Another great article, this time British, with a few more details.

[beachmom]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-accidental-diplomat-in-kabul-1806891.html

Nice picture at the link.

The deal seemed settled, only for Mr Karzai to get cold feet at the last moment. It was then, according to sources quoted by Associated Press, that Mr Kerry took the President on a long walk through the palace gardens. He told Mr Karzai of his own decision to concede to President George Bush after the 2004 US election even though he had doubts about ballot-counting in Ohio. There are times, he said, when tough decisions have to be taken putting country before self. The delayed press conference followed.

That really is beautiful. The thing is, I have always defended Kerry conceding the election for that very reason. It would have torn the country apart and made things even worse, and he still wouldn't have been President. But to take that very painful experience, and use it for something good -- persuading Karzai to agree to a runoff -- just is incredible. I realize Kerry also was quite tough as well. But I think his own personal story did have an effect on Karzai.

The article ends with this:

But if a run-off can be held successfully the list of things Washington will be expecting of a new Karzai government will be long. First on that list will be a new push to persuade the president to make a serious effort to root out corruption in the government. So far he has shown little appetite for the exercise. To persuade him otherwise, another gargantuan diplomatic effort may be necessary. How that will be executed if Mr Kerry is back in the Senate remains to be seen.

[wisteria]

1. I always defending Sen. Kerry's decision not to contest for these very reasons.

I aways knew he did it for the good of the country.
As for someone working with Karzai, perhaps Kerry can persuade him to work with Holbrooke again.

[TayTay]

2. I wonder if the can get Nicholas Burns out of his comfy post at Harvard for this

Kerry respects Nicholas Burns a lot and Burns has the calm demeanor and in-depth knowledge to do some good here.

There are also others who could help if Holbrooke has tanked out on his Afghan connections.

[karynnj]

3. He really could be good

I was impressed with him back in the Bush years, when I was predisposed to not be as he was in the Bush administration. His comments in the Iran hearing ( http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hrg090506a.html ) were very open and prescient in terms of Russia being the key.

The key is what Holbrooke fought with Kharzi over. If as reported it was corruption, it might be better NOT to replace him, but to have some three way meetings with any one in the state department who Kharzi gets along with to smooth that relationship out - and persuading Kharzi that Afghanistan's future depends on changing the culture of corruption. (Unless the problem was the messenger, not the message, replacing the messenger won't help.) (Note: I would have said Kerry, rather than a state department person - and he would be excellent, but it would make the State Department look clueless if Kerry were seen "fixing" a second major problem. )

[TayTay]

4. Well, we start bumping up against a ceiling here of what Sen. Kerry can do

and cannot do. He has a constitutional role to fulfill of oversight on the Obama Admin. He took an oath to fulfill his current job description and be a Senator. He has the responsibility to hold hearings and look into what the Obama Admin is doing and do so with the clear eyed determination of someone who does NOT work for Barack Obama. (As we have said before, oversight is sorely needed. It was what Repubs did not do during the Bush regime to the deteriment and sorrow of our nation.)

Sen. Kerry was the right guy in the right place at the right time for Afghanistan. This was a marvelous moment for him and the results have been great. But he is a Senator, charged with the responsibilities of a Senator, not a diplomat. Should the lines of responsibility get crossed here as to what job he is performing, that would be a very bad thing. And he clearly knows that and this is part of why he is emphasizing his work with the Sec. of State.

One time things are great. Creative use of the Senator's vast network on international contacts and calls to world leaders under the independent perview of the Chairmanship of SFRC are alright. After that, this starts to stand on murky constitutional grounds. (I do not mean to be the skunk at the garden party, but we have to be careful how this is viewed. We have a separation of powers for a reason and the Congress does not work for the Admin, they provide oversight for the Admin and approve laws that Admin might not like and so forth. That job is deeply, deeply needed and valuable.)

[beachmom]

5. I agree. It was a one off. It can't happen again.

And frankly, I am a little uneasy with JK being so close with the President. I mean, this Afghanistan war could very well blow up in our faces big time (not to mention the situation in Pakistan), and I just don't want Kerry too tethered to the President. I want him to be able to independently give his opinion which may be in conflict w/ the Prez. So now that the high is wearing off, we need to be really cautious about this.

[karynnj]

6. I agree - as you said once it could be a battle between loyalty and truth

Kerry has said that he will disagree if he disagrees. He actually did once as a surrogate during the general election - and did it maintaining his integrity, while being an excellent surrogate. That was on the energy bill that Obama supported and Kerry opposed. On TV as a surrogate, he stated that he disagreed, then said Obama supports this because .... giving Obama's point of view. In some MA events, he spoke only of his position and defended it.

Now, this was during an election. If he handled that honorably, I would expect that he would do the same now when it is not his job to be a surrogate. What I would expect is that he would respectfully make the case for his point of view and explain where he differs from the President. Kerry has always been loyal, but he was honest in disagreeing with Clinton's foreign policy when he did. Now, I know he is closer to Obama. My only concern on this is short term - Kerry needs heir support on the global warming bill.