The Karzai Standoff
EmailIt is a major test for this young president.
As feared, Afghan President Hamid Karzai is refusing to accept the conclusion by the UN-run election complaints commission that there was so much fraud in the August election, Karzai didn't actually get over 50% of the vote and a runoff election with Dr. Abdullah Abdullah is needed.
We discussed this likelihood on World News last week:
This puts President Obama in a double bind.
First, decision-making about Af-Pak strategy is on hold. Said White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel on Sunday: "It would be reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop levels if in fact you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether in fact there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that U.S. troops would create and become a true partner in governing."
Continued Emanuel, on CNN: "one of the questions is at the heart is — and even General McChrystal's own report says — the question does not come how many troops you send, but do you have a credible Afghan partner for this process that can provide the security and the type of services that the Afghan people need?
Well, as of now the answer, at least by the White House's own definition, is no.
So what does that mean?
One other major complication: Karzai enjoys much support among Pashtuns from Southern and Eastern Afghanistan — the same regions where the Taliban has met with some recruiting success as of late.
So what now?
- jpt
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Force the runoff, and in all probability, Karzai will be defeated.
The reasons have little to do with the war.
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | October 19, 2009, 10:05 am 10:05 am
In Iraq, the US stabilized the country and then Iraq elected its leaders.
Yet in Afghanistan Obama wants the opposite. Obama wants a stable government before he commits troops.
That sounds bass ackwards.
This is Obama’s war now. It’s luvky that we have such brilliant military minds as Rahm Emanuel to guide us. That pesky McChrystal needs to be quiet.
Posted by: drjohn | October 19, 2009, 10:15 am 10:15 am
Karzai justs wants to show off his hat some more.
Posted by: Huh | October 19, 2009, 10:15 am 10:15 am
===It is a major test for this young president.===
Is this the test that Biden spoke of? Did no one warn this young president that he would have to do something other than vote present? If he is going to dither on this decision, he needs to put our troops somewhere and let them dither too, instead of continuing to fight and die.
Posted by: Axey | October 19, 2009, 10:54 am 10:54 am
the question that looms large, in my mind anyway, is: what becomes of our troops currently on the ground in af-pak who are waiting for reinforcements? they’re just left to gut it out and hope they don’t get blown up today, tomorrow and until whenever we get a new strategy?
tick, tock, tick, tock…
Posted by: kelli | October 19, 2009, 10:55 am 10:55 am
Karzai will probably survive any run-off, but Obama is going to have to find a way to control this guy. One way is to marginalize him in the coming year by giving more power and more money to the regional governors and tribal elders out in the hinterlands. Quite frankly, Karzai knows he’s toast if he doesn’t have the protective cover of more American troops and American presence. Karzai is playing a very sophisticated game of duck and cover. On the one end, his government is infiltrated with Taliban, payoffs, and drug money, on the other hand, he’s counting on American forces to provide additional security and protection for him to operate. Once the US starts paying off certain sectors of Afghan Taliban, it’s only a matter of time before Karzai isn’t the target of Taliban assassination if Karzai’s brother, who controls the poppy crop doesn’t pay up and loses control of their dealings with Taliban. Obama has to increase troop levels, not the 40,000 McCrystal has asked for, but a smaller amount. Then, if Karzai doesn’t cooperate, I’d start making deals with Afghan Taliban, tribal elders, and regional governors. Before long, Karzai will be vunerable and will see the handwriting on the wall. In about 3 years, the US should start pulling back to the border and major population centers only and let Afghan soldiers, police, and certain sectors of Taliban security police the country. It’s the only way. A counterinsurgency strategy takes 15 years to implement, and there is no guarantee of success.
Posted by: Laura Brown | October 19, 2009, 11:13 am 11:13 am
Why do you refer to Obama as “this young president”?
He is the same age or a bit older than Bill Clinton was when Clinton first began his presidency, and I do NOT recall you or any other media person referring to President Clinton as “this young president.”
Do you insist on picturing Obama as “this young president” so as to excuse his poor performance as president? Why do you feel the need to identify Obama as “this young president”? He’s no younger than Clinton was at the same point in his presidency and should need NO excuses. Obama ran for this office. He assumed he was ready to be president even though his experience as an executive ranged from small to none.
Stop making Obama out to be “young”; he is no younger than Clinton was and I don’t recall your mentioning Clinton’s youth when you were bashing him for one thing or another.
Posted by: dream | October 19, 2009, 11:47 am 11:47 am
My overall impression of this problem (among others) is that Obama is facing one of his campaign lies (in this case: Afghanistan) that he used to get himself elected and now, he is finding that it is not an easy one for him to throw under the bus.
Amazingly enough, he has thrown human rights under the bus and I don’t see the mainstream press doing much to expose this aspect of his incoherent foreign policy tactics.
Now what? I can only suppose that Team Obama will continue to try to divert attention to other things (like flexing their presidential muscles through their attacks on Fox News while pretending they are the victim of non-news republicans). The latest Anita Dunn video with her saying they controlled (her word) the press is pretty sickening. The video of Axelrod telling ABC they ought to handle Fox News is galling.
Why ABC doesn’t address the problem and become a respected watchdog is beyond me. ABC has been directly and indirectly insulted by the WH too many times to keep track of. It reminds me of battered wife syndrome. The wives keep making excuses for their husbands and keep hoping the batterer will change. It takes the battered wife an average of 9 times leaving her batterer before she finally leaves for good.
Posted by: SjB | October 19, 2009, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm
“Now what? I can only suppose that Team Obama will continue to try to divert attention to other things (like flexing their presidential muscles through their attacks on Fox News while pretending they are the victim of non-news republicans). The latest Anita Dunn video with her saying they controlled (her word) the press is pretty sickening.”
ROFLMAO!
The White House is causing a distraction by focusing on Anita Dunn videos taken out of context?
I would say FoxNews learned from Goebbels but he was a piker compared to them.
Posted by: Ryan C | October 19, 2009, 2:06 pm 2:06 pm
Ryan C,
You may think the White House attacking Fox and Dunn explaining how they controlled the press is ROFLAO, but most of do not. Numerous Liberals have voiced their concerns and objections to the White House abusing it’s power.
I also find it interesting that you accuse Fox of propaganda and taking Dunn out of context. There are oodles of videos showing the full context and show that Fox is showing facts — not cherry picking. Do you homework buddy. :)
Posted by: SjB | October 19, 2009, 5:38 pm 5:38 pm