Is Karzai worth it?

Five months ago James Traub in Foreign Policy asked the question:  is Karzai worth the War in Afghanistan? General Stanley McCrystal had just been cashiered and David Petraeus had just taken over.

This is still the vital question.  There is no point in conducting a counterinsurgency war unless the host government has legitimacy with the population.  Karzai understands this perfectly well, which is why he complains bitterly about night time raids by U.S. forces, even if they are as effective as Petraeus claims.

The main American complaint about Karzai at the moment is corruption, which is rampant.  The problem is that what the Americans view as corruption Karzai views as his system of governance, which relies heavily on a coterie of strongmen and large quantities of cash.  Afghans are much less impressed than Americans with elections as the basis for legitimacy.  They regard deliver of services, even those delivered through less than transparent means, as more important.

The Americans are working hard on anti-corruption efforts, but the opposite of corruption is not anti-corruption.  It is good, transparent, accountable governance.

That should start at home, as Karzai rudely points out:  American contracting for security and other services appears not only to be corrupt but also to be putting money in the pockets of insurgents.

But even if he has a point, the question remains:  is Karzai worth it?  This should be a focus of the December policy review, if it is going to be of any real use.