Karzai and Obama in a battle of wills
Presidents Hamid Karzai and Barack Obama are now locked in a contest over how to respond to the verdict of the Electoral Complaints Commission that the Afghan leader failed to reach the required 50% in August's first round of voting.
The commission, which is funded by the international community, has disallowed hundreds of thousands of Mr Karzai's votes, under suspicion of fraud.
Yesterday the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said that the US would not move ahead with US troop reinforcements unless Mr Karzai resolved the issue - either by accepting there must be a further round of voting with the leading challenger, Dr Abdullah, or sharing power with him.
The issue has turned into a highly unusual public diplomatic battle of wills.
Last Thursday Said Jawad, the Afghan ambassador in Washington, appeared to indicate publicly that Mr Karzai had accepted the need for a second round.
This brought comments from White House sources that if he did so, the embattled Afghan leader would "wipe clean" the slate after the disputed first round of elections.
The way would then be clear for the US to increase its military and civilian commitment in Afghanistan.
The White House knows that Mr Obama's Democratic party base regard Mr Karzai as a figure tainted by the allegations of electoral fraud.
This is why it is so important for the Afghan leader to accept either another round of voting, or power sharing, before the troop announcement is made.
Washington had already assured the British government that it intended to increase its troop strength in Afghanistan substantially.
Newsnight's revelation of this last Wednesday drew repeated denials from Mr Obama's spokesman.
After Mr Jawad's comments it is apparent that the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s revelation threatened to ease the pressure on Mr Karzai, which was the last thing the White House wanted at that moment.
So where does this leave us now? There is a Plan A in which the apparent understandings communicated to people in the British government and the Afghan ambassador in Washington get back on track:
Mr Karzai agrees to share power with his rival, Dr Abdullah, or fight him again at the polls, paving the way for the US to announce it will boost its commitment to the country.
But if Mr Karzai refuses, a Plan B will be needed.
I'm Mark Urban, and I'm Newsnight's diplomatic and defence editor. I deal with war and peace around the world, so with apologies to Leo Tolstoy, that's what this blog will be called. No literary pretensions, just an attempt to drill down to the key issues - people around the world struggling for peace and security.
Comment number 1.
At 19th Oct 2009, bookhimdano wrote:its time the military oath was about defending law and the people rather than the hereditary and sectarian privileges of one family?
the recent mi5 book is called 'defence of the realm'. Realm is hardly a republican mindset term? treason laws are not about going to fight with the taliban but in suggesting someone other than the monarch is head of state. which is just a gagging law. so essentially the security services are oath bound to see 'the british people' as a potential enemy to the hereditary privileges of one family?
in a bizarre joke our troops are fighting and we are paying to establish in other countries a level of democratic principle we do not have here. a military offensive in the uk to establish the same democratic principle as in iraq and afghanistan [an elected head of state and upper chamber] would be seen as treason by the establishment?
you can't make it up.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 19th Oct 2009, bookhimdano wrote:1. i meant to put that in the other army thread.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 19th Oct 2009, barriesingleton wrote:WHEN THE PIE WAS OPENED
"Karzai and Obama in a battle of wills" By the time those wills are read, one of those guys is going to be ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)