Over the weekend, Rahm Emanuel emphasized that the ultimate strategic decision on Afghanistan would be contingent on whether or not the U.S. had a "credible Afghan partner." Yesterday, Hamid Karzai agreed to a second round of elections against opponent Abdullah Abdullah, despite rumors of a potential powersharing agreement.
I spoke briefly to Brian Katulis from the Center for American Progress, who was in Afghanistan during the first round of voting, which was marred by massive fraud. While cautioning that there's no way to handle the logistical problems that led to the previous outcome before November 7th date, pushing for a vote rather than a power-sharing agreement has the best chance of producing a government the Afghan people can see as legitimate.
"This option, in addition to having the possibility of fraud, also has the possibility of being a fairly clean election," says Katulis. "Elections, if they're conducted well, and if the voters who participate in them see them as reflecting their views, have more legitimacy than any deal that might be struck in the backrooms of Kabul."
Basically, the runoff could turn out to be a logistical nightmare, with all the problems that the first one had. But it could also potentially end with at least a fairly credible Afghan government, and the Obama administration clearly thinks that's an outcome worth rolling the dice for.
-- A. Serwer
