Now, though, Afghanistan is at a turning point. The upcoming runoff election will have wide-ranging significance on the country and the war.

Let’s review. The Afghan election was originally held in August, and was immediately followed by widespread claims of fraud. These allegations lead to a United Nations Election Complaint Committee intervention and recount. After throwing out almost a quarter of all ballots as fraudulent, the Committee announced last week that incumbent president Hamid Karzai received 49.7% of the vote – the highest of the more than 40 candidates that ran for president but still not enough to secure Karzai a win. Because Karzai failed to achieve a majority, he must run against his main challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, in a runoff election on November 7.

This election provided an opportunity for a turning point in Afghanistan’s future, and the upcoming runoff election is a second chance for the country. As President Obama decides whether or not to send more Coalition troops to Afghanistan, the outcome of the election will greatly influence his decision.

Although Karzai was the clear frontrunner in the first round of the election, the upcoming runoff is far less predictable.

Let’s take a moment to compare the two candidates.

Karzai’s current government is corrupt and inefficient, and is largely failing at containing the Taliban. Karzai himself has strong ties to many individuals of a dubious nature; both of his vice presidential candidates, for example, have been accused of human rights violations by Human Rights Watch, an international human rights organization. One was accused of killing thousands of innocent people.

Abdullah, on the other hand, is seen as a symbol of a newer and younger Afghanistan, one that puts less power in the hands of tribal warlords and more in the hands of a more modern government. Simply put, he is a reformer.

It’s not hard to guess who I’m rooting for. But more interesting than who wins the election is the far-reaching consequences of any result.

A victory for Abdullah would be the perfect opportunity for the Obama administration to intensify efforts to secure Afghanistan. A new government, with more focused power in the central government and more support from the people, would be more effective at helping Coalition troops oust the Taliban.

However, if Karzai wins the election, or even worse, it is confounded yet again by fraud, Obama may need to reevaluate his priorities with Afghanistan. Fighting the Taliban is bad enough by itself, but fighting the Taliban in a country unsupportive of its government could end up a disaster.

This need for support especially ties into a key objective of the war in Afghanistan, and one that I consider of tantamount importance: winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people.

Modern technology lets even a single individual become a weapon in the form of a suicide bomber. A single Afghani citizen turned against America can cause the death of many. On the other hand, a single Afghani citizen turned away from the Taliban can save many lives. And young men aren’t the only ones who need to be convinced. In Afghanistan, it’s considered shameful and disgraceful for a man to enter the Taliban without first getting blessing and permission from his mother.

So, for debatably the first time in history, winning civilian support is as important or even more important than succeeding militarily. And if Coalition forces are to capture the hearts and minds of Afghan citizens, the Afghan government that America and its allies support must be appealing to those same Afghan citizens.

As President Obama approaches a major decision on whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan, he’s obviously considering the political situation of the country. The winner of the runoff election, and more importantly, its fairness, will significantly affect the success or failure of the war in Afghanistan.

When I first heard that Barack Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize, my initial reaction was, “for what?”

Sure, in the nine months since he took office, Obama announced he would close Guantanamo Bay, he started to pull troops out of Iraq, and he announced a nuclear nonproliferation plan. All quite peaceful. But right now Gitmo is open, American soldiers remain in Iraq, and, the last time I looked, the US still had quite a few nukes. Most of Obama’s policies have yet to come to fruition.

Moreover, Obama isn’t an obvious choice for the Peace Prize at all. When I think of the Prize, I think of lone, visionary figures struggling and sacrificing all to help the poor or the sick or those who can’t help themselves. I don’t think of the leader of the free world, the most powerful man on the planet, the man who is commander-in-chief of the world’s largest military force.

And yet, after considering the situation, I believe that Obama definitely deserved the Prize.

When it comes down to it, the award wasn’t given to Obama for any of his policies. He won it – and deserved it – for doing something completely different, something almost revolutionary: changing the entire image of the United States overnight.

Living in the US, it’s obviously easy to think of Obama as president, as a politician whose policies we may agree or disagree with. For the greater global community, however, the president represents the entire country, and Obama has changed this representation drastically.

For about the last decade, anti-American sentiments have been common abroad. And it’s not too hard to see why: between the Iraq war, unilateral policies, and a sense of superiority, the US has been seen as selfish and arrogant world round. Just look at the “freedom fries” movement to get a sense of this arrogance.

But opinion of the US has improved since Obama was elected. According to a poll of 27,000 people in 25 nations conducted in June by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, there were double-digit boosts to percentages of people who viewed the US favorably worldwide. These percentages decreased sharply during the Bush years.

Notably, Obama received much support during several speeches abroad. During speeches in Prague and Cairo, for example, he was interrupted often with cheers and shouts of “We love Obama!”

Compare this to the response George W. Bush met in June 2007 when he visited Prague to talk with Czech leaders, when more than 2000 people demonstrated against Bush and his policies while he was in the city. In January 2008, anti-US protestors in Cairo set fire to American flags and called Bush a war criminal when he visited Egypt. And how can anyone forget Bush’s reception in one of his last trips abroad as president: having a shoe thrown at him in Iraq in December 2008.

That’s not to say that Obama is universally loved by the rest of the world, or that Obama deserves a prize simply for replacing Bush. But it’s impossible to ignore the shift in attitude toward America that much of the rest of the world went through basically overnight after Obama was elected. This change is more than simply a shift in president: it’s a shift in paradigm.

In giving the Prize to Obama, the Nobel committee recognized that he was taking the US in a new direction and creating a new image for it. The Prize is a message from the world to Obama that says, “we approve.”

Obama concluded his speech to the UN last month with these words: “We have reached a pivotal moment. The United States stands ready to begin a new chapter of international cooperation – one that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of all nations.”

According to Alfred Nobel’s will, the peace prize is for “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses.” I’m not sure how well Obama scored in reducing standing armies or spreading “peace congresses,” but as for working toward “fraternity between the nations,” I can’t think of a better choice.