In the Arena

Afghan Hunch

Sometimes, as a journalist, you just sense the play behind the play. Rahm Emanuel’s statement yesterday that more troops would not be forthcoming until the Karzai government got its act together reflects sentiments I’ve heard expressed by several of the key non-military decision makers in the Afghan policy review. On the surface, it seemed designed to pressure Hamid Karzai to allow a runoff election and clean up his act.

But there was another implicit message as well…

This one was directed at Abdullah Abdullah, the former foreign minister who ran second in the election: make a deal with Karzai now. Abdullah, young and charismatic, was the surprise of the election. “You watched him grow into a national figure as the process went on,” one diplomatic observer told me. “He’s the Afghan man of the future, but he has to decide how he wants to play this moment.” His choices are to proceed with a runoff–or to concede the election to Karzai, in return for a power sharing agreement.

The runoff is a probably a sure loser: most observers figure that Karzai–who is Pashtun royalty–will win a head-to-head contest with Abdullah, who is of mixed parentage, half Pashtun, half Tajik. On the other hand, if Abdullah presses the runoff and stays away from the Karzai government, he’ll be able to go into the next election untainted by association with the Karzai regime.

On the third hand, if the U.S. doesn’t stick around, there may not be another election, which is where Rahm Emanuel’s threat comes in. It seems clear–to me, at least–that the preferred U.S. outcome is no runoff election (which would be yet another security headache for U.S. troops in any case) and a coalition government in which Abdullah negotiates and achieves a significant portfolio.

I suspect that these decisions will be played out in the next week or so.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    Audacity of Dope: Tales of a Toking Teenage Obama

    We knew Barack Obama smoked weed in high school because he wrote about it in his books. What we didn’t know, until Buzzfeed posted these choice nuggets (I’m so sorry) from David Maraniss’s new book on the President’s younger years, were the giggle-worthy details of his “Choom Gang” lifestyle, which are right out of a buddy stoner flick. Obama and his friends drove around the lush Hawaii countryside, hot-boxing their VW bus and re-upping with a long-haired pizza-tossing dealer named Ray, whom Obama thanked in his yearbook “for all the good times.”

  • dwilli14

    I think you’re spot on, Joe. But man, I’m really worried about the Pakistani side of the equation in all this. After watching the most recent Frontline Doc, I have real doubts about the success of our overall mission no matter what happens in the arena of Afghan politics.

  • nflfoghorn

    Anybody ever held Pakistan accountable for the billion$ they wasted “fighting” the “war on terror?” Most of it went to the war on India but no one’s held accountable on either the US or their side. How do we know if what we’re ostensibly supporting now will work or if we’ll throw in a couple of drones to help them?

  • Joe Klein

    Actually, nfl, the Obama Administration, via Bob Gates, is trying to be more precise when it comes to military aid than Bush was–more helicopters, night vision equipment and other tools that can help with counterinsurgency operations, rather than the $9 billion in blank checks that the Bush White House that, as you accurately point out, went to the Indian front.

  • nflfoghorn

    I’m honored by your reply, Joe, and I do hope that the current (US) regime will not waste as much cash on this effort. Lot of good the Bush admin did: all we got out of it is hatred for Musharraf and the real leaders of AQ finding safe haven in Pakistan.

  • stuartzechman

    Joe Klein:

    The runoff is a probably a sure loser: most observers figure that Karzai…will win a head-to-head contest with Abdullah…

    Is that runoff a “sure loser” because of electoral demographics, or because it’s impossible to have a legitimate, mostly fraud-less election process in war-and-occupation-torn Afghanistan?

    …it seemed designed to pressure Hamid Karzai to allow a runoff election…

    Isn’t a striking symbol of the failure of the Bush II Administration’s occupation policy the fetishization of “elections”, instead of a proper focus on the reality of illegitimate/corrupt government arrived at by means of image-heavy “democratic” processes, Joe Klein?
    .
    Isn’t the real question for the Obama Administration how they are prepared to go forward with another occupation as the co-enforcers of corrupt local rule, and how the reality of that role necessarily conflicts with the stated goals of Obama’s occupation?
    .
    Or aren’t we yet back to a reality-based foreign policy, and so need the Kabuki of “elections”?

  • stuartzechman

    Joe Klein:
    .
    Thank you so very much for responding to commentary; it is greatly appreciated.

  • http://www.124monkeys.com Sean DeCoursey forgot his password

    Joe,

    Could you please explain to us the difference between Hamid Karzai, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, and Ngo Dinh Diem? Or any of literally dozens of south and central american dictaror-ish tools we supported in the 1970s and 1980s?
    -
    How is us working to keep an incompetent and corrupt leader in charge of Afghanistan going to help ANYTHING? thanks.

  • tanboontee

    Do you Afghans sincerely believe that the coalition forces, together with a fraudulent leader and incompetent government, will bring peace to the nation?

    If not, would you want the fragmented tribal-based nation to be united under the Taliban?

    What about a new leader and new governance? Reflect your concern in the coming run-off. Only you can save your own nation.

  • http://euandus3.wordpress.com euandus

    It is interesting that Hilary Clinton and a Kanzai spokesman both portrayed the withdraw in virtually identical terms. …makes one wonder if a deal had been struck. I just posted on this here: http://euandus3.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/duplicity-in-international-affairs-subterranean-deals-made/

blog comments powered by Disqus