Obligatory Afghan election post

Two pretty hard line views:

1) Wall St. Journal:

Waiting for Obama
Hamid Karzai isn't the biggest problem in Afghanistan.

...
The Obama Administration...hurt its own cause by preparing inadequately for the election, and by broadcasting so publicly its distaste for Mr. Karzai. Both Vice President Joe Biden and special envoy Richard Holbrooke had showdowns with the Afghan leader that were ostentatiously leaked. The point seems to have been to show they could be tougher on Mr. Karzai than President Bush was. But the price of that pique is that they now have less influence as they press the Afghan to improve the competence of his government. However imperfect, Mr. Karzai is our man whether we like it or not.

In any event, it's remarkable to hear liberals claim that we should give up on Afghanistan because it isn't a perfect democracy after claiming the Bush Administration was naive to try to build democracy in Iraq or anywhere in the Middle East. Was their support for "the good war" merely a cynical way to look hawkish while opposing President Bush on Iraq?

The strategic reality is that we're fighting in Afghanistan in our own national security interest—to defeat al Qaeda and deny it a safe haven either on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border or once again inside Afghanistan. Those Taliban who would protect al Qaeda must also be defeated. This is why Mr. Obama called it a necessary war.

General Stanley McChrystal, the Afghan theater commander, has done his duty and requested the 40,000 troops that he says are a minimum to implement the strategy that Mr. Obama himself announced in March. A counterinsurgency that has a primary goal of securing the Afghan people can prevail and is already doing so in parts of the country where it is being tried. We also know from Iraq that such a strategy can yield results relatively quickly if it is done with enough troops.

The Joe Biden alternative of attacking al Qaeda from afar without local intelligence gathered from the population isn't likely to work. For strategic judgment, we'll take Generals McChrystal and David Petraeus over Mr. Biden and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel every time.

The main problem now isn't Afghanistan's President. It is that no one in Washington or around the world is sure whether America's President is committed to his own strategy—or even if he'll stick with that strategy if he reaffirms it...

Most important, the American people will quickly lose faith in a war that they conclude their Commander in Chief is ambivalent about fighting. Reports of puzzled commanders and troops in the field are already multiplying as they wonder why they're risking death by IED if Mr. Obama isn't sure about the mission...

2) Terry Glavin:

It Will Have To Do.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Like him or not, and no matter the apprehended fraud committed on his behalf during the recent elections, Afghan president Hamid Karzai is obviously and clearly "the legitimate leader of the country," say the Americans. Like it or not, this is correct...

...Sometimes, you just have to choose sides and bloody well get on with it, and the civilized world has chosen sides. In the words of UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon: "We will not be deterred. We cannot be deterred. We must not be deterred, and the work of the United Nations will continue."

Back to work. Allons-y. Until victory...

On the other side, the former deputy head of the UN mission in Afstan, Peter Galbraith:

Karzai was hellbent on victory. Afghans will pay the price
The declaration of victory caps weeks of farce and failure, especially for the UN. To send more troops now would be a waste

Afghanistan's presidential election is over, and it was a fiasco. The decision by the Independent Election Commission (IEC) to cancel the second round and declare the incumbent, Hamid Karzai, the victor concludes a process that undermined Afghanistan's nascent democracy. In the US and Europe, the fraud-tainted elections halted the momentum for President Obama's new Afghanistan strategy and undercut support for sending more troops.

The election was effectively over on Sunday when Karzai's remaining rival, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, announced he would not run. Abdullah Abdullah did not withdraw because he calculated he could not win, as some have uncharitably implied, but because he knew the election would not be honest. Indeed, in an honest election, he might have had a chance...

Unfortunately, we now have to live with the consequences. Before the election, Karzai was seen both at home and abroad as ineffective and tolerating corruption. Now, many Afghans see him as illegitimate while large parts of the public in the troop-contributing countries consider him irredeemably tainted by the fraud. Western leaders say they will work with Karzai, as they must, but he cannot be an effective partner in Obama's enhanced counter-insurgency strategy. And without an effective Afghan partner, the strategy will not work...

For now...Karzai is not a legitimate partner to the west and there is no immediate prospect of necessary change. Under these circumstances, sending more troops to Afghanistan to implement a counter-insurgency strategy is a waste of precious military resources. Hamid Karzai was determined to win Afghanistan's presidential elections without regard to the cost to his country and to the international military mission. He succeeded, and Afghanistan and its foreign friends will now pay the very steep price.

Plus a wrap-up of stories from Foreign Policy's "AfPak Daily Brief".