U.S. uses runoff strategy in Afghan election

President Barack Obama’s relief at the agreement that could quiet the political crisis over Afghanistan’s spoiled election masks his predicament as he weighs an expansion of the unpopular Afghanistan war.

The administration says its ambitious plans for Afghanistan rely on a “credible partner” in Kabul. But there is no guarantee that the hastily arranged voting will confer the legitimacy the fraudulent Aug. 20 election lacked.

No matter who wins the November election runoff that Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai agreed to during pressured consultations with American leaders, the United States is wedded to a shaky government in which corruption has become second nature.
Obama pointed to the Nov. 7 runoff as “a path forward in order to complete this election process.” He said nothing about his deliberations over what could be a huge surge of U.S. armed forces in Afghanistan, a calculation badly thrown off by the botched August voting.

For the U.S., a runoff emerged as perhaps the least bad option to restore momentum and the important perception that Afghans themselves are invested in their government and its success. Karzai’s chief political rival, Abdullah Abdullah, agreed Wednesday to participate in the runoff.

“You have to learn from mistakes, and everybody needs to do that here,” said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who stood with Karzai for an awkward announcement of the runoff plan.

Another election risks the same fraud that derailed the Aug. 20 vote, and the same risk of inciting violence and increasing ethnic divisions.

If there are any more delays, the vote could also be hampered by winter snows that block off much of the north of the country starting mid-November.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama has not decided whether to move ahead with a revamped strategy, and the prospect of more troops, before results of the runoff are known. Gibbs told reporters he still expects that decision within weeks.

The Taliban will surely try to disrupt the voting again, and turnout is expected to be low in areas where voters were intimidated.

“Another election where there’s no credible government to operate with continues to undermine our reason for being there,” said Richard “Ozzie” Nelson, a former White House counterterrorism expert now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It would push us further down the slippery slope of what to do next.”

Anne Gearan has covered U.S. national security issues for The Associated Press since 2004.