Karzai win complicates White House strategy for Afghanistan

By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 2, 2009; 1:43 PM



Afghan President Hamid Karzai's election by default Monday confirms at least a week earlier than expected that the Obama administration will continue for the foreseeable future to have the same mercurial partner in Afghanistan.



Karzai was expected to win the Nov. 7 runoff election easily and continue in the role he has held for nearly eight years, just as President Obama enters the final stage of deciding whether to escalate U.S. involvement in the war.

But the departure of Karzai's chief rival, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, deprives him of a genuine win at the polls and potentially undermines the Obama administration's goal of building a legitimate government in Kabul.

Obama, congressional leaders and the U.S. commander on the ground, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, have made clear that the success of any strategy the White House eventually settles on will depend on the Afghan government's ability to improve its credibility among the people.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama planned to telephone Karzai shortly since the runoff election was called off.

Senior administration officials were encouraged last month when Karzai accepted a second round of voting following the deeply flawed August election. He won that vote with more than the 50 percent needed to avoid a runoff, but a U.N.-backed review later determined that nearly a third of his votes were fraudulent.

His acceptance of a runoff, administration officials say, was far more important in ensuring the legitimacy of the election process than Abdullah's participation in it. Abdullah trailed Karzai by double digits after the first round even after Karzai was stripped of the fraudulent votes.

Karzai said Monday that he wanted the runoff to go forward, given that Abdullah's name would still appear on the already printed ballots. It was an acknowledgement that his victory without a vote will almost certainly leave his administration weaker among Afghans than it would have been after a clean election. Throughout the weekend, as Abdullah's threat to quit turned into his announcement to do so, senior administration officials drew parallels between the Afghan election tumult and domestic politics.

One senior administration official said Abdullah, who had been seeking a power-sharing arrangement with Karzai after the first round, was following a political strategy often seen in U.S. elections. At no time does a candidate not expected to win have more leverage than just before the vote, the official said.

"This does not, in our view, affect the legitimacy of the process," the official said. "It does present an opportunity to shift to a new phase in Afghanistan."

Whether it does undermine Karzai's legitimacy will be decided ultimately by the Afghan people. But the relatively mild way Abdullah left the race -- angry but never calling for a boycott -- could help Karzai and his U.S. partners consolidate power around his new administration.

Abdullah criticized Karzai for refusing to take the steps he had demanded to ensure a fair second-round of voting, but in a tone that administration officials described as "moderate."

One senior administration official involved in the review process said the administration hopes Abdullah "continues to remain involved in Afghan politics and have a voice in the country's future," a signal he would be more helpful on the inside of any Afghan government or political process than as an outside critic.

Obama is scheduled to take up the review again this week in meetings with military leaders and his civilian advisers.

He had planned to announce his decision on U.S. strategy for the country after the Nov. 7 vote, waiting for a government accepted by Afghans to emerge from what would likely have been a messy aftermath before doing so. That lengthy -- and potentially violent -- process has now been avoided.

Obama's advisers say it is unclear how the Independent Election Commission's declaration of Karzai as the winner will affect the timing of his decision or the shape of the strategy he endorses.

McChrystal has asked for tens of thousands of additional troops to support his counter-insurgency strategy that focuses on protecting the Afghan population from the Taliban.

A legitimate and effective Afghan government is essential to the strategy because, as McChrystal notes in his grim assessment of the eight-year war, the Afghan public must be given an alternative to the Taliban.

The Karzai administration is widely viewed within Afghanistan as corrupt, and the Obama administration's review is identifying local leaders who might serve as more effective partners than the central government.

Karzai's reelection by default underscores the importance of the provincial governments and tribal leaders, who have traditionally exerted the most authority in a country with a historically weak central government.

But Obama will also be asking Karzai to do far more to reform his government, which administration officials who favor a more narrow counter-terrorism strategy in Afghanistan have long criticized. Those officials include Vice President Biden, who has had a rocky relationship with Karzai, now set to assume another five-year term.

*************************************************************************

Ok, I have to ask this question, because I am not quite able to grasp the reason(s) as to 'why' this runoff election in Afghanistan affects the Obama administration's decision on whether or not to send General McChrystal more troops.

Also, I haven't been able to ascertain why Abdullah Abdullah even dropped out of the race. I mean, what (or who) made him suddenly decide to just back out of this election?

I know from reading this article a couple of times (and I am still reading it) that Karzai's administration had been viewed as 'corrupt'. So, if the Afghan people (and/or our own government) wanted to put an end to the political corruption in Afghanistan, why would Abdullah back out of the election? Especially if he [Abdullah] had a fair shake at winning and if he would have run a "non-corrupt government"?

For some reason, this just doesn't sit well with me. I wonder if, and I promise you I am NOT trying to resort to my famous 'conspiracy theories', but, I wonder if, MAYBE, Abdullah was 'pressured' into backing out of this election, and if that was the case, why, and who was responsible?