Afghan Commentary Post

Free elections are touted by the West as a major component of democracy and a panacea for solving social and political problems in developing countries. Eight Middle Eastern nations have elections scheduled this year and most citizens have great expectations about exercising their right to vote. But not all Afghans share this optimism; most are apprehensive or even fearful about the April presidential election for good reason. First, the timing is problematic. The election precedes the drawdown of coalition forces at the end of this year. President Barack Obama’s “zero option” threat (a complete  withdrawal of troops) in retaliation for President Hamid Karzai’srefusal to sign the Bilateral Security Agreement has created an environment of fear and uncertainty. Since the United States’ liberation of Afghanistan from the yoke of the Taliban in 2001, most Afghans believe their country is on the right track. Despite some obvious shortcomings (particularly governmental corruption a...

By Wahab Raofi The attempted assassination of Afghan presidential front-runner Abdullah Abdullah in Kabul last Friday is a stark reminder of how precariously the nation’s future hangs in the balance. In Afghanistan, it is both the best of times and the worst of times, as novelist Charles Dickens so famously put it, describing another time and place. More than ever before the nation appears to be making meaningful progress towards stable democracy, as President Hamid Karzai prepares to cede the reins of power to his duly elected successor after more than 12 years in office as required by the Afghan constitution. This will be the nation’s first democratic transfer of power. At the same time, the recent violence—along with the very fact that a run-off is necessary at all—points to looming dangers. This is an especially perilous moment as most foreign troops prepare to leave Afghanistan by the end of the year barring a new agreement. Facing off in the final round again...

Afghanistan Afterf Karzai By Max Boot Commentary Magazine  It’s Afhard to blame President Obama for telling Hamid Karzai that the U.S. is planning to withdraw all its forces from Afghanistan unless Karzai’s successor as president finally signs the Bilateral Security Agreement that Karzai himself negotiated with the U.S. Obama did show a commendable willingness to extend the U.S. troop presence, only to be blindsided by Karzai’s maddening refusal to sign the accord–and by the president’s equally infuriating decision to release dozens of dangerous terrorists from prison. The good news is that pretty much all of the major candidates running to succeed Karzai have indicated their support for the accord–as has the Loya Jirga that Karzai called to ratify the pact. Ordinary Afghans and especially those serving in the security forces know they need continued U.S. assistance to hold off the Taliban. And if they needed any reminder of why outside aid is so important, the Taliban’...

By Wahab Raofi TAYLOR JONES / CAGLE CARTOONS HUMAN RIGHTS Free elections are touted by the West as a major component of democracy and a panacea for solving social and political problems in developing countries. Eight Middle Eastern nations have elections scheduled this year and most citizens have great expectations about exercising their right to vote. But not all Afghans share this optimism; most are apprehensive or even fearful about the April presidential election for good reason. First, the timing is problematic. The election precedes the drawdown of coalition forces at the end of this year. President Barack Obama’s “zero option” threat (a complete withdrawal of troops) in retaliation for President Hamid Karzai’srefusal to sign the Bilateral Security Agreement has created an environment of fear and uncertainty. Since the United States’ liberation of Afghanistan from the yoke of the Taliban in 2001, most Afghans believe thei...

Topics:  Afghanistan ,  Barack Obama ,  Hamid Karzai

Wahab Raofi: An election that could really matter    View All of Today's Ads By WAHAB RAOFI  / Contributing Writer Published: April 11, 2014 Updated: 5:11 p.m. GETTY IMAGES “Elections don't matter, institutions do,” wrote Robert Kaplan, chief geopolitical analyst for Strategic Forecasting, Inc. When I read his words, I felt they almost fit the current situation in my native Afghanistan. Elections do matter, at least a little, but it’s true that institutions matter much more. This month’s free election in Afghanistan will attest to that. Despite socio-economic obstacles – and uncertainty over the fate of an American military presence beyond 2014 – Afghans braved the Taliban by casting their votes, sending a clear message that intimidation would not deter them from exercising their rights. This was a milestone political victory in the long history of this multi-ethnic, tribe-fractured na...

ight. 

By WAHAB RAOFI   In the mid-1980s, the Soviet Union was bleeding from wounds sustained as a result of invading Afghanistan and could no longer maintain a large army to repress its people at home and assert its influence internationally. Former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev had no choice but to let East Europe go. This policy was jokingly referred to as the “I did it my way” doctrine, after Frank Sinatra’s classic song. Russia’s decision was more from the head than from the heart. Three decades later, however, Russian President Vladimir Putin, in the style of the feudal policy of expansionism of the Soviet era, is determined to reverse the decision to free the former Soviet states. He demands that they to do it his way. Since becoming president of Russia, Putin has been poking the U.S. in the eye with a mix of thorny Cold War mentality – tactics which have included supporting Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and granting asylum to National Security Agency whistleblowe...