Afghan Election Should Be Exit Sign

By Steve Hynd

David Corn writes today that the incredibly fraudulent Afghan presidential election "might become an exit strategy�or an exit excuse�for the Obama administration."

If the Afghan government is too corrupt to work with, President Obama could well justify a decision to reduce or narrow�or not expand�the US war effort there. It seems clear that there is a group of administration officials who are not eager to follow McChrystal into a long and dark tunnel that may or may not have light at the far end. If Obama does not accept the recommendations of the top commander in Afghanistan, he will be assailed as a defeatist by hawks (be they neoconservative pundits or GOP legislators), who will accuse him of undermining the troops already there. Yet Obama and his aides could beat back this charge by contending that the United States cannot mount a successful counterinsurgency mission in Afghanistan without a competent Afghan government and military that has the support of the public. Corruption can be something of a get-out-of-Afghanistan-free card for Obama.

The election should be a huge warning sign for everyone. COIN doctrine says that counter-insurgency is impossible without a legitimate host government and creating a false facade of legitimacy on the international stage won't affect how Afghans view the matter one whit. In the absence of that legitimate government, the U.S. strategy ceases to be one of COIN and becomes one of pacification. The occupation becomes an exercize in colonialism.

But the Afghan election was always going to be a McChrystalization of all that's wrong with the occupation. It's just that the Very Serious set of D.C. Villagers convinced themselves otherwise through group-think and are still doing so to try to ignore the corruption-laden elephant in the room.