In the space of 10 days, two terrorist actions in South Asia highlighted why President-elect Obama’s desire to adopt a regional approach to the interlinked crises of Afghanistan, India and Pakistan may ultimately rank among the most strategically significant decisions of his administration.

Last month, the world watched in horror as militants brought the thriving metropolis of Mumbai to a halt with a multi-faceted attack on its hotel, entertainment and transportation system. The attacks, dubbed India’s 9-11, saw 188 civilians killed and hundreds more injured. A few days later militants in Pakistan attacked a market place killing dozens of civilians. Although the attack in Peshawar had a devastating impact on the local populace, it drew less media attention than those in Mumbai, in part due to the lack of international media in that city and also because the Peshawar bombing was one in a long line of attacks in Pakistan in recent months.

Despite the variation in media attention and the way in which they were reported as two distinct stories, it is important that the new U.S. administration looks at the two attacks and the related foreign policy questions holistically. A careful appraisal of the situation suggests that, once in office, President Obama’s administration must adopt a regional approach to the instability in South Asia and also recognize that Pakistan is at the heart of both the crisis and any resolution. (more…)

What was that sound you heard over the weekend? That was the sound of the other shoe dropping. Or put another way, we have come full circle, from Afghanistan to Iraq and now, back to Afghanistan.

It looks as if the military is wasting no time in fulfilling the pledges of Barack Obama. During his campaign he pledged to shift the focus from Iraq to Afghanistan. Here’s hoping it doesn’t turn out to be a case of being careful what we wished for.

Obama and top U.S. commanders have vowed to increase U.S. troops in Afghanistan by 20,000, which could push the total U.S. military presence there above 50,000.

U.S. Joint Forces Command officials are working to help the Pentagon dispatch the last of four new brigades requested by commanders in Afghanistan by late spring or early summer.

The U.S. military will soon launch a pilot program to raise local militias, paid by the Pentagon, in an effort to improve security throughout Afghanistan.

Evidently this is supposed to be the Afghan version of the Iraqi Awakening movement. After initially being rejected by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the plan was developed this fall and approved just over two weeks ago.

Yet some officials warn that the forces must be carefully vetted to avoid repeating the mistakes of Afghanistan’s past, as in bolstering local warlords. They worry about launching a program modeled on the U.S.-financed militias of Iraq, given the considerable differences in the wars.

It would be a mistake to think that tactics and strategies that were successful in Iraq can just be transplanted into Afghanistan. Consider what Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on the Dec. 17 Charlie Rose show: (more…)

(This is Part III in a series of posts from Moscow)

Where Next?
 
If the history of US-Russia relations proves anything, it is that things could always get worse.  But how can we at least try to improve the situation?  Here are a few discreet lessons and proposals for US policymakers distilled from my latest round of conversations with top Russian thinkers:
 
1)  The ball is in America’s court.  Russians believe they’ve tried and tried again to reach agreement with the Bush administration to at least enshrine the balance of the status quo in the US-Russia relationship, and yet the US keeps taking steps (Georgia, NATO expansion, missile defense) to unsettle that balance.  If Medvedev’s post-election saber-rattling shows anything, it is that Moscow is not prepared to take the first conciliatory step, even if it does not necessarily profit from escalating tension (for the past several weeks, Medvedev and Putin have been trying to minimize ripple effects from Medvedev’s ungracious reaction to Obama’s victory, and have suggested the new presidents could make progress).
  (more…)

(This is Part I in a series I will post from Moscow over the next few days)

Earlier this week, Russia dispatched a powerful naval fleet to Caracas Venezuela, as a show of force in support of President Dmitry Medvedev’s highly successful Latin American tour, which included arms deals with Venezuela and trade and diplomatic deals with Brazil, among other accomplishments trumpeted in the Russian press.  A US State Department spokesman derided the events, suggesting the Russian ships might need tugboats, and insisting that the region still looks to the US first for political, economic, diplomatic and military power.  But de facto American hegemony in Latin America—and for that matter outside the western hemisphere—may no longer be either feasible or desirable for the United States.  That’s what Russians tell me, anyway.  And I’m inclined to listen.
 
I am in Moscow this week, engaging in some interesting (let’s call them “track 3″) conversations with leading Russian international relations scholars, average citizens, and the occasional disgruntled goverment type.  The conversations have dealt with a wide range of topics, including everyone’s favorite game in Moscow, like in Washington, of guessing Obama’s appointees for key national security and economic posts.  But in each case, I have pursued the same basic line of inquiry: how can the incoming Obama administration create and then maximize an opportunity to restore positive, productive relations between the US and Russia, resulting if possible in a lasting strategic partnership?  The answers have been fascinating as they were varied.  Here’s Part I of my snapshot of Russian perspectives on the US-Russia relationship:

(more…)

Future historians will inevitably link George W. Bush with Iraq, and probably not in a very flattering way. Will they do something similar with Barack Obama and Afghanistan?

Of course it is too soon to say. But as Afghanistan wavers towards, if not on the brink, of disaster, one can’t help but wonder what Obama’s future national security team will be thinking and recommending.

Despite all the U.S. has done in Afghanistan or tried to do things are far from good. A recent UNICEF report found that violations of children’s rights are increasing in Afghanistan with more attacks against schools, more children killed and more evidence of child sexual abuse.

On the one hand Obama pledged to withdraw forces from Iraq and increase them in Afghanistan. So he may be pleased that Marine Corps leaders are devising a plan to send more than 15,000 additional combat troops to Afghanistan to wage aggressive warfare against the Taliban that they expect could take years, assuming they receive approval from Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and U.S. Central Command chief Gen. David H. Petraeus.

That would be in addition to the more than 30,000 American troops, mostly from the Army, already in Afghanistan and the additional 30,000 troops from other North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries and allies also there to combat the Taliban and other Islamist insurgent forces.

But finding more Marines to send won’t be easy unless there is a significant drawdown in Iraq, where they have been, west of Baghdad, since 2004. The Marines have about 22,000 there, assigned mostly to back up Iraqi security forces. So that might provide an additional incentive for Obama to make good on his pledge to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq in 16 months.

On the other hand U.S. military officials have already started talking about how they can’t possibly meet that schedule, so Obama could face significant opposition to trying to redeploy troops quickly. Would he be willing to spend the political capital?

Sending more troops could be a replay of the significant international opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner said he has doubts about U.S. President-elect Barack Obama’s plans. Kouchner said plans that increase troop numbers would only work “in precise areas with a precise task.” He said France thinks military power alone won’t stabilize the situation in Afghanistan. (more…)

The likely probability, as I noted in my last post, of Sen. Obama becoming president is now reality.

And though I normally shy away from using words like “historic” because it is such a cliché I think this may be a time when it can validly be used. If, for no other reason than, as a recent Defense Science Board report noted, “It has been more than two generations since the presidency transitioned with American troops engaged in significant combat operations—a deployment begun in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks.”

So now Americans get to indulge in one of their favorite perennial activities; telling him what he should do. Deal with the financial meltdown, close Guantanamo Bay prison, make Africa a greater priority, declare a moratorium on new “free-trade” deals, reaffirm U.S. commitment to international laws, treaties, the United Nations, and multilateral responses to violations of international peace, work for a comprehensive nonproliferation policy, institute a cap and trade policy for carbon emissions, et cetera.

Looking at all the things people want him to work on you would think we elected Superman as president instead of a mere mortal.

Yet let’s not be naive. Even though he has yet to assume office his victory is already starting to create change. For example, as the Washington Post reported , Iraqi officials, who see President-elect Obama’s views on the timing of a U.S. withdrawal as consonant with their own, appear to be leveraging his election to pressure the Bush administration to make last-minute concessions.

Indeed, the Wall Street Journal reported last Friday that the U.S. notified Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki it has accepted many of the changes proposed last week by the Iraqi cabinet in a draft security agreement between the two countries.

Doubtlessly U.S. military officials will advise President-elect Obama to adjust his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by mid-2010. Remember that while promising a 16-month timetable for getting all U.S. fighting forces out, Obama repeatedly insisted on what he calls a “responsible” withdrawal.

And, in truth, if the United States wants to take back the majority of its equipment from all the bases, major and minor it has in Iraq, it will take more than 16 months.

Like all administrations, Obama needs to take stock of the world. Eight years of Bush foreign and national security policies, plus ongoing globalization, emergence of new powers makes the world a very different place. (more…)

This is the last post I will write before the presidential election. I do not pretend to know what the outcome will be but if the polls are right it appears that Senator Obama will be the next U.S. president. If so, it is likely that it won’t be long before, as his running mate Sen. Joe Biden said, that he will be tested. The same thing could be said even if Sen. McCain wins.

The truth is that in respect to many different foreign policy and military issues the United States has been acting like a not very proficient juggler, tossing balls into the air in an effort to keep them from falling to the ground.

The truth is that the time that some dubbed the “unipolar moment” which all the neoconservatives were crowing about years ago, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and U.S. victory in Operation Desert Storm, is long gone.

Just consider what the next president of the United States will confront. In respect to Iraq there might not be an accepted Status of Forces Agreement, meaning U.S. troops will lack legal authority to remain there. U.S. officials say they would have to cease operations and confine troops to bases unless some other arrangement, such as an extension of the U.N. mandate, could be worked out.

In respect to Iran, aside from its nuclear program, a new president will have to deal with what seems to be an ongoing program of U.S. sponsored covert violence to bring about regime change. A new paper by the Century Foundation detailing this program concludes that:

We can expect more incidents, and we can expect the risk of retaliatory incidents to increase. As that happens, the point resurfaces. When does Iran reach its tipping point and begin to fight back, not with words, but with expanded terrorist acts?

(more…)

Let’s return to Afghanistan. We might as well, because no matter who wins the election we are going to be hearing lots more about events there.

There has not been a lot to cheer about lately. Consider that on Wednesday Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that the mission to stabilize Afghanistan had shown significant gaps in the ability of the United States and NATO to integrate their civilian and military efforts, and he warned that it “remains to be seen” whether the allies could better coordinate their work.

“These efforts today - however well intentioned and even heroic - add up to less than the sum of the parts,” he said.

In a speech at the U.S. Institute of Peace, Gates said the security of the American people will depend increasingly on an ability to head off the next insurgency or stop the collapse of another failing state. He focused specifically on Afghanistan.

Meanwhile Superman, known to us mere Earthlings as Gen. David Petraeus, now head of the U.S. Central Command, has warned that the lack of development and the spiraling violence in Afghanistan will likely make it “the longest campaign of the long war.”

Thus next month he is launching a 100-day assessment of U.S. strategy for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and the surrounding region. Reportedly he will focus on government-led reconciliation of Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the leveraging of diplomatic and economic initiatives with nearby countries that are influential in the war.

It does make you wonder, should Sen. MCain win election, if Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai or Gen. Petraeus can expect to be rebuked by President McCain for talking to the enemy without preconditions. (more…)