Round Two

By the looks of it, this NY Times story was going to tell the whole truth:

The Great American Arm-Twist in Afghanistan

KABUL, Afghanistan -- By the looks of it, the ceremony that unfolded last week inside the Presidential Palace here was marking a joyous, even triumphant, occasion.

President Hamid Karzai, flanked by Senator John Kerry and an array of Western ambassadors, had just announced that he would accept the revised vote totals showing that he had not won re-election after all. The president's decision meant the Afghan election would go to a second round, one that Mr. Karzai could conceivably lose.

But rather than acknowledging the (thus far fruitless) Obama administration goal of establishing an Afghanistan government "power sharing" plan (with Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah both on board), a new narrative was established: "It was only Senator Kerry's relentless efforts, and a round-the-clock lobbying press by American and European leaders, that staved off political disaster."

And that, ultimately, was the underlying message in the ceremony announcing Mr. Karzai's concession last week: Mr. Karzai may have agreed to follow the law -- he may have agreed to act in a democratic way -- but he did so only after representatives of the United States, the United Nations and the largest European countries all but pushed him onto the dais to do it.

But while Karzai obviously wanted to avoid a runoff election, his insistence on following the constitutional path is simultaneously:

• An indication of his confidence in winning the runoff - once all votes declared fraudulent for both candidates were eliminated (approx. 200,000 for Abdullah, 900,000 for Karzai) Abdullah Abdullah still trailed Karzai by a wide margin.
• A "tactic" Karzai has used previously - when pressured to step down in favor of an "interim government" in March he "rejected an opposition demand that an interim administration run the country between May 21 and the election, saying there is no such provision in the Constitution."
• And a response that infuriated at least some members of the Obama administration - whose immediate response can be seen in part in the NYT piece from last weekend quoted above.

But that was just a warning shot.

Karzai, however, chose to push back a bit during a CNN appearance this weekend...

ZAKARIA: Now, let me ask you, Mr. President, about widespread concerns in the United States, in Washington in particular, about your government. And I'm going to quote now from something Rahm Emanuel said, the chief of staff of the president, and as you know, a very powerful player in Washington.

He said, the key question we face is, is the government in Afghanistan, is Hamid Karzai's government, a reliable partner for the United States?

How would you answer that question?

KARZAI: Well, we have the same question, too. Is the United States a reliable partner with Afghanistan? Is the West a reliable partner with Afghanistan? Have we received the commitments that we were given? Have we been treated like a partner? And then, how do we define a partnership?

ZAKARIA: There are those, Mr. President, who say that Afghanistan is at such a critical moment, that what we really need is some kind of a national unity government.

Could you conceive of circumstances in which you would be willing to share power with Dr. Abdullah Abdullah and the coalition that he brings?

KARZAI: Afghanistan always had a national unity government. I was, as a matter of fact, blamed by some leaders in the West and the Western press for the last seven years for having been too inclusive. And that was my fault. And I was happy with that fault.

And now that some of the Western countries are asking me to be more inclusive, I'm happy that that recognition has come finally to them that Afghanistan is an inclusive government. I will have an inclusive government, as always.

Dr. Abdullah did not vote for me in 2004 election, but I continued to keep him as the minister of foreign affairs for another year-and-a-half, till the parliament came to a legitimate government, chosen by the Afghan people, arriving through an election. If he wants to come and work in my government, he's most welcome.

But like the New York Times, The Washington Post demonstrated who controls the narrative in the U.S. with their headline "Karzai rules out sharing power"

KABUL -- President Hamid Karzai's team shifted aggressively into campaign mode Saturday and ruled out any possibility of a power-sharing deal with challenger Abdullah Abdullah ahead of a runoff election in two weeks.

"In our view there is no alternative to a second round. This is the only constitutional way to establish a new government" and "put an end to the current crisis," said Karzai's campaign spokesman, Wahid Omar, at a news conference. "All our energy is now focused on preparations for the second round."

Note also the comment above that we're going to do this according to the constitution - the Karzai response now usurped by the "because we forced them to" narrative. (Of which the Karzai camp - having agreed to runoffs only in defiance of the extra-constitutional power sharing option - was probably unaware.)

Meanwhile, challenger Abdullah Abdullah was introduced to Americans via two Sunday morning chat programs - and struck all the right notes for Team Obama on CNN:

KING: Some in the United States have accused the president of dithering, saying that the general on the ground in Afghanistan says he needs the troops, and because of the security situation, the president should act now and then deal with the results of your election.

Others have said, of course, he should wait to see who wins that runoff and who his partner will be in Afghanistan. Is the president undermining the safety of your country, the security of your country, and perhaps even the security of his own troops by waiting?

ABDULLAH: Well, I think to the extent that I can answer your question, John, it's -- if the president of the United States decides today that he is going to send troops, that doesn't mean that they are going to be here tomorrow. It takes months and months before these decisions are implemented.

So, I think it's perhaps right for the president of the United States to see what is, what is then -- that is which is undertaken. That by no chance means that hesitance in the decision. That's, I think, studying the situation in a critical time, so I think the president of the United States is doing the right thing.

WALLACE: There is a big controversy here in the U.S., Dr. Abdullah, about when President Obama should announce the result of his policy review on strategy and troop levels. Would you like to see him announce his decision as soon as possible? Or would you like to see him perhaps delay till after the election because whatever the U.S. decides could be disruptive to the campaign?

ABDULLAH: There is a need for more troops. There is no doubt about it. There are need in Afghanistan. And that's based on military analysis and especially by General McChrystal. At the same time, when is the best time? Of course, even if the decision is made today doesn't mean tomorrow we will have troops -- boots on the ground. It will take time.

WALLACE: If President Obama decides to scale back on U.S. strategy and the number of troops that he sends, what is the danger that the Taliban will overrun the country?

ABDULLAH: The need for more troops is there in order to reverse the situation. If the situation is not reversed from deteriorating further the security situation, so the future of this country will be at risk, and the future of the engagement of the international community will be at risk.

So this situation requires a sort of dramatic increase in the number of troops in order to stop -- stop it from further deteriorating and reversing it. The permanent solution is in a road map that Afghanistan stands on its own feet in a few years down the road, troops -- number of troops could be decreased in Afghanistan, finally, and eventually will stand on its own feet.

But while the clearly politically-adept Abdullah also ruled out a "power sharing" option, indicated Karzai was unreliable, and condemned the fraud associated with the initial election results, his own questionable votes were left unmentioned and unquestioned on both networks.

Still, more troops has always been the promised reward for a more acceptable Afghan government, and in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, Senator John Kerry signaled a likely way forward that downplayed expectations ("Achieving our goals does not require us to build a flawless democracy... what we're talking about is "good-enough" governance"...) but indicated that simply agreeing to runoff elections was not enough:

President Karzai and Dr. Abdullah's decision last week to agree to hold a run-off election shows that both men are willing to put their country ahead of politics. But that result is not an end in itself. It will only matter if we use it as an opening to strengthen our partners and fix the problems of governance. The truth is, the decisions made and actions taken in the weeks and months ahead will be what really give meaning to that moment. If this is to be a turning point, we must strengthen the capacity of the Afghan government and insist that its leaders embrace lasting reforms. This must include addressing the problems caused by corrupt officials at every level of government. Obviously that won't be easy, but it is essential to any chance of success.

If the four brigade option as described here (with an allusion to Senator Kerry's speech) turns out to be that chosen by President Obama, the low-ball number will indicate decided displeasure with the Afghan partner.

Some of the senator's other remarks have already proven to be prescient; these illuminating comments...

If effective governance is to take hold--and I believe our mission depends on it--then our Afghan partners must tackle corruption at the highest levels. The fact that the Afghan government has not prosecuted a single high-level drug trafficker damages all our other efforts because it goes to the question of credibility. The narcotics trade - which generates about 90% of the world's heroin and $3 billion a year in profits - not only fuels the insurgency, but also finances the corruption that corrodes governance.

Brother of Afghan Leader Is Said to Be on C.I.A. Payroll

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in the country's booming illegal opium trade, gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, and has for much of the past eight years, according to current and former American officials.

Part two is here.

Previously:

The Plan Unveiled

Hanky panky

Smokescreen

The wicked game (and parts two, three, four and five)

- via email, facebook, twitter, etc.