The Washington Post has a fascinating and encouraging piece today on the administration’s approach to Karzai. Turns out the ham-handed bullying was counterproductive and the administration’s hitting “re-set.” A snippet:

The U.S. approach to the election had the unintended consequence of strengthening Karzai’s hand. “Nobody wanted to coalesce around a single candidate because they each thought they were America’s favorite,” said Ali Jalali, a former interior minister who briefly considered running.
Karzai was able to pull key opposition figures to his side by promising them positions in the new government. Fear that he no longer had U.S. support also prompted him to name Mohammed Fahim, a prominent former warlord alleged to have been involved in drug smuggling and corruption, as one of his vice presidential candidates.
“We created a political-diplomatic isometric exercise,” said Ronald Neumann, a former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. “The more we pressed him to remove people, the more he thought we were trying to undercut him, and we drove him back to the worst actors for support.”
By the May 8 filing deadline, it was clear to many in Washington that Karzai would almost certainly win a second term. But there was no substantive effort to recalibrate the relationship. Although the administration maintained a neutral stance with regard to the election, Karzai saw it differently, according to his advisers.
“He was sure,” one said, “that Washington wanted him to lose.”

We’ve editorialized on what a mistake the administration made in not forging a more cooperative relationship with Karzai. Of course, there’s a balance to be struck between holding his hand and pushing him, but the administration — made up of self-styled diplomatic masters — went way too far in pressuring, haranguing, and basically alienating him. From the Post again:

“You have to show him respect and consideration,” said Zalmay Khalilzad, a Bush administration envoy to Afghanistan who remains close to Karzai. “You cannot lecture him. You have to listen to his explanations, why he thinks something cannot be done, and then respond to that in a constructive way.”

You’d think that’d be obvious, but it’s very good news if it’s sinking in now.