Latest Editions

US watches Afghan election

Audio: Play | Download

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download MP3
Much is stake for the US in today’s election in Afghanistan. Charlie Sennott of the website GlobalPost tells anchor Lisa Mullins that the vote is a test of the strength of President Obama’s strategy there.

Click here to read The World’s four-part series “Inside the Taliban.”

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

LISA MULLINS: The democratic struggle in Afghanistan also says a lot about America’s efforts there.

CHARLIE SENNOTT: This election is not only a political contest; it’s really a test of the Obama administration’s policy in Afghanistan and its entire counterinsurgency campaign.

MULLINS: Charlie Sennott is executive editor and co-founder of the international news site, Global Post.

SENNOTT: If their goal was security for the Afghan people, today was not a good day for the US coalition forces or the Afghan people.

MULLINS: Well I think what we’ve been hearing is that the goal was to have an election that was considered viable knowing that there would be some kind of violence. Is the very fact that the election could go on a sign that the United States at least partially got what it wants or do you think that’s spin?

SENNOTT: I think it’s spin. I don’t think it’s good enough to say they just held an election. I mean they did that in 2004.

MULLINS: Is it good enough for the Afghan people though?

SENNOTT: I don’t think it’s good enough for the Afghan people either. I think the Afghan people are growing impatient with a desire to have a country that is secure and that moves forward and the more the US calls the Taliban the enemy and views it as a monolithic force the more they’re going to miss the point that the Taliban has a constituency. And in Afghanistan the shifting of allegiances is part of the history of that country. And I feel like the US military presence and the coalition presence is denying that part of the history. And I’m wondering if after this elections they’re not going to more more fully embrace the complexity of the place and begin to really look at that as a possibility of doing what President Obama has called for which is to negotiate with moderate elements to the Taliban.

MULLINS: How about in terms of the previous election. This is not the first presidential election. The first one happened in 2004. Isn’t the fact there seems to be something of a sequence right now a good sign even if there is violence which everyone expected or vote rigging?

SENNOTT: This time it feels like this nascent democracy has taken a few steps forward but I still question whether or not the US fulfilled its goal of providing the security that was required for the Afghan people to go out and vote. And you know we’re going to find out now as we get the results in but it certainly feels like it was not a spectacular success and in fact there were many areas of failure.

MULLINS: Let’s look at the outcome. If Hamid Karzai is reelected, which is what’s expected to happen, does that mean that the Afghan people are impressed by what’s he done? And does that mean that the United States by what he’s done? I mean does the US have a stake n keeping him in office?

SENNOTT: The US has had this on-again-off-again relationship with Karzai. It is on again right now. And if in this election Karzai is elected I think the US is going to have to work very closely with him in the really difficult challenges that lie ahead in beginning to open up negotiations with the Taliban on one front and then really going forward with the offensive on what General Petraeus calls the irreconcilables, those with whom negotiations are not possible.

MULLINS: But Charlie Sennott you were just back in Afghanistan for your work with Global Post as a cooperative with The World, with our program. If you can take a step back, because you’ve been there many times, in terms of the American effort there which is so prominent and growing, is Afghanistan doing well by the US?

SENNOTT: It is extraordinary to see just how far Afghanistan has come. You know I was with Seamus Murphy who did these beautiful photographs – over 15 years of one family. And through those photographs I was reminded of the incredible devastation and destruction of Kabul n the mid-1990s, even the late 90s, even when we all came in 2001, the place was devastated. It was a failed state. And where it is today is a lot further along and we can’t forget that. At the same time, right now the US presence in Afghanistan is at a crossroads and I think it’s very confusing to understand which direction is it going in. Is this a counterinsurgency campaign with an increase of 21,000 troops intended to finally crush the Taliban or is it intended to become a security force that will allow the provincial reconstruction teams to build the country and give its own sense of governance? It really is one or the other because they’re very different goals. And we have to establish what our goal is if the US and coalition forces are going to succeed. And right now that’s not clear and that lack of clarity will continually undercut the campaign.

MULLINS: Charlie Sennott, thank you.

SENNOTT: Thank you.

MULLINS: Charlie Sennott is executive editor and cofounder of Global Post, an international news website. He recently returned from Afghanistan and Pakistan where he reported a four-part series for The World. You can find, “Inside the Taliban” at The World dot org.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.