Emanuel: Gov't in Kabul Must Be Credible

White House Advisor Says It's Up to Afghans to Have Leaders Seen as Legitimate, and an Effective Partner in Securing Region

(CBS)  President Obama's chief advisor denied that the lack of stability in Afghanistan's government, owing to the disputed election, would mean a delay in the president's decision over whether to send more U.S. troops there.

But White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation" today, agreed with an assessment made by Sen. John Kerry that stability in Afghan is vital to the success of the United States' mission there.

"It's not a matter of delay; the review will continue," Rahm Emanuel said on CBS' "Face the Nation" today. "The review will continue the next week and the following week.

"What I think Senator Kerry was pointing to, which is absolutely correct - which is the essential part of the strategy or a key component or a leg on the stool - is an Afghan partner that is ready to take control of both the security situation in Afghanistan [and] the civilian side of that."

The possibility that a U.N.-backed panel's imminent report on the recount will mandate a runoff has increased pressure on Karzai to commit to accepting its findings. A power-sharing agreement between the political opponents has also been suggested, given the difficulties said to face staging a runoff election in the Afghan winter.

"What's most important about that process is that there's a credibility and legitimacy to the government at the end of that process," Emanuel said. "So which road will they choose? That's up to them. It must be legitimate and credible in the eyes of the Afghan people."

CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan

John Dickerson, host of CBSNews.com's "Washington Unplugged," asked if the White House was putting pressure on Karzai to take one of those two roads. "This isn't just about the afghan people; it's about our national security," he said.

Emanuel said the situation would be worse if Afghans thought that the course chosen by its leaders was chosen at the determination of the United States. "Then it would lose the legitimacy and the credibility to the Afghan people," he said.

Emanuel also noted that neighboring Pakistan has its own views about more U.S. troops in Afghanistan. "A decision about Afghanistan has ramifications to the region, which is why we have strategy that's comprehensive in its review," he said.

"The strategic review on whether to send more troops is only one piece of the puzzle," Emanuel said. "Important piece, but the puzzle is much more complicated than that. Because when you're creating, what the American forces would be expected to do is in General McChrystal's report, is create a space and an opportunity to the Afghans to fill. And the question is, do you have a credible partner that could then fill that space that we're asking the American troops to create?"

Emanuel said that what is clear after the meetings and review over the Afghan policy is, "this war for eight years was adrift. There really wasn't any build-up of the army, the police, or the civilian side of delivering services to the different parts of the region. We are starting literally from scratch on that key component."

Dickerson asked if Mr. Obama will make his decision on an Afghan strategy ("including all of those little many legs of the stool") before there is an answer about the makeup of the government in Kabul?

"The review will be ongoing," Emanuel said. "We're getting closer and closer to where the president wants to be, but the review will go on."

Most important, Emanuel added, is that there be a government there that is seen as legitimate to its people, "and has the credibility to be a partner in the effort to secure Afghanistan so it's not a haven for al Qaeda or other type of terrorists or international terrorist organizations."

On the matter of health care reform, Emanuel spoke against inaction, citing a recent report by the Business Roundtable that showed health premiums will rise: "If you do nothing, if you defend the status quo, you're guaranteed to see health care costs go up by 10%, the largest increase in over a decade."

[Actually the prospect is even more dire than Emanuel suggested: the Business Roundtable Report "Health Care Reform: The Perils of Inaction and the Promise of Effective Action" says that without reform employer-based health care costs will rise 166% by 2019.]

On the matter of a public option (which President Obama and the House have backed, and which is facing opposition in the Senate), Emanuel said the president does believe a public plan is important for competition, particularly in parts of the country where a single health care company dominates the market. "That's where the largest premium increases are," he said. "The public option brings that type of competition and the downward pressure on prices and cost."

But Emanuel also said that Mr. Obama doesn't see a public option as defining the entire process of health care reform.

He also disputed the suggestion that Mr. Obama has not pushed Congress enough to accept a public plan. "The president has been actively involved," he said. "You're at this historic moment where all committees report in the coming weeks, we're going to go to the floor - which has not happened in any previous health care debate. That has happened because of the efforts by Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid and also the efforts of the White House to continue to move that process forward. We're at this historic juncture because the White House literally for eight months has been working the process and offering guidance and counsel.

"Lastly, each of the bills, while different in major areas, are very similar, which also tells you why . . . we couldn't have gotten to this point if it wasn't for the efforts put in by all the parties."

On the issue of Wall Street executive bonuses, which as reported this week are once again generous despite the president's call last March for bankers to show restraint ("Excess is out of fashion," he said), Emanuel replied, "Well, you've seen what we've seen. What is very frustrating, John, is literally about nine months ago to a year ago when all Wall Street froze up - and with it the economy froze up - they came and the only people that could help them were the government, i.e., the taxpayers, to help bail them out.

"We did that, to stabilize the situation," he said. "What's worse is that they literally after they've gotten a sense of stability and came at the request of the taxpayers to bail them out, they are now literally lobbying against the very reforms that would prevent this very issue."

He said a bill being marked up in Congress this week is "essential" to protecting consumers. "The entire effort here is to do two things: Protect consumers from financial fraud and irregularities and from hidden costs and second is to make sure that the financial sector does not take on the reckless type of risk that literally takes the economy over a cliff."

But he acknowledged that there are some areas (like regulating compensation of private sector employees) where government is limited in what it can do. "The bonus is an issue because people are frustrated that Wall Street is back to behavior having just basically four months ago been in a different situation, and the only way they got out of it is through the good graces of the government and the taxpayers."

[bgbgl]

Is something wrong with John Dickerson? He seemed abrupt with Rahm Emanuel at times and cut off at times when the viewer could have gained more information. We were left dangling at the end of his interview when a final point was to be made. Does he have a problem with the White House administration? All my research so far shows that should not be the case. Yet he appeared more relaxed with the follow up questions to John Cornyn and fine later with an earlier interview with John Kerry. Mr. Emanuel made it clear we are not yet sure just what kind of government is evolving in Afghanistan. I agree we certainly do not want to sacrifice troops in a country that is not yet credible and may be a poor place to put further troops. Mr. Dickerson is agressive and sharp but I wish he had allowed the White House to talk. Mr. Emanuel represented the White House and I chose to watch Face the Nation to hear this man. By the way we have left Katie for another major network because the reporting is not solid or complete as it used to be. When we researched its stories later we often found many missing parts. I hope the way Face the Nation is operating lately (sorry Mr. Schieffer) is making me question if CBS is really getting us all the information or slanting things slightly. I hope not.

[Ms_enza]

Wouldn't whatever government we establish be credible?

Looking through all the governments we've recognized in the last 50 years or so, and discarding the ones that were obviously rigged by, say, Halliburton or the United Fruit Company, I wonder what our batting average has been for putting in power at least acceptable leaders?

I'm guessing it's pretty low, but maybe that's because the failures make the news and the successes don't:
The Taliban and Karsai were both our creations, as was Saddam Hussein. I think we "elected" Noriega, and we certainly supported Peron and all the repressive governments of El Salvador, plus of course the PRI in Mexico ...

[stn_sage]

When has the U.S. ever cared that the government of the country we're intervening in is beloved 'by the locals'! We haven't, that's ridiculous! They only pertinent matter is, whatever govt is seated allowed us to be there...that's it.

Both Emanuel and Kerry are full of it! They're trying to 'buy time' for Obama to delay his having to make the decision to escalate there!

Mr. Obama is losing credibility with the U.S. public, even his own base want him to take us out of Afghanistan. If he expands Bush's war, he's hurting Dems in elections next year and himself in 2012!

Mr. Obama is straddling the divide between keeping the war going while APPEARING to be working to end it...and the public is being played as 'suckers!'

[Turbidite]

When did Rahm Emanuel become the Middle East Tsar? I guess George Mitchell and Sec. Clinton have been sidelined. Big surprise there!

[donbl1]

Obama has been looking for an excuse for weeks to support his inability to make a decision - any decision.

They finally have settled on the election.

I guess the Taliban will stop attacking US troops during the period of indecisiveness.

[salmoc44]

The Taliban doesn't exist anymore if George Bush Jr. had any credibility. Jr. said the Taliban had ceased to exist. I guess Bush made his decision and decided that the Taliban was extinct. Great decision, right?

"And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence. And the people of Afghanistan are now free."

George Bush
Sept. 2004

[mnbrant]

I guess what I have been saying all along is that the govt in Kabul (govt in all of Afghanistan might be a little too much for the US. right now.) must be strong, AND, resources must start flowing to the people, AND, we must build more infrastructure in Afghanistan. (1.4 billion in infrastructure builds is very weak gesture and pretty much shows we are not interested in the betterment of the Afghani people. We do not need to build schools right now as they would probably be bombed. As it is unlikely that we are going to beat the Taliban on the field it would behoove us to negiotate from a position of strength rather than the extremely weak position we find ourselves in now. That way we can head home with our heads held high. We do want to send our troops home eventually don't we?

[es48]

This just an attempt to shift the blame and responsibility and relieve the pressure so that the administration can focus on its chosen agenda. Neither the Afghan or Iraqi governments have ever been or ever will be true partners or legitimate governments in the eyes of the people. When you are elected President and there's a war going on, you have to deal with it instead of ignoring it no matter who got us involved or how we got involved. Afghans did not ask us to invade their country. You can't shirk your duty as the Commander in Chief with a PR spin.

[abby_del_abbey]

The Bush administration dropped the ball in Afghanistan and went on a fool's errand in Iraq for Bush's own ego and Bush & Cheney's oil buddies so Bush could claim "Mission Accomplished" and their friends could get at Iraq's oil, which isn't happening by the way.

We wasted the opportunity we really had early on to help Afghanistan. Now the Taliban is back; the drug traffickers are back full force.

The Karzai government is not credible; it's corrupt and tainted with the drug trade. We are propping up a government the people of Afghanistan neither trust nor want.

Shades of Vietnam --

The extremists are all over Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere around the world.

So why are we wasting lives, money, resources there? We could be rebuilding America -- spending our tax dollars on jobs and green technology here, but no the military industrial complex, the contractors, and even the generals, want our tax dollars to be wasted on a never-ending war against terrorism.

There will always be such wars as long as there are religious extremists....

[DL713]

Attacking FoxNews? Not a smart strategy, Rahm. It brings up everyones fear of Nazis, Hitler, Stalin and Mao, who suppressed the news in order to establish their agenda. You can do better.

[salmoc44]

"It brings up everyones fear of Nazis, Hitler, Stalin and Mao, who suppressed the news in order to establish their agenda"

No it doesn't. Beyond Teabagger types, it simply doesn't.

[PorterRockwell]

Inventing facts? Not a smart strategy, Wingnut. It brings up all of the lies and distortions that everyone has come to expect from Fox. After reviewing this article and half a dozen others, the only one that screams about Rahm attacking Fox is ... (Surprise!) Fox! They're still milking it for all they can get. They can do better. (But they won't.)

[rsamps1]

It is an embarassing lesson that enough Americans voted for an inept leader like George W. Bush to get elected/selected- twice. He did virtually nothing right.

[abby_del_abbey]

Bush mucked up everything he touched -- from Afghanistan, Katrina, and the economy -- he has got to be the worst president in US history. Unfortunately, it will take decades to undo the damage his and Cheney's malfeasance has done....

[brian1920]

Inept? Obama's deficit is almost $1.5 T for this year alone. His stimulus package is a farce. His foreign policy is inept and the Russians have made a complete fool of him, he is going to tax everybody regardless as to what he promised, his Tax and cap will cost even more, he is inserting the federal government into many areas that it has no business, he is in the union's pocket, The Iranians will have a nuke and Obama's opinion is irrelevant, he is trying to control internet content, and he is trying to shut Fox News. This is an incredible record of failure and of being completely out of step with America.

[stuart-johns2]

I clicked "Read the Story" and got a blank page. I guess White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is the Whitehouse Chief of Staff. I agree.