This is my last post for 2009 I thought I would write about Afghanistan but on second thought I will, no doubt, be doing that quite a lot during 2010. Thanks to the Obama Administration’s surge strategy Afghanistan will, from a blogging viewpoint, be the gift that keeps on giving.

So, as we contemplate whether 2010 will be better or worse let’s take a moment to consider 2009. In the spirit of Dave Barry’s classic annual year in review column let’s acknowledge, albeit with some poetic license commentary by moi, a few of the significant events that made, however briefly, the headlines.

Although it started on Dec. 28 2008 the month of January saw massive Israeli air strikes and a ground force invasion of the Gaza Strip. Heavy fighting took place in Gaza City between the Israeli forces and Hamas. At least 1300 Palestinians were killed. On Jan. 17 Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced a unilateral ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, declaring that Israel has achieved the goals it set when launching the military operation. On Jan. 21 Israel completes its troop withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

Also that month President Barack Obama signed executive orders closing the US detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, within a year; closing the CIA’s secret prisons; requiring a review of military trials for terror suspects; and requiring all interrogations to follow the non-coercive methods specified in the Army Field Manual.

Of course, nobody knew back then that the camp would end up in Illinois. One can only hope that the inmates are not too acclimated to the Caribbean climate to adjust to a midwest winter.

On Jan 27 Hama declared that it previously was just kidding and broke the ceasefire by attacking an Israeli frontier patrol. Israel immediately responded that it lacks a sense of humor and renewed its air strikes on the Gaza Strip border with Egypt.

On Feb. 3 Iran launched its first domestically built satellite into orbit. Iran stated that the satellite is meant for research and telecommunications purposes, but Western states express concern that the technology could be used in the development of ballistic missiles. The U.S. intelligence community, estimating that Iran will show the same swift progress with its missiles that it did with its nuclear program, predicted the next flight will be in 2040.

On Feb. 6, renewing their classic rivalry, a British and a French nuclear submarine collided in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Political leaders from both countries sighed in relief that it was merely submarines and not their respective football fans that collided. (more…)

President Obama has now presented the nation with a sober, solemn assessment in explaining the need for an additional 30,000 troops for Afghanistan: Al Qaeda remain in “common cause” with the Taliban; they have metastasized into Pakistan; they have again infiltrated our shores.  Answering those who have grown complacent, the President reminded America that “this is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat.”

Yet many are unconvinced.  Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), for instance, responded to the President’s address that more troops would not make America more secure because ”Al Qaeda can go any place. They don’t have to be in Afghanistan.”   Senator John Kerry stated that many members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which he chairs, “either don’t see the nexus or don’t accept” that al Qaeda and the Taliban remain in league with one another.

(more…)

As President Obama prepares to announce his new strategy for Afghanistan in his address to the world tonight from West Point, it’s worth shedding light on a source of instability that will not be remedied by simply putting more boots on the ground. According to UNICEF, just 28% of Afghan adults are literate, ranking Afghanistan among the most illiterate countries in the world. It is not difficult to draw a correlation between a dearth of basic education and an inclination toward religious extremism. But illiteracy also breeds instability by fundamentally obstructing the flow of information, producing an environment susceptible to a “war of communication”. (more…)

When President Obama addresses the nation tonight on the future direction of the war in Afghanistan, I will be anxiously waiting to see if he addresses lingering questions that remain in my mind regarding the strategy and America’s commitment.  We all know that the President will be requesting at least 30,000 more troops.  I’m  supportive of that decision.  We’re in a situation with no good options and this is probably the least bad of those available.  But we must not focus solely on troop numbers.   More troops without a realistic strategy for success would be a mistake.  I hope that President Obama addresses (1) how the United States will pressure Karzai for reform and (2) how this country will pay for the war effort.

There will be much talk tonight about how we must push Karzai to get serious about reforms and anticorruption efforts.  The need is clear. More than 8 in 10 Afghans report that the country is riddled with widespread corruption… and this poll was taken before the presidential election that generated widespread complaints of fraud.

The US counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan only works if there is a credible government that the Afghan population can turn to in place of the Taliban.  So far, the performance of the Afghan central government leads many to question if it provides a better alternative.  There will be much discussion of pushing the Afghan government to institute internal reforms and clean up its act.  The problem is that our leverage is quite limited.

This recent article by Helene Cooper described the dilemma pretty well.  Karzai knows that we’re reliant on him for our strategy to work.  If we threaten to pull troops out, we both lose.  So, it’s a hollow threat.  The question I’m left with is what other carrot and stick approaches might work?  The article refers to White House officials who say that there are other tools available.  I”m anxiously waiting to hear what they are. (more…)

Unlike my fellow blogger Matt Rojansky I do not support sending more troops to Afghanistan. Doing so is the geopolitical equivalent of Newton’s third law of motion, i.e., “To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Sending more troops only strengthens the Taliban, and non-Taliban Afghans, especially the Pashtuns, who just don’t want foreigners in their lands.

Yet despite all the attempts to pretend that there is some huge debate in the White House about whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan there has never been any serious question that the Obama administration will not do so. The only question is how many.

After all, can you remember the last time a newly elected president decided to withdraw troops from a war he inherited? Neither can I. In fact, right now the insider wisdom seems to be that Obama is settling on around 32- to 35,000 more troops, which is over 80 percent of what Gen. McChrystal, U.S. commander in Afghanistan, asked for in his strategy report.

That said let’s hope someone in the Obama administration is thinking about other issues. For example, putting aside the future ultimate sacrifices measured in lives lost and physically and mentally wounded, the financial costs will start mounting up.

(more…)

Two years ago this week, on this blog, I wrote the following about politicians who thank men and women in uniform “for their service” without doing anything to improve their lot:

After six years of war, we must pay more than lip service to our gratitude.  We must act to ease the burden on our armed forces, and to give strategic vision and moral depth to our national security policy.

It has now been eight years of war in Afghanistan and approaching seven in Iraq.  We have a new President, a new Congress, new military commanders on the ground, and a new set of relationships on the world stage.  Yet I am concerned that Americans have seen too little progress on the foreign policy challenges that matter most.

The Obama Administration, less than a year into its tenure, has reached a national security tipping point.  Despite swift and significant troop reductions in Iraq (coupled with a handover of security duties to Iraqis), invitations to Iran and North Korea to sit down at the negotiating table, and an ongoing policy review on Afghanistan and Pakistan, the new Administration has won few admirers for its national security program.  One obvious reason is the lack of clear, immediate payoffs.  Other than “resetting” the US public image in European capitals, it is not clear that Obama’s changed approach has delivered any concrete benefits appreciable to average Americans, or to our elected leaders on either side.

(more…)

When it comes to statistics for Afghanistan, the numbers are usually daunting. Number of additional troops requested by General McChrystal: 40,000. Number of fraudulent Karzai votes in the 2009 elections: 1 million. Amount of money the US has spent in Afghanistan since 9/11: over $227 billion. But this year in Afghanistan, one statistic has reached a new low, the number 2.

Afghanistan is, according to Transparency International, the second-most corrupt country in the world, beaten out for first only by antediluvian Somalia. Keeping close company with Afghanistan and Somalia is a veritable who’s who of failed states and repressive regimes: Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Burma, Guinea, and Chad, to name just a few. While some corruption is inevitable in a country torn by war, Afghanistan has been steadily worsening: in 2009 Afghanistan was the 2^nd most corrupt country surveyed; in 2008 it was the 5^th most corrupt; in 2007 the 9^th; and in 2005 the 43^rd.

Afghanistan’s number two spot is important not only because it underlines just how poorly the Karzai government is doing, but because it demonstrates the need for a US strategy that takes the problem of corruption head-on. If the above list is anything to go by, corruption goes hand-in-hand with instability, despot leaders and humanitarian crises- in other words, everything we don’t want for Afghanistan.

As Obama announces he’s close to making a decision on troop increases in Afghanistan, let’s hope he remembers to think about numbers other than those involving the US military.

Tonight I will be participating in a bipartisan debate titled “The Hard Path Forward,” on whether the US military presence in Afghanistan should be increased or reduced.  The debate is the first event co-sponsored by the DC Democratic and Republican parties, and should be interesting as much for what we wonky panelists have to say, as for who turns out to listen, and how they interact with us and with each other.  I find it significant and positive that at least on a local level, Democrats and Republicans have recognized that national security and foreign policy is an appropriate subject for productive bipartisan engagement.

Here are the details:

When:  Wednesday, November 18, 7:00 p.m.-8:30 p.m.

Where:  University of the District of Columbia, David A. Clark School Of Law, 4200 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Building 39, Room 21.

Who:  Dr. Assem Akram, Professor, American University, School Of International Service; Matthew Rojansky, Executive Director, Partnership for a Secure America; Malou Innocent, the Cato Institute (standing in for Michael Darner from Rep. Conyers’ office, a PSA Congressional Fellow); Mackenzie Eaglen, Research Fellow, Heritage Foundation.

(more…)

One will not be able to celebrate Veterans Day this week without considering the tragic killing of 13 and wounding over 30 at the Army base at Fort Hood, Texas last Friday. The shootings by U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan rightfully strike people as particularly horrific. There is something about soldiers who are about to be deployed to war zones being shot at by one of their own that is particularly obscene; especially when that man is a psychiatrist, a medical professional who operates under the code of do no harm.

Yet whatever the ensuing investigation uncovers about the motivations of Maj. Hasan we must also face up to the fact that the American military has a significant mental health issue.

When I last wrote about this  in September I noted that the psychic casualties are staggering. The situation has not gotten better.

The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that military leaders acknowledge rampant psychiatric problems in their midst. According to the Army, the suicide rate among soldiers in Iraq is five times that seen in the Persian Gulf War and 11% higher than during Vietnam. The Army reported 133 suicides in 2008, the most ever. In January of this year, the 24 suicides reported by the Army outnumbered U.S. combat-related deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Marine Corps also reported an increase in suicides in 2008, to 41. The Army and Marine Corps have provided most of the troops in the two wars.

Ironically, Hasan had been chosen to be part of an ambitious plan to treat U.S. troops in Afghanistan who need psychological counseling where counselors are often not available. As a result, the Pentagon is flying record numbers of therapists and other mental health workers into combat areas.

(more…)

Last week the Washington Post printed two letters from different sources who had spent time on the ground in Afghanistan.  They came to very different conclusions about the American presence there.

First, there is the letter from Matthew Hoh, the former Marine captain who had fought in Iraq and had recently taken a temporary foreign service assignment in Zabul province.  One State department official referred to this area as, “one of the five or six provinces always vying for the most difficult and neglected.”  Hoh had developed great misgivings about the war and had become so disillusioned that he chose to resign.  Hoh wote in his resignation letter,

I fail to see the value or the worth in continued U.S. casualties or expenditure of resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year old civil war…. The United States presence in Afghanistan greatly contributes to the legitimacy and strategic message of the Pashtun insurgency.

Matthew Hoh has served his country bravely in combat and he has responded to a policy with which he disagreed by making the honorable choice to resign. His observations about the situation in Zabul province merit serious consideration.  I wish that many others in the previous administration who had serious misgivings about policy but waited to reveal them until after leaving office had, instead, followed Hoh’s example. (more…)