Instahoglets - The Afghan Election Edition

By Steve Hynd

If you're looking for news and commentary on the Afghan elections which were held today...

-- Start with Bob Mackay's excellent liveblogging of election-related stories and links from all over.

-- The Guardian is liveblogging too.

-- Karzai rival Abdullah Abdullah, who everyone expects to come second, is already alleging vote rigging. (H/t Spencer)

-- McLatchy reports that the indelible ink uses to mark voters' fingers isn't all that indelible, enabling those who wish to to vote again. (But the problem with the ink seems to be confined to those areas that support Karzai the most...) Their article also notes the worrying fact that voting is far, far lighter in the Taliban-controlled West and South, leading to worries about Pashtun disenfranchisement and a possible post-election increase in anti-government sentiment and violence because of it. This is really the factor to watch in the election's aftermath.

-- Matt Yglesias notes that women are still getting short shrift despite all the democracy America has brought at gunpoint. (Elsewhere, there are reports of men voting for all the female members of their families. One boasted about voting for 35 women "en masse" with the local electoral officials' blessings.)

-- Apathy caused by disillisionment about the intensely corrupt Afghan ruling elite and fear of Taliban reprisals seem to have kept the vote light all over.

-- And no matter the outcome, it won't change US policy one bit according to the White House. Since when did how "the natives" vote ever have an effect on the coloniser's actions? (Sorry about the AP link, but this one is breaking and no-one else had it yet). Dave calls this stay-the-course posturing "goal set dissonance" below. I call it inflicting domestic political games on foreigners and then describing the result as foreign policy.