Karzai declared "winner" of Afghan elections. My thoughts on the whole runoff debacle.

[beachmom]

I have no regrets that John Kerry went to Kabul and arm twisted Karzai into accepting a runoff election. It was the right thing to do, and it put John Kerry on the world stage which he deserves. And it showed that Karzai CAN be persuaded into doing things he doesn't want to do.

But, I must say: I remember thinking at the time, that I didn't think what he did was that great. I think he's done some other things that were better. His diplomatic prowess in Syria I think will have more long lasting success, for example. But for whatever reason, the press latched onto this story, put him on the front page of lots of newspapers, and then did analyis arguments on how he is a top advisor to Barack Obama. Thing is, he is more than that. He is THE Congressional foreign policy voice. I don't see why he has to be thought of as a major advisor to the executive branch. The fact that he is doing an exemplory job in his proper role as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee is all that matters to me. Good that the White House notices, and even takes his advice, but his better work will be in Senate hearings and investigations. And if he so chooses, he could always jump to State if Hillary decides one term is enough, and Obama gets re-elected. In the mean time, more great Senate hearings, please. And what about exploring the poppy/terrorist/Taliban connection? This is an area where the Senator has considerable expertise.

As to what next, this is kind of a funny quip from Politico's Mike Allen:

http://twitter.com/mikeallen/status/5362832751

like the RNC and NRCC congratulating Hoffman -- KABUL (AP) - US, allies congratulate Afghan President Hamid Karzai on winning a second term.

This is funny, too:

http://twitter.com/abuaardvark/status/5365392045

Karzai to govern without legitimacy w/o pointless runoff. Old COIN: can't work without legitimate govt. New COIN: who cares?

I realize the issue is extremely serious. But sometimes you just have to laugh at the absurdity at all. As Karynnj referenced in another thread, Karzai is the best we've got in Afghanistan. Or the least worst.

[Luftmensch067]

1. I do agree about the proper focus re JK being SFRC

One good thing that came out of this is that various MSM entities actually acknowledged him as the most powerful foreign policy voice in the Senate! Wow, who knew? :sarcasm:

What would be even better would be actual COVERAGE of his hearings, much more of it, and much more careful analysis, in print (online and off) and via TV and streaming video online. Hello, CSPAN, who has covered maybe two of them since he became Chair!

This is supposedly one of the most powerful and important committees in Congress -- don't we, the public, deserve to know what they're doing?!

[karynnj]

2. Nice summary

I think there is still a question of whether they have a legitimate enough government. From at least on Indian article, they seemed to see this more as a "western" issue. It would be interesting if anyone, journalist or in a hearing, would address what the Afghan perspective on the legitimacy is - likely broken down by area of the country or tribe.

While it is clear that there was abundant cheating - on many sides, I have found nothing that suggests that he wouldn't have majority support in the 2 way race or that he was not the top vote getter of legitimate votes only in the first race. Contrast this to all of our views that with no "irregularities", Gore would have won 2000 and Kerry likely would have won 2004. His election clearly had more cheating, but I think it might have the most easily defended result of the three.

Beyond legitimacy, there is corruption and there, the fact that Karzai was convinced by Kerry to agree to this runoff, in what had to be a really hard decision - as it put his people at the highest risk as they are the most threatened by the Taliban and there was the matter of pride. Now, it is clear, at least with the felons' list that our version of "Karzai's brother, running the province of FL, engaged in election fraud. Yet, I really can't imagine either Jeb or George having admitted it and agreeing to a FL runoff in 2000. (Nor can I imagine the outside pressure) Kharzai did this, bowing to pressure from the US.

I suspect that the reason Kerry succeeded was that Kerry gave him the frame that made doing this a noble thing to do. It is interesting that while the wording in the media has drifted to arm twisting, Karzai in his interview with Farheid Zakaria on GPS, singled out Kerry as acting "very well". Kerry's continued defense is likely important as he may be the only sort of insider Karzai trusts at this point and had he returned to attack him as most of the administration has done it would have been a very hurtful betrayal. This would make it impossible to ever again get his trust.

Compared to conceding fraud, steps taken to reform the government and to remove the most flagrant violators would be easier. The one exception might be his brother - as that hits too close to home. There I think Kerry is right to call for proof - he is clearly not a good guy, but a former prosecutor's caution is a good idea. What is clear is that he is powerful. Is it possible that he has enemies who have made the drug charges common wisdom? The question I have is whether the NYT story was designed to hurt Karzai or to help another Kandahar strongman.

I agree with you that Kerry having a hearing on the entire poppy problem would be a good idea. He has had hearings in the bast that have covered it - going back to I either 2007 or 2008 in his sub-committee. If the money from poppies is a huge factor in the insurgency, then implementing the idea of planting trees and paying the farmers to nurture them until they bear fruit might be the best money we can spend, giving many people vested interests in the country they now don't have. You would need at the same time to protect the farmers making this decision from their former customers.

I wish Kerry's hearings got more coverage, but I think there has been a huge shift since the early statement that heading the SFRC was not that good, with a President of the same party. That was a fair idea if you look at how little impact the very capable Lugar had on Bush. But, in reality, under Kerry, various alternatives on many issues have been publicly examined. I think the Afghanistan hearings were remarkable in the way that they really have provided a lot of the vocabulary and frame on the alternatives.

[beachmom]

3. Kerry statement:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/11/kerry_hopes_for.html

"This is one of many critical moments for Afghanistan. President Hamid Karzai deserves credit for his willingness to engage in the runoff election, and Dr. Abdullah Abdullah deserves credit for showing restraint throughout this difficult period. I applaud Dr. Abdullah for urging his supporters to avoid violence, and for refraining from actions which could tear the country apart rather than help bring it together. With the election concluded, it is an opportunity for the government of President Karzai to demonstrate genuine progress in combating corruption, establishing rule of law, and bringing measurable improvement to peoples' lives,” Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement.

"It is my hope that all Afghans -- those who supported President Hamid Karzai, those who supported Dr Abdullah, and those who supported other candidates during the election -- will now join together to build a better future for their nation. This is a moment when fundamental change is not only possible, but absolutely essential."

[beachmom]

4. Interesting Time article:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1933015,00.html

Little over a week ago, Senator John Kerry was hailed for his diplomatic success in Kabul, where he cajoled President Hamid Karzai into accepting a runoff in the disputed Afghan election. But Sunday's withdrawal from the race by Karzai's challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, rendered Kerry's achievement moot. Moreover, it was an outcome the U.S. had come around to rooting for.

The fact that U.S. officials in Kabul had pivoted within a matter of days from insisting that a runoff be held to pressing for it to be canceled highlighted the problem with the U.S.'s obsession on staging elections in conflict zones. Such elections, though often held up (with the U.S. domestic political audience in mind) as examples of democracy's triumph, can actually undermine U.S. goals in those situations. Contrary to the Obama Administration's spin, resolving the dispute over the fraudulent ballots in Afghanistan's August election was never the key to determining whether to send more U.S. troops into the country. In fact, the runoff election was never going to strengthen the legitimacy of the resulting government; it was always more likely to further weaken it.