WSJ: Kerry emerges as broker for the Obama administration

[karynnj]

This is one of the most detailed accounts. It speaks of how Eikenberry brought Kerry into the issue, how he used the example of Gore 2000, and more on the time line. It also has a pretty sensitive description of how Kharzi saw the election.

According to one Western diplomat, the Afghan president felt more comfortable dealing with Sen. Kerry than with Mr. Eikenberry or the administration's special representative to the region, Richard Holbrooke. Mr. Holbrooke angered Mr. Karzai when he suggested a runoff might be needed shortly after the Aug. 20 election.
<snip>
U.S. and Western officials said the Obama administration latched on to Sen. Kerry as a key broker. In June, he played a similar role in the Obama administration's efforts to build bridges to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, according to Syrian and U.S. officials.

Sen. Kerry was first drawn into the vote fraud crisis Friday when, at a dinner with U.S. troops from Massachusetts, Mr. Eikenberry pulled him aside and told him of fears Mr. Karzai would denounce findings by U.N.-led election investigators of widespread fraud.

That night, Sen. Kerry made his first unscheduled trip to the presidential palace, where the two men, sometimes accompanied by Mr. Eikenberry and sometimes alone, hashed out Mr. Karzai's concerns. "We had lot of hours together and talked about a lot of things, including the American experience in elections, and going back to 1864, Al Gore in 2000," Sen. Kerry said. "I think it helped to put it into a certain framework."

[saltpoint]

1. Recommended.

[knowbody0]

2. thank you, John

[Ian David]

3. At least until James Carville stabs him in the back. n/t

[Cha]

4. Carville better have learned to

keep his knives sharpened for the republicons.

[wisteria]

5. I am no Carville fan and he is a Clinton loyalist, but he knows he wouldn't have a pundit position

now if it wasn't for the Obama administration, so I doubt he will be derogatory toward Kerry. He will just play down Kerry's role in all of this and find a way to heap praise on Clinton's efforts.

[karynnj]

8. I assume Carville may try, but that may work better in American politics

than in hurting his work internationally or in the Senate. Carville harmed him enough in 2004. As a top Democrat on TV, he could have found things in Kerry platform or record to praise - rather than whining that he wasn't like Bill Clinton.

[theoldman]

6. The end result will be that the same crook gets back in office.

We will be back to square one fighting a useless war for the next 10 to 20 years. Who was it who said "He may be an son of a bitch but he is our son of a bitch"

[jeanpalmer]

9. Why did Kerry lower himself

to meet with this clown. Hadn't he heard, Karzai committed massive fraud in the election? Why would you ever meet with fraudster like that? He's our puppet, he should have been disqualified and reassigned to his former position as a lobbyist for Chevron. Kerry persuaded him to submit to another election? Is it lost on Kerry that he's furthering a hoax on the people of Afghanistan by propping up this fraudster? Does he think the people of Afghanistan are so stupid they don't know.

[karynnj]

11. The alternative was a crisis where the interantional organization said it was fraud and he stayed in

office. Would that have been your preference? Where does that lead?

[karynnj]

16. Here is a more complete answer, I posted to your point on another thread

We really need to consider how this could look to the various Afghani groups. (I do not pretend to be an expert on anyone in Afghanistan, but getting a runoff is the thing most consistent with their constitution and it is better than declaring Kharzi the winner or allowing this to become a Constitutional crisis there. I can't think of anything that could lead a more legitimate result that could be accepted by the Afghanis. ) Do I think it automatically will lead to "good enough governance", no, but it seems the best first step. (Kerry's spoke of "turning point" and it has the possibility of being that.)

Here is that post to Jeanpalmer:

What is uncontested is that he got the most legitimate votes in the election. Their constitution requires a run off if the winner has less than 50%, as some of our state have for Senators - as we saw in Georgia.

Do you think it would have respected the Afghan people if the international community forced the exclusion of the top vote getter? Now, the Afghan people have the opportunity to "punish" Kharzi for his fraud or they can re elect him. If this election is clean, which the international community and Afghanistan have a vested interest in insuring, this will give them the fairest possible outcome.

This gets them to where they would have been had there been no fraud. Kharzi would still have number one and Abdullah second. This is indeed fairer than the way the US handled 2000 - where using Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris used a felon list already known to include non-felons mostly black and Haitians were intimidated. (I cite those because those are proven and can't be accidents - though I strongly suspect the butterfly ballot wasn't an "accident" either.) At this point, they can achieve a fair result.

You might want to consider what the impact of your solution would be. Kharzi is Pashtun, the ethnic group of the Taliban. What do you think the reaction of Pashtuns would be to Kharzi being thrown out of the race when he did get the most votes? What would that do to the legitimacy of an election maybe between the next two?

In fact, the Humpty Dumpty analogy is perfect as Kerry and the rest of the international community managed to do was to put the election right back to where it would have been with no fraud - a runoff between the top two vote getters.

[sandnsea]

7. So glad he was there

And becoming more pleased every day that he has the flexibility to make these kinds of engagements.

[vaberella]

10. Wow, thanks for this info Karynnj.

Kerry is a great political player. Good God, so many good guys in Congress and during Bush all these guys were being snuffed out. Just another reason I'm glad the tide has turned and we're getting to see whats going on.

[alsame]

12. He's going to the White House this morning to brief the

President. I heard that on CNN, but they didn't say if there would be a public statement from them or not.

[karynnj]

13. I would guess the media will try to get a photo, but yesterday's statement probably suffices

I would never understate Senator Kerry's contribution, but it is right that the focus of Obama's statement was on Kharzi. Reading the many articles, I think it has been too easy to demonize Kharzi. The fact is his government has been extremely corrupt, but some of the official praise was valid. Becoming President of Afghanistan was stepping into a difficult, risky job.

As a leader of the Pashtuns, Afghanistan will need him if he loses to try to retain their support for the government as opposed to joining the mostly Pashtun Taliban. If he wins - which is more likely given that even the UN numbers show him at near 50% against many opponents, I would hope the same persuasion could be used to get him to fight the internal corruption that has crippled his government.

[Jennicut]

14. Excellent analysis as always. I have been really critical of Karzai like so many others here

but you are right. If he did lose power where would the Pashtuns go? Where would their support be? I had not really though of that problem.

[alsame]

15. Agreed. The situation will be fragile at best and President Obama

will have to support Kharzi's attempts to get a legitimate govt going.

[BeyondGeography]

17. No better man for the job

[ginnyinWI]

18. Kerry and Holbrooke are great, but what happened to the Sec-State?

Is Hillary being side-stepped or what? Is it normal to farm out jobs like this to someone else? Maybe I'm confused about the job description of a Secretary of State, but I thought he/she had the job of representing the President to foreign entities.

[ProSense]

19. It's not an either or as the media sometimes tries to portray it.

Hillary has a role and she runs the State Department. Kerry has his responsibilities as SFRC chair.

History of the Committee

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee was established in 1816 as one of the original ten standing committees of the Senate. Throughout its history, the committee has been instrumental in developing and influencing United States foreign policy, at different times supporting and opposing the policies of presidents and secretaries of state.

The committee has considered, debated, and reported important treaties and legislation, ranging from the purchase of Alaska in 1867 to the establishment of the United Nations in 1945. It also holds jurisdiction over all diplomatic nominations. Through these powers, the committee has helped shape foreign policy of broad significance, in matters of war and peace and international relations. Members of the committee have assisted in the negotiation of treaties, and at times have helped to defeat treaties they felt were not in the national interest.
The

[Mass]

20. Hillary Clinton was in contact with Kerry all the time, as I understand it.

And,no, the Secretary of State does not do every single negotiation. Other people do it as well. (Webb went to Burma, for example). The surprising thing is that it was not the envoy that did the negotiation, but the rumor has it that Holbrooke was too abrasive.

[karynnj]

21. That is the role, but it is never just the Secretary of State doing that

The fact is that even in calmer times, there are not enough days in the week, for one person to do this. Here, the man who was leading this was Ambassador Eikenberry, who is a career diplomat. Clinton not being there does not reflect badly on her.

Kerry was not sent there by Obama to deal with this crisis that they did not see coming when Kerry made his trip plans. Eikenberry pulled Senator Kerry into the effort and both he and Kerry kept Clinton informed. Given the time line, by the time it was realized there was a problem (I think Friday) and that it would have likely taken at least a day to get Clinton there, it wouldn't make sense. If Kerry were not there, it might have been the best solution. But as he was there, especially because Kerry actually has a longer, deeper relationship with Kharzi than Clinton does.

A fairer question is where was Holbrooke.

[ginnyinWI]

22. Update: Kerry speaking to reporters outside WH

I'm listening on XM radio so I have no idea whether this is on TV or not. But just listening to him speak and answer questions, he sounds like an absolute expert on the issues at hand. Obama is lucky he was there to be able to handle this situation in person! And I do whole-heartly nominate him to be the next Secretary of State! Maybe it's just me, but he seems far more expert than any one else I've heard lately on Afghanistan.