A Rushed Runoff In Hunt For Legitimacy

By Steve Hynd

So, Hamid Karzai and his pet electoral commission have accepted the results of fraud investigations which dumped 1.5 million votes from the Afghan election counts and the need for a runoff election - but only after Western governments told him in no uncertain terms that if he didn't then he was on his own. Realising his lifespan would be measured in hours otherwise, Karzai's bluster crumbled. Now he's saying publicly:

We believe that this decision of the IEC is legitimate, legal and constitutional and that it strengthens the path toward democracy.

What he's likely saying in private is best left to the imagination.

John Kerry, standing beside Karzai but not beside his opponent Abdullah Abdullah, tried hard to spin the move as one that will increase the Afghan government's legitimacy.

Speaking after Karzai at Tuesday's news conference, visiting U.S. Senator John Kerry said the president's decision to agree to the runoff "will allow the national leadership to govern with legitimacy."

..."We believe with this decision by the president today that a time of enormous uncertainty has been transformed into great opportunity," Kerry said.

The runoff election has been slated for 7th November, just 16 days away. Those will have to be fast donkeys to get ballots to remote regions in time. But even if they run, General McChrystal has already begun his pullback to the towns and cities, leaving rural areas. If a lack of security in outlying places gave ample opportunity for fraud last time, as well as depressing the real vote for fear of Taliban repercusions, how much worse will it be this time?

Apparently Obama intends waiting until after he sees how the runoff goes before he decides on McChrystal's "my way or the highway" troop request. I think that's going to be a very good idea.

Update: Spencer Ackerman nails the problem with the military having a problem with all this.

Obama�s stated goals for the war are about disrupting and rolling back al-Qaeda in Pakistan. Any decision to pursue that goal through bolstering Afghan governance is, to be neutral about things, elective. Never did the previous administration adopt any strategy to pressure Karzai to deliver on governance promises, and now Obama � with a greater U.S. troop, U.S. civilian-adviser and U.S. funding allowance to Afghanistan than ever before � is holding the bill. It�s a new situation, and it is unclear whether a decision to use what is, in the end, a massive amount of leverage, will continue.

Why might it not? Among other reasons, stories like this from The New York Times, channeling military frustration with the pace of the decision-making process. I have heard those same frustrations from both Army officers and Pentagon civilians � some of whom are fiercely loyal to Obama � and others in the broader defense community. And they�re understandable. But they�re also not strategic. For a military community that talks a big game about recognizing that counterinsurgencies are indeed fundamentally political problems, an Afghan election of dubious legitimacy is not a speed bump, it�s a very big strategic deal.

I wish Spencer would make the next leap of logic: that the military always thinks this way. It misses the wood for the trees and that is part of why it is institutionally incapable of conducting COIN except as fine words on paper. It's not alone: most politicians are incapable of thinking big about "fundamentally political problems" either, they're just interested in anything that they think will help in winning their next election and being "tough on terror" is one of those things. Maybe he has made that leap, but for his own reasons doesn't want to say so.

But if bright folk like Spencer have already figured out that the generals and politicians are never going to do things right in Afghanistan, then why on earth are they still supporting a strategy that involves staying longer so that they can get things wrong more?