By Kristina Wong

Oct 19, 2009 5:15pm

The Latest from Kabul: the View from the White House

Based on conversations US Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry has had in recent days with both Afghan President Hamid Karzai and leading challenger Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, White House officials feel more confident today that negotiations are proceeding in a constructive manner.

Officials seem less worried today than they were over the weekend that Karzai will refuse to participate in either a run-off or some sort of unity government, in which Karzai appoints some Abdullah supporters as ministers in his administration and adopts some of Abdullah’s platform including anti-corruption efforts and greater efforts at transparency.

At times, the formation of a unity government has seemed to have more traction. The Karzai campaign has publicly rejected the idea of a second round of voting, and US officials have generally expressed their view that a unity government might be logistically easier, given the three weeks left until the harsh Afghan winter makes voting all but impossible. In addition, there’s nothing to say that the fraud that marred the August election wouldn’t return.

But US officials stress this is an issue that the Afghans will ultimately resolve, and constitutionally they may be required to have a run-off regardless of their personal preferences. The only essential for the US, officials say, is that the process be seen as credible.

The most troubling issue for Karzai, administration officials say, seems to be neither his confidence about winning a run-off, or his willingness to enter into a unity government, but his willingness to accept the conclusions of the United Nations-backed Election Complaints Commission and risk being seen as disenfranchising thousands of Pashtun voters.

The ECC report invalidated enough votes to bring Karzai’s total percentage to around 48%, mandating a run-off election.

In a phone call over the weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged Karzai to accept the results of the ECC process. Clinton told Karzai he could be seen as a leader, a statesman. He would almost certainly win the run-off against Abdullah – whom the ECC said garnered just over 31% of the vote. He could also be seen as a statesman if he formed a unity government with Abdullah’s allies.

But any such move would have to begin with Karzai and the Independent Election Commission accepting the ECC ruling, essentially accepting the elimination of more than a million votes from the final vote count. 

Karzai told Clinton he’s concerned about how such a move would be received by his supporters, many of whom are Pashtun and from Southern and Eastern Afghanistan – from where the Taliban is having some recruiting successes.

Would these voters perceive Karzai as selling them out? Would they turn out for another election? Would their disenfranchisement – at the behest of the international community – be a powerful recruiting tool for the Taliban?

The US continues to argue that it’s important for Karzai to recognize the legitimacy of the work done. They argue that his acceptance of the ECC findings may upset some Pashtuns, but it will help Karzai win the confidence of a more broad cross-section of the Afghan people.

Abdullah says he has yet to hear from Karzai in any meaningful way, though he is said to be prepared to drop any demand for a run-off as long as a legitimate unity government can be negotiated.

White House officials say that Karzai has to be seen as legitimate for any nation-building plan to work. Absent hundreds of thousands of new US troops – which no senior officials of the Obama administration are advocating — any strategy of “clear, hold, and build” only works if US forces have a credible and reliable partner to whom they can hand over the holding and building.

Karzai is being lobbied heavily not just by Americans but by the larger international community in a very united way. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has called Karzai, and his lead representative on the ground, Norwegian diplomat Kai Eide, has been in extensive discussions with Karzai.

Neither Vice President Biden nor President Obama has spoken to Karzai in recent days.

-jpt

User Comments

“US officials stress this is an issue that the Afghans will ultimately resolve, ”
Heh, if ‘the Afghans’ were truely the ones resolving this, the guy in charge of the most guns – Karzai – would be king for life. But appearances must be maintained I suppose.

Posted by: jhw539 | October 19, 2009, 6:26 pm 6:26 pm

“am sorry that you dont find US strategy and events in Afghansistan/Pakistan worth covering. i disagree.” – Jake Tapper on Twitter in response to pinkascii (requesting more Anita Dunn coverage).
Well, I bet a story about Ms. Dunn’s comments (esp. praise for Mao) would have elicited more than 1 (now 2) comments, so may be your news judgment is a little off. Bias isn’t reflected alone in HOW news is covered, but WHAT news is covered.

Posted by: connor | October 19, 2009, 9:20 pm 9:20 pm

Not a word about the war on Fox news?
Imagine this is Survivor, Jake. You are the smartest guy on the island and everyone knows it. But there’s a guy with a bigger target on his back, and everyone’s gunning for him.
What are you going to do, Jake? Are you going to sit back and let him be picked off only to be voted out yourself next week? Or will you get the attention of him by producing a bigger, better target?
Admittedly, the analogy breaks down around the final two or three. But, seriously, who besides you and Major Garret are challenging the utter crap that comes out of this Hollywood produced and edited administration? And how long after Fox is “banished from the island” will you become the biggest target around?

Posted by: w3bgrrl | October 19, 2009, 9:21 pm 9:21 pm

CORRECTION – “attention OFF him”

Posted by: w3bgrrl | October 19, 2009, 9:21 pm 9:21 pm

Bias isn’t reflected alone in HOW news is covered, but WHAT news is covered.
Posted by: connor | Oct 19, 2009 9:20:10 PM
***
Exactly… that’s why Fox “News” isn’t a news station at all. The reason they’re attacking Dunn in because she had the nerve to call a spade a spade. Jacob Weisberg has a good article on why the WH is right at Slate Magazine. (Google”Ignore Fox: Obama’s right. It’s time to stop taking the network’s skewed news seriously.) Meanwhile, Greg Sargent at Plum Line offers up this blast from the past regarding Murdoch (will the hypocrisy never cease?):”Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch repeatedly sought to break into the Chinese market by flattering Chinese leaders, and his Star TV reportedly dropped the BBC World Service after the Chinese government complained about a documentary that painted Mao Zedong in an unflattering light” (for the whole story google NYT: Murdoch’s Dealings in China: It’s Business, and It’s Personal, 2007).
And of course, don’t forget to dig into the association between Mao and Republicans–Atwater, Bush, Rove, Shadegg, Goldwater and so on. Just to be “fair and balanced.”
Before I go, a final note– how bizarre is it that you think Jake should decide which news to cover and report by how many comments a blog on the subject might generate. Yowza. The situation in Afghanistan is way more important than Beck’s vengeful hit job on Dunn.

Posted by: GwenTen | October 19, 2009, 10:38 pm 10:38 pm

“The Latest from Kabul: the View from the White House”
The view of Russia from my house is prettier, Jake.

Posted by: S. Palin | October 20, 2009, 12:15 am 12:15 am

Before I go, a final note– how bizarre is it that you think Jake should decide which news to cover and report by how many comments a blog on the subject might generate. Yowza. The situation in Afghanistan is way more important than Beck’s vengeful hit job on Dunn.
Posted by: Gwen Ten
***
Comments are a barometer of public interest in a story. Since I don’t have access to more telling and accurate information, such as page hits, that’s the best gauge I, or any casual reader, has. And, yes, I do think reporters should focus scarce resources on news and information the public is interested in.

Posted by: Connor | October 20, 2009, 2:19 am 2:19 am

I wonder if more liberals watch Beck than conservatives.. if you are liberal and watching.. try switching to MSNBC.

Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | October 20, 2009, 7:15 am 7:15 am

I can see Kabul from my front steps.

Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | October 20, 2009, 7:20 am 7:20 am

Fear not Kabul for the head of the snake lies in Lahore.

Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | October 20, 2009, 12:04 pm 12:04 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.