Last I heard, the opposition was conceded to have won in Parliament, but the Presidency was going to a run-off. If Mugabe wins that, with a hostile new government, Zimbabwe can expect more 'interesting' times ahead!

“In terms of strategy, we only applied 25 per cent of our energy into this campaign ... That (the run-off) is when we are going to unleash the other 75 percent that we did not apply in the first case.”

I don't like the sound of 'unleash'.

I realize the topic of assassination has been thoroughly discussed here on several occasions, but man- ever since Saddam left Mugabe has definitely moved up pretty high in the rankings of guys who REALLY REALLY REALLY make it hard for the rest of us to do the right thing.

Then I look at Kim Jong-Il and say what my Kurds buddies in Nashville said to me about Saddam- "Why Trial? When rope?"

I remain unconvinced that assassination is, by definition, never the right move.

Whether it is prudent in this case is open to discussion, but I would be receptive to the argument.

In the Western movies exists the perfect rationale: "He needed killin'".

I cannot believe the bastard is still alive. What has happened the noble profession of marksmanship?

Still very sceptical that Mugabe will just walk away from power. The Guardian's Chris McGreal writes from Harare about an apparent meeting with the Joint Operations Command (Mugabe's security cabinet) where Mugabe was offered the choice of military coup or declare himself victorious in the elections. Quoting,

"In the JOC meeting there were two options for Mugabe: to declare victory on Sunday or declare martial law," said the diplomat. "They did not consider conceding. We understand Mugabe nearly decided to declare victory. Cooler heads prevailed. It was decided to use the [election commission] process of drip, drip where you release results over a long period, giving the opposition gains at first but as time wears on Zanu-PF pulls ahead."

Looks very much like what is currently happening, the opposition appears to pull ahead but Mugabe wins anyway and everyone is happy that the electoral system now 'works'.

JezB: it's not just the sound. There is a picture right below that quote that I like even less.

Whether it is prudent in this case is open to discussion, but I would be receptive to the argument.

I would argue that it is prudent in this case. Mugabe is unlikely to be a martyr at this point. What's keeping him afloat, really, is the same thing that kept Saddam kicking: favors to underlings. It's the same formula that's working so well to keep the Kims in power in North Korea: trash your country's economy and then buy the loyalty of key figures (primarily the army) by giving them generous shares of what's left over. (This isn't necessarily a conscious strategy, mind you, but it's how things have played out.) The only reason there are votes for Mugabe at all is because a lot of people stand to have the rug pulled out from under their feet when he goes, and in places like Zimbabwe and North Korea where the economy has totally collapsed, that's a scary prospect.

In situations like this, I think it's best to have the meanie out of the picture. True, lots of people are talking about a dignified exit for Mugabe, and on the surface that sounds like a prudent plan. But a better plan is just not to have him around at all, freeing the new government's hands to deal with all the people it has to coddle and buy off without interference from a polarizing, violent, 84-year-old dottard.

So if someone decides to off him, I'll cheer.

South Africa is ten years behind Zim. I hear the lines at the Australian Embassy are rather long. Zuma will be worse than Mbeke who was worse than Mandela. !5 years from now DeKlerk (admittedly a worthless POS) will be remembered fondly by those who can remember eating on a regular basis.
If a truly open, honest election were held in Zim today, what are the odds against Ian Smith winning hands down (if he was alive)?

Being dead has never stopped people voting in Zimbabwe apparently...