The Obama administration has been coming under criticism for "dithering" in deciding on a strategy for Afghanistan, and on Sunday White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel responded by arguing that resolving the Afghan election was necessary before a new strategy could be put in place:
Echoing comments from Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, Emanuel said it would be "reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop levels if, in fact, you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether, in fact, there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that the U.S. troops would create."
Is this the administration buying time or making excuses? The two aren't mutually exclusive. A counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan will fail without a legitimate government--and it's not clear there will be one, even after the election situation is resolved, one way or another, so it makes sense to wait before making a decision. There also seem to be few good options here: there's no indication a runoff election would be any less of a disaster than the first one, and Afghans might see a power-sharing agreement as disregarding popular will.
-- A. Serwer
