How about this guy, am I right?
As Andrew Exum writes, the reports of voter fraud in Afghanistan are extremely problematic for the legitimacy of both the Afghan and U.S. governments. The United States, especially in the context of the Iranian election, cannot be seen as supporting a fraudulent election in a client state. Within the context of the Afghan conflict itself, the U.S. is strategically dependent on being perceived as a legitimate ally of the Afghan people. For the Afghan government, well, if it is to become an effective government and alternative to the Taliban, it cannot be perceived as undemocratic. I think Matt really gets to the heart of the matter as he analyzes the response of the U.S. government, which feels the need to maintain good relations with Hamid Karzai even as Karzai has acted in all kinds of ways to undermine that relationship:In one possible universe Hamid Karzai and his government require a large deployment of American forces to prevent the country from being taken over by the Taliban, in which case he seems unlikely to be “alienated” by an investigation of vote-rigging. In another possible universe, Karzai and his government don’t require a large deployment of American forces to prevent the country from being taken over by the Taliban, in which case we ought to be investigating why we’re deploying a large quantity of American forces to Afghanistan. The universe the article inhabits seems to be one in which Karzai and his government require a large deployment of American forces to prevent the country from being taken over by the Taliban, but somehow don’t realize that.Indeed. While Karzai's position in the country's ethnic politics gives him a certain amount of power as a stakeholder, it seems plain that he needs American help more than America needs his help, and dissembling around the fact would be a serious analytical mistake. But even more, if the U.S. is counting on a counterinsurgency campaign as the most effective way to create security and build state capacity in Afghanistan -- which seems to be right -- one of the key assumptions is that our third-party efforts are on behalf of a legitimate second party. Exum has observed before that a wrinkle in our counterinsurgency strategy is that we are a working on behalf of an elected government that is not our own. If that government isn't considered legitimate by its own electorate, much less by the insurgents we are trying to convince that democratic governance is a good idea, then the U.S. has a fundamental problem.That doesn't mean, though, this election can't be salvaged. A unity government between Karzai and his primary rival, Abdullah Abdullah, may be a good solution. A run-off election would work as well, presuming fraud does not reappear and violence can be contained. For now, we await the results of the Electoral Complaints Commission's investigation, which may rule that fraud was not a significant factor -- which would raise, I think, even more questions.
-- Tim Fernholz
