Afghani-Stunner

And while I may have my problems with Rahm Emanuel on Obamacare, on Afghanistan he's just handed the GOP enough rope to hang all of them on the issue.

"The president is asking the questions that have never been asked on the civilian side, the political side, the military side and the strategic side," White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN's "State of the Union."

Among the things the Obama administration wants to know from Afghan leaders: "Do you have a credible Afghan partner for this process that can provide the security and the type of services that the Afghan people need?"

The United States faces "a much more complex decision" than just determining the appropriate level of troops, Emanuel told CNN chief national correspondent John King in a rare interview.

"It's clear that basically we had a war for eight years that was going on, that's adrift, that we're beginning at scratch, just at the starting point ... and that there's not a security force, an army, and the types of services that are important for the Afghans to become a true partner," Emanuel said.

Echoing comments from Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, Emanuel said it would be "reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop levels if, in fact, you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether, in fact, there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that the U.S. troops would create."

That thumping sound is the Karzai government just being tossed under the bus, but both Emanuel and Sen. Kerry have a point: if the Karzai government isn't legitimate, there's no reason for us to try to prop it up with more troops.

This is a good sign if it's used to start reducing troop numbers in Afghanistan. It's a bad sign however if the delay is simply used to create a crisis that would "require us to intervene with massive force."

We'll see how this shakes out. Republicans are already walking right into the jet engine intake on this one:

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), on CBS’s “Face the Nation”
“I hope President Karzai understands that our national security interests don't depend entirely on his decision there whether to allow a recount. Obviously the legitimacy of that government is an important component of it. But my point is it shouldn't be the lynch pin for us deciding whether to protect our national security interests in that region.”

Really? So now it doesn't matter if Karzai's government is legitimate or not?

And people wonder why we're still stuck in Afghanistan.