Somehow I cannot help but feel futility for this absolutely absurd election, of the nation of Afghanistan. I think the question of betterment for Afghanistan does not lie with the central government, but with the local governments; with the regional warlords, authorities, and the allegiance of the people to those regional power players. Afghanistan has been ruled for centuries by small regional players with their own customs, militias and allegiances, with central authority proving disastrous (for example, British Rule) and prosperity coming only when Central authority recognized and respected the value of those regional power players in providing a root level security(Durrani Empire).

These regional players react hard, and react harshly to imposed central authority, especially by foreign influences, like the Russians, the British, and now the United States with NATO. And with the current, and future governments of Afghanistan's power and security backed by a foreign power, stability and prosperity is a mirage still to be realized.

These foreign powers impose their model of government and the idea of the "Nation State" on Afghanistan, where no such idea has ever taken hold, and allegiances and world view of the Afghans (if u could so called them in a single term) remain regional and scantily united. This the Taliban understands, and manipulates to their advantage in continuing their insurgency. No wonder this election proceeded so smoothly.

The issue of Afghanistan, therefore, cannot hardly be seen from a Realist's perspective of the nation state (no offense to you) and its central government elected by the People as being the main player for source of stability and prosperity of the region. The regional powers must be the new, and a more pivotal focus of the United States in this war than the central government in trying to uproot the insurgency and in delivering, in your words, "more direct and tangible benefits." With little improvement in the People's lives since the last election, what little hope they had in a central authority is quickly dissipating. The People seem to understand this as well, as seen in the dismal turnouts of this election.

too bad our "war of choice" in afghanistan is jeopardizing future "wars of choice", isnt it?

utter bullshit

and we have to shoot a few canadians to get that oil...

well, hell, we cant shoot you canadians just now, because we're sort of preoccupied with shooting afghans.

maybe next year.

...so mainstream...

then the worst that can happen to us is not bad enough.

Malalai Joya

"Like millions of Afghans, I have no hope in the results of this week's election. In a country ruled by warlords, occupation forces, Taliban insurgency, drug money and guns, no one can expect a legitimate or fair vote.

Among the people on the street, a common sentiment is, 'Everything has already been decided by the U.S. and NATO, and the real winner has already been picked by the White House and Pentagon.' Although there are a total of 41 candidates running for president, the vast majority of them are well known faces responsible for the current disastrous situation in Afghanistan.

Hamid Karzai has cemented alliances with brutal warlords and fundamentalists in order to maintain his position. Although our Constitution forbids war criminals from running for office, he has named two notorious militia commanders as his vice-presidential running mates -- Qasim Fahim, who was, at the time of the 2001 invasion, the warlord who headed up the Northern Alliance, and Karim Khalili. The election commission did not reject them or a number of others accused of many crimes, and so the list of candidates also includes former Russian puppets and a former Taliban commander."

Why do we allow our minds to be trapped in an all or nothing pattern of thought? Is it in our national interests to be faced with only a the choice of a victory or a defeat? Military intervention seems to breed that kind of a way of thinking. Since we will never get 100% of what we want, we continually set-up ourselves for a big defeat.

How about a healthy discussion about continually improving our political competence in Afghanistan and the rest of Central Asia? How about doing a discussion about what interests we have in that region? Then, after those discussions, we could discuss worthwhile and achievable objectives and strategies to achieve those objectives.

We just might figure-out that escalating our military intervention is irrelevant to our real interests and strategies. For that matter, elections may not be a big deal either.

Bob Spencer

a deeply flawed electoral process wouldn't matter if Karzai or Abdullah nonetheless managed to implement more effective policies, root out corruption, coopt contending warlords, and help make sure that external aid programs deliver more direct and tangible benefits.

Are you entirely certain on that? While there is no question that the actions of the Afghan government will have a major role in setting up its own legitimacy (one reason why the Taliban have any support at all is because they're seen as brutal but honest and swift), the democratic elections do have some symbolic value provided they are not seen as false and corrupt by the greater aggregate of Afghans.

lest we find ourselves unable to contend with other wars, of choice or of necessity, if and when they arise.

There's a good Robert Kagan editorial in the WaPo pointing out why Haas's distinction is almost meaningless. For the US, isolated from conventional warfare by two oceans and weak neighbors, pretty much anything but a direct invasion of the homeland is a "war of choice" to some degree - but that doesn't mean that there aren't some major stakes. Korea was technically a war of choice, but the consequences for not getting involved would have been severe (our European allies, for example, probably would have then believed that when push came to shove, the US wouldn't defend them - sort of like how De Gaulle came to that conclusion later).

I was wondering what Prof. Walt thought about Bob Kagan's Washington Post op-ed? I actually thought it was much more Realist than Haas' false distinction. He sounded like a classical realist and not only because he quoted Niebuhr. Obviously Kagan was turning the realist argument on its head to argue that Iraq was a great idea and no different from Afghanistan, but he acknowledged what realists have been saying since the Cold War ended: there is almost no scenario, even 9/11, that threatens the nation's survival.

The war of choice vs. necessity distinction is much less interesting and useful than the "war of aggression" vs. "war of miscalculation" distinction that realists have focused on since the beginning.