclaves, and concentrate on ensuring electoral security in Baghdad and other population centers where the hostility is lower. ...

Still, Metz cautioned that the participation of Iraq's three largest cities - Baghdad, Mosul in the north, and Basra in the south - was essential to any election.

Metz's statements are among the strongest to date by US or Iraqi officials conceding that the security situation is so perilous that some areas may not be pacified in time for elections. While bypassing some cities could allow officials to stick to their timetable, doing so could detract from the election's credibility, foment discontent in Iraq, and leave other countries reluctant to acknowledge any government chosen in the vote.

So in Afghanistan we'll proceed with an election, pretending that people will be able to vote freely. Karzai, the expected winner, will be president of Kabul and the warlords and the Taliban will still control most of the country. Just so long as it looks good. And in Iraq, we won't have voting in a bunch of places because it would be too difficult. And significant parts of the country will be beyond the control of the central government, remaining in the hands of fundamentalist fanatics. Just so long as it can be spun it to make it look good.

The two pillars - the twin towers, if you will - of bringing George Bush-type democracy to the world. And they, too, are crashing and burning.

^*WHS = White House Sociopaths