I’ve seen a lot of very different reactions to the elections in Afghanistan in the last day or so. Some seem inclined to focus on voting irregularities that undeniably marred the day. Others marvel at the fact that elections took place at all, and especially without any of the widespread violence that many people, including myself, feared prior to the vote.

Behind the different reactions to the vote, I think it’s possible to discern two rival standards that people are probably applying, either consciously or unconsciously. If I’m right, then perhaps thinking a bit about those standards will help to get us clearer on our own reactions. Let’s call the first standard the “relative standard,” not because it’s relativistic, but because its main point of reference is where Afghanistan is today relative to where it was prior to the war. Let’s call the second standard the “counterfactual standard,” because its main point of reference is where Afghanistan is today relative to where it could, and should, be, given the various promises made, resources spent, opportunities presented by the initial invasion, and so on.

Actually, it simplifies things too much to pretend that any observer is assuming just one or the other standard in reacting to the election. My own reaction is a mix of both. I am very pleasantly surprised that no widespread violence marred the election. And although Afghanistan still has a very long way to go, that there was a vote at all, and that women were strongly encouraged to participate, is an accomplishment, and a genuine improvement over the way things were not very long ago. Despite the irregularities, which may well spell long-term pain for the country, I’m happy about the fact that, at least in some ways that matter, Afghanistan is better off today than it was before the war, under the Taliban.

It probably won’t surprise long-time readers to know that I also take the counterfactual standard very seriously, and that it dominates my overall impression of the day. If Afghanistan is better today, it is much, much worse off than it could or should be by this point. I don’t see how anyone can deny that the decision to underman and underfund the occupation of Afghanistan, and to rely on warlord proxies, led to plenty of missed opportunities and broken promises. (And I don’t see how anyone can deny that that decision was at least partly due to a desire to save troops for Iraq.) But don’t take my word for it. Take Karzai’s. The man has been pleading for more help for almost as long as he’s been getting forgotten in administration budget requests.

And these missed opportunities make it rational to fear for the future. If Afghanistan is better in some respects now than before the war, there is still a legitimate worry that, partly because of mistakes made, the gains will be temporary, and that eventually Afghanistan will look bleak even by the relative standard.

(The question of whether the counterfactual standard is a sensible one is distinct from the question of whether I’m applying the counterfactual standard properly. I think the notion that we ought to take the counterfactual standard seriously should be pretty uncontroversial. I accept that my application of that standard might be controversial.)

I think if you’re inclined to let the relative standard dominate your impression of the vote, the counterfactual crowd is going to strike you as sour, ungenerous, and irrationally unwilling to credit George W. Bush with any accomplishments, no matter how genuine. If you’re inclined to let the counterfactual standard dominate your impression, the relative standard crowd might well strike you as rank partisans who have their heads in the sand. Well, whatever. I think that both standards will be relevant to a balanced view, but that the relative standard matters most to the question of how well Afghanistan is doing, and the counterfactual standard matters most to the question of how well the Bush administration (and, to a lesser extent, the rest of the world) is doing on Afghanistan.

Howls of outrage (3)

Oy vey:

The UN in Afghanistan says not a penny of the money the international community has pledged for elections due in September has been handed over. It says that if the funds do not come through soon, the vote is in danger of being further delayed. The polls were originally supposed to happen this month. The warning relates to money promised for the actual voting process – to buy items such as voting screens and ballot papers and hiring electoral staff.

More from the BBC.

Nada (0)

9 Afghan Police Officers Are Killed in Attack by Insurgents

I’m afraid this is it. The last chance in a long time to save Afghanistan from complete ruin is slipping through our fingers.

They took their eye off the ball, thought they could do everything. Rumsfield and co. loved the momentum, knew their quick military victory in Afghanistan would give them another chance. Now things are falling apart.

This was predictable. And many people predicted it. And yet, and yet, they wouldn’t listen.

Nada (0)