This Financial Times story suggests that the incoming administration will take a tougher stance toward Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, than the Bush administration has. It quotes “one long-serving US official in Afghanistan” who predicts

that “everything will change on January 21” as the new administration ditches “the blind support we saw during the Bush years”, adding that the Obama team will “order” Mr. Karzai to remove corrupt officials.

The official contended that Mr Karzai kept getting an easy ride from Mr. Bush long after Afghanistan had started deteriorating under his leadership because the White House was desperate for a success story, particularly in the years when the war in Iraq was faring badly. “They were just in complete denial.”

Of course it’s possible that the Bush administration wasn’t in denial, that it was aware of Karzai’s flaws but didn’t see any realistic alternative. There is something to be said for dealing with the man in power, as we have also done in Iraq, rather than pining away for ideal alternatives that never materialize. But it is absolutely essential to push a leader like Karzai (or Maliki) to make tough but necessary decisions he would rather avoid. In the case of Afghanistan, that means cracking down on corruption above all.

Karzai seemed to be most effective when Zal Khalilzad was U.S. ambassador in Kabul. He pushed Karzai to cashier warlords serving in government posts and to make other moves that shored up governance. Since Khalilzad left in 2005, Karzai has seemed a bit adrift. If the new administration shows Karzai some “tough love” that would be a good thing, and they have apparently chosen the perfect representative to implement this approach — Dick Holbrooke, who is, if rumors are accurate, to become special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. His experience in resolving the Bosnian crisis is the perfect background for sorting out the complex tribal politics of Afghanistan.