Across the Aisle » Military

War’s Brave New World

David Isenberg — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 05:01:12 +0000

It’s a brave new world out there, but I don’t think it is the one Aldous Huxley had in mind when he wrote his famed book in 1932.

What Huxley gave us was a frightening vision of the future. And in one sense, though not the one Huxley was writing about, that vision is becoming reality. I refer to the expanding role of robots in war.

The most visible aspect of this is the use of aerial drones such as targeting Al Qaeda militants with Predator drone strikes. Predictably, some places, such as the Weekly Standard, think this fine and dandy, and worry only that we do not use them more for which they criticize President Obama. That is ironic as the President has authorized more drone attacks in the first year of his term in office than Bush did in his entire presidency.

But war is inherently unpredictable. One of the few ways we have of restraining its destructiveness is by having military personnel perform their duties in a framework of carefully wrought, time tested framework grounded in civic-military and ethical considerations. While pilots may sometimes be egomaniacal Top Guns they at least spend some time thinking about these things. But what happens when the man operating a Predator is just another technician, no different from any other journeyman such as an electrician or plumber? What happens when the use of deadly force is just another day at the office?

Boston Globe columnist H.D.S. Greenway noted that before 9/11, the CIA hesitated to strike bin Laden’s farm in Afghanistan because women and children might be killed. But as the war drags on the rules of engagement, rules against targeted assassination, whom to kill and not kill, have slipped, as they invariably do in all wars.

If that is too philosophical a consideration for you to ponder let’s consider the practical. Is the United States ready for the time when other nations use such technology? According to a Newsweek article by Peter Singer of the Brookings Institute who, last year, published the definitive book on the subject, “Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century“ at least 40 other countries-from Belarus and Georgia to India, Pakistan, and Russia-have begun to build, buy, and deploy unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, showcasing their efforts at international weapons expos ranging from the premier Paris Air Show to smaller events in Singapore and Bahrain. In the last six months alone, Iran has begun production on a pair of weapons-ready surveillance drones, while China has debuted the Pterodactyl and Sour Dragon, rivals to America’s Predator and Global Hawk. All told, two thirds of worldwide investment in unmanned planes in 2010 will be spent by countries other than the United States.

And what happens when the weapons doing the killing are controlled by civilian agencies, as opposed to the armed forces? In January Hakimullah Mehsud, leader of the Pakistan Taliban, was killed by a missile fired an unmanned aircraft hovering over the Afghan-Pakistani border – but launched by an operator in the US. He was the mastermind of multiple suicide bomb attacks in Pakistan and was part of the suicide mission on December 30 at Khost, just across the border in Afghanistan, which killed seven CIA agents.

In the effort to get payback the United States launched 15 clinical drone attacks in which more than 100 people died along the border. Thus, for the first time ever, a civilian intelligence agency is manipulating robots from halfway around the world in a program of extrajudicial executions in a country with which Washington is not at war.

As Singer wrote last month:

Q. Are We at War in Pakistan ? (Or Is It Not a War Because We’re Only Using Drones?)

American unmanned systems have carried out more than 80 air strikes into Pakistan, more than we did with manned bombers in the opening round of the Kosovo War just a decade ago.

By the old standards, this would be a war. But why do we not view it as such? Is it because it is being run by the CIA and not the military? Is it because Congress never debated it? Is it because we view the whole thing as costless (to us)? Or, are the definitions changing — and what used to be war, isn’t anymore?

Furthermore, a cost-benefit analysis of the use of drones indicates that it may be less effective than thought. A study last October by the New American Foundation estimated concluded that, since January 2008, the American kill has included ”about 20 leaders of al-Qaeda, the Taliban and allied groups in addition to hundreds of lower-level militants and civilians. Under President Obama, the strikes have taken out at most [a] half-dozen militant leaders while also killing as many as 530 others – of those, around 250 to 400 are reported to have been lower-level militants, about three-quarters; and about a quarter appear to have been civilians.” In other words, about one-third of those killed were civilian.

What to make out of Russia’s new doctrine

Volha Charnysh — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:25:06 +0000

There’s little new in Russia’s new military doctrine, approved by President Dmitry Medvedev on February 5. The document turned out to follow closely its predecessor, albeit possessing more clarity and concision. Fortunately, the role of nuclear weapons in Moscow’s security policy did not rise. Unfortunately, Russia continues to distrust NATO and resent its expansion. From the very day when the text of the doctrine appeared on the Kremlin’s official web site, the former has not been appreciated enough and the latter has been too strongly criticized.

Alarmed by Nikolai Patrushev’s divulging the plans to assign nuclear weapons to “local conflicts,” the international community sighed with relief upon reading the final document that keeps strategic weapons restricted to regional and large-scale wars.

However, instead of applauding the triumph of reason in the Russian military establishment, some hazarded guesses that the new doctrine is sane only because the true nuclear policy is concealed in “Basic principles of state policy in the area of nuclear deterrence to 2020,” a classified document approved simultaneously with the new doctrine. While the contents of the unpublished document remain secret, it hardly conceals the true contours of Russia’s nuclear policy: the point of deterrence is to make the others aware of the risks so that they refrain from aggression.

It is notable that instead of expanding the role of strategic weapons or specifying uses for its massive sub-strategic nuclear arsenal, Moscow has narrowed the criteria for crossing the nuclear threshold in its new doctrine, as Nikolai Sokov pointed out. The 2000 doctrine allowed the use of nuclear weapons “in situations critical for national security”, but the 2010 version provides for their use only when Russia’s “very existence” is threatened.

With the reset of the US-Russian relationship, the worldwide praise for Obama’s vision of the nuclear weapon-free world, and the large-scale modernization of the Russian military underway, Russia seems to be wising up and going with the flow. Its decision to play down its nuclear capabilities reacting to the gush of criticism evoked by Patrushev’s comments should be appreciated.

Concerning the NATO references in the new doctrine, critics should give Moscow credit for its candor and reread the text on a cool head.

First, Russia’s mention of NATO in its military doctrine should not have come as a surprise to anyone. When the 2000 version of the doctrine brought up “the broadening of military blocs and unions” that would “harm the military security of the Russian Federation and its allies,” everyone already knew what bloc Russia had in mind. Ten years later, NATO having welcomed nine states in its fold and considering extending the welcome to Ukraine and Georgia, Russia merely wrote down what it has been repeating year after year since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. And, for those who still failed to take notice, Russia’s war with Georgia in 2008 should have been the clearest indication of the Kremlin’s threat assessment.

Second, a more sober look at the document shows that it is not NATO per se that Moscow sees as a threat, but merely some of NATO’s policies and actions that, if continued, could make NATO the Kremlin’s enemy. In Russia, NATO is resented only to the extent that it sees acceptable to circumvent the UN Security Council, ignores Moscow’s views when taking military actions in its neighborhood, and creeps up to Russia’s borders from all directions, surrounding it with missile defense systems and radars. This is why in the new doctrine Russia’s concern is, first and foremost, NATO’s goal “to arrogate to itself the assumption of global functions in violation of international law,” and only then – its expansion to Russia’s borders.

Moscow clearly feels its security interests ignored by the West. While acknowledging in the doctrine that “the probability of unleashing large-scale warfare against the Russian Federation” has lowered, the Kremlin contends that the “existing international security structure, including its international law mechanism, does not provide equal security for all states.”

Even though the United States is never mentioned in the text of the document, it is Washington that Moscow has in mind when discussing threats like “attempts to destabilize countries and regions and undermine strategic stability,” “deployment of military contingents of foreign states (and blocs) on territories neighboring Russia and its allies,” “the establishment and deployment of strategic missile defense systems,” and “ the militarization of outer space and deployment of high-precision non-nuclear systems.” Whereas the United States considers Russia a potential partner in its efforts to combat WMD proliferation and terrorism, as its Quadrennial Defense Review has shown, Russia never mentions the United States as a potential ally in its military doctrine.

What has been largely unnoticed, however, is that Russia does declare its readiness to cooperate with NATO in Article 19 of the doctrine. It is important not to ignore this brief mention and continue engaging Moscow.

It is even more important to realize that whatever the doctrine says, Russia will continue to work with NATO and the United States, provided they take Moscow’s interests into account, accept its role as a regional power, and play by the rules. The success of this cooperation will depend on both sides, and the failures will not be the fault of Moscow alone.

Russia’s new doctrine hardly warrants the reaction its critics have exhibited. Instead, it should serve as a reminder of the cost of isolating Moscow. In the end, it is not the contents of the doctrine but the engagement and dialogue that could help defuse the antagonism between Russia and the West and rebuild their trust.

Getting History Right

David Isenberg — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:35:44 +0000

I confess that I have been fantasizing. I realize that most people have moved on from Iraq to Afghanistan. But given the enormous toll paid both by Iraqis and Americans in terms of lives and money and overall social and cultural destruction I have been trying to imagine what it would look like if the United States actually undertook a fact based investigation into the decisions by the Bush Administration to invade Iraq in 2003.

By that I don’t mean the past investigations by special commissions or congressional committees into what the intelligence community knew or didn’t know, or what pressure they were under to cherry pick information. Rather I mean an investigation into what former President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other cabinet officials knew and did, day by day, leading up to the invasion.

Fortunately, I don’t really have to imagine. Instead I can just look across the Atlantic to Great Britain. There they have been conducting an inquiry, officially launched 30 June 2009. The terms of reference of the Iraq Inquiry, also known as the Chilcot Inquiry, after its chairman Sir John Chilcot, state:

It will consider the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009, embracing the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, the military action and its aftermath. We will therefore be considering the UK’s involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned.

Consider some of what has been revealed just during the past few weeks. Tony Blair privately assured President George Bush in letters written a year before the invasion of Iraq that Britain would “be there” in any US-led attack on the country.

Senior British diplomats said that regime change was being discussed by Blair in the US in 2002 even though, according to leaked documents, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, warned the then PM that military action aimed at regime change, as opposed to disarmament, would be unlawful.

Fresh evidence has emerged that Tony Blair’s discredited Iraqi arms dossier was “sexed up” on the instructions of Alastair Campbell, his communications chief, to fit with claims from the US administration that were known to be falseIntelligence outlining the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was taken out of context when it was used as part of the Government’s case for invading Iraq.

Sir David Omand, who was Mr Blair’s security co-ordinator, said that including the claim that Saddam had missiles that he could launch within 45 minutes in the now-infamous September 2002 dossier on Iraq was “asking for trouble“. If all the intelligence on Iraq had been published, the public reaction would have been “Is that it?”, he said.

Tens of thousands of secret documents form the core of the ongoing inquiry into the Iraq war. The inquiry also hinted that such documents showed British officials knew George Bush intended to invade Iraq even if it complied with the UN weapons inspections.

It is especially ironic that this investigation is taking place in Great Britain, the country that has D-Notices and an Official Secrets Act , not to mention it being the country that gave us the not so fictional concept of Big Brother.

Yet, the obvious point is that if Great Britain can do this so should the United States. The Obama Administration and the Democratic congress have refrained from doing so on the mistaken assumption that it would only antagonize out of power, but not out of venom, Republicans, like Dick Cheney, and make cooperation with Republicans impossible. News flash for the Obama administration. Cheney and Republicans are going to hate you no matter what you do, so you shouldn’t care. Concentrate on what is doing right, not what is politically expedient. No to do so is to dishonor the memories of all those killed in a war that did not have to happen.

Repeal the ban. Our soldiers’ lives are depending on it

Brian Vogt — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:08:15 +0000

President Obama’s announcement of his intention to work with Congress and the military to repeal the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy is the sort of change that should receive broad bipartisan support. The public backs such a change. A poll last year by the Washington Post/ABC news found that 75% of Americans supported the repeal. The same poll found that 64% of Republicans wanted to allow homosexuals to serve openly. This is now a mainstream opinion of both Democrats and Republicans.

President Truman’s landmark decision to integrate African-Americans into the military was particularly noteworthy because it led a transition in public opinion. Today, public opinion has already shifted, which makes this repeal even more overdue.

Many advocates of the repeal of this policy have strong moral and human rights arguments. Although such arguments are appealing, the stronger rationale for this repeal is simply that it will make America safer.

Even though the public is on board, there are some political leaders who still support the ban. John McCain, who once said that he would follow the advice of the military leadership regarding the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy has changed his tune and says that now is not the right time to change the policy because we are in the midst of two wars. House Minority Leader John Boehner said, “In the middle of two wars, and, and in the middle of this giant security threat, why would we want to get into this debate?” This is where McCain and Boehner get it wrong. This is precisely the time to make such a change. Today our forces are stretched thin in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, at this time of tremendous need in the military we are kicking out brave soldiers simply because they admit openly to being gay.

The statistics are particularly disturbing. More than 13,500 service members have been fired since 1994. In the past five years 800 mission critical troops, including 59 Arabic and nine Farsi linguists have been dismissed. The current “don’t ask don’t tell” policy is putting our troops at greater risk and making it harder for them to accomplish their missions. The United States has spent $1.3 billion to conduct the investigations that led to the dismissal of homosexual service members. I can think of many alternative uses of that money that would have actually contributed to the safety of American citizens.

The story of Anthony Leverde, described in a recent Washington Post op-ed, is indicative of the absurdity of our current system. Leverde was an Air Force loadmaster with the 27^th Airlift squadron in Iraq. He’s the guy that plans the placement of cargo and soldiers in an aircraft to make sure that it doesn’t come crashing to the ground – a pretty important job! In April 2008 the Air Force dismissed him when he revealed to his commander that he was gay. Soon after his honorable discharge the defense contractor KBR hired him and and eventually he found himself working in Afghanistan alongside many of the same soldiers that had previously served with him. Except this time he was working for a contractor that could care less if he was gay. Although his contract with KBR doubled his salary, he would have preferred to continue serving in the Air Force. A fellow soldier summed up the absurdity quite well when he remarked, “I can’t believe they are still discharging people for being gay. Don’t they know we need everyone we can get in this fight?”

Some opponents point out that repealing the ban will happen eventually, but now is not the right time to push the process forward. They will say that although we are losing some service members because of the ban, greater harm would come from repealing the ban in the midst of two wars. The argument is that unit cohesion could suffer, putting more soldiers at risk.

If there was data to support this argument it might be a compelling reason to slow down the process. However, the experience of many other militaries that have integrated homosexual service members into their operations easily refutes this argument. These include allies such as Britain, Canada, and Israel. The experience of Britain is particularly noteworthy. Former General John Shalikashvili reported in an op-ed that after the British Ministry of Defense lifted its ban on gays in the military, it conducted several follow up studies to see if any harm had been done. The end conclusion: the transition had been a “solid achievement.” A Rand study of the U.S. military found that there was no correlation between a unit’s readiness and whether or not known gays serve in it. Although opponents may continue to argue that gays serving openly will damage our military, the data just doesn’t support that.

Repealing this ban is the right thing to do. Our soldiers’ lives are depending on it.

The U.S. Really Is Doing a Heck of a Job, Thus Far

David Isenberg — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:42:53 +0000

Today marks one week since the magnitude 7.0 Jan. 12 earthquake hit Haiti. If there is anything in the world that, at least momentarily, brings people together it is the innate humanitarian impulse to help those who have been struck by natural catastrophe.

In this regard Haiti is no exception. Nations from around the world, not just the United States, are rushing supplies and various specialists to assist in search and rescue, provide food, water, and housing, and begin the effort to assist with what will, of necessity, have to be a long term recovery effort. Early estimates state that one third of Haiti’s nine million people have been affected by the quake. Already 20,000 bodies are estimated to have been recovered. The final toll will undoubtedly be far higher.

The United States, by virtue of its geographic proximity to Haiti, its long term involvement with the country, and its immense logistical capabilities is taking the lead role in coordinating relief efforts. No problem there; as the Haitian government has been almost as destroyed as the housing in Port au Prince.

In terms of domestic politics nobody thus far, aside from the usual rightwing whack jobs, such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are objecting to the U.S. rushing to the rescue. And U.S. efforts are significant. If President Bush had done for New Orleans what President Obama is doing for Haiti the Bush legacy would be significantly different.

This past weekend, in a striking example of bipartisanship, President Obama asked former Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush to spearhead private-sector fund-raising efforts.

Thus far, the U.S. military is doing a useful job. Whether it has done as much as it could or should will be a question that will doubtlessly be debated.

A three-star general, Lt. Gen. P. K. Keen, the deputy director of the military’s Southern Command, has been tapped to lead a new joint task force devoted to Haiti.

7,500 troops and four ships arrived in Haiti yesterday to join the about 5,000 U.S. military personnel already assisting on the ground and from ships nearby. Reportedly the bulk of the troops will operate off the ships, not on the ground.

Air Force special operations controllers set up an air-traffic control center. It was the beginning of an operation that, by Sunday, had unclogged one bottleneck preventing aid from reaching Haiti’s desperate population. By Sunday, the Air Force had landed some 300 planes, most of them laden with relief supplies.

The 82nd Airborne has established small posts around the city to protect food and water drops.

President Obama signed an executive order over the weekend allowing members of the reserves to be called up to support the relief efforts in Haiti.

The Navy hospital ship USS Comfort will arrive Wednesday. The ship has 250 beds and a 550-person medical team. Military leaders also are moving to assemble a 150-bed surgical hospital at the naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which will coordinate patient loads with the ship’s operating rooms.

The aircraft carrier U.S.S. Carl Vinson arrived last Friday. Its primary mission is using its 19 helicopters to ferry supplies onshore. But the carrier itself did not carry relief supplies.

Meanwhile the International Search and Rescue Team, fully equipped and self-sufficient for up to seven days in the field, deployed immediately with ten metric tons of tools and equipment, three tons of water, tents, advanced communication equipment and water purifying capability. They’re from Iceland.

The first elements of the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group reached Haiti yesterday. The four ships in the group are the USS Carter Hall, USS Gunston Hall, USS Fort McHenry and the USS Bataan.

But much more needs to be done and quickly. Already scatted looting andd fighting has broken out. Although given Haiti’s poor state befroe the quake it is a tribute to the Haitian character and spitit that there has not been more. Given that transportation in Haiti has been all but destroyed in Haiti promised aid cannot be delivered. In the meantime people live outdoors without shelter, sustenance or protection.

Unless the pace of aid distribution quickens, there could be mass violence as hundreds of thousands of people begin to compete for scarce resources. Given that Haitian police forces were not particularly robust to begin with security is going to have to depend on large part, at least in the short term, on U.S. military and the 9,000 member UN force, although the latter are said to be deeply unpopular. But the sooner that task can be tuned back to Haitians the better.

One thing to keep in mind is that Haiti is not all that different from where your or I live. Last week David Brooks, the conservative New York Times columnist, used the quake to argue against foreign aid.

But the truth is that everywhere in the world people will fight for survival when the situation becomes desperate. Wherever you live your city is just one natural disaster away from total chaos. Hurricane Katrina proved it.

The truth is most people aren’t prepared for disasters. They aren’t even prepared for a disruption in food and electricity lasting more than 48 hours. Almost nobody has spare food, water, emergency first aid supplies or the ability to physically defend themselves against aggressors. They are betting their lives on the idea that their government will save them if something goes wrong.

The people of Haiti are now learning what the people of New Orleans already know: Your government won’t save you. In a real crisis, you are on your own.

Stop Bucking and Start Learning

Geneve Mantri — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:01:44 +0000

The President is getting some kudos for the frank and forthright way he stepped up last week to articulate the government failings in the Christmas Day attack. After much media noise he announced that no one would be fired, and he took full responsibility for the mistakes. Loyalty is a good if an uncommon virtue in DC. But just saying the buck stops here too often means it stops nowhere. The President had a few good lines and not much else to follow through. What is really alarming about the Christmas Day attacks is not that they happen, or that we dissolve into a wave of recrimination, but that we learn nothing.

The US government is built on agencies with generally poor political and bureaucratic leadership. We have a semi feudal system, rife with patronage and a club mentality. Political appointees as a class are well educated, underqualified, and woefully unprepared for office. Senior bureaucrats, usually neglected by Congress, are subject to Darwinian selection to remove all evidence of any spine, humanity, imagination or leadership skill. If you really want something done on time, under budget, and is well led and executed – would you really give it to the US government, or worse subject it to a current USG contract?

When it comes to homeland security we really maximize our critical weaknesses. As one example there has been some discussion of moving the visa function out of State Department, and there has been predictable push back from Foggy Bottom. But regardless of who takes up the function, the requirement for juniors officers to sit on a visa line on a rotating basis creates an in-built weakness at every embassy around the world.

For those who are down on America, the longest lines in the world are still often found outside US consulates, of eager people looking for a visa. Along side of every queue is a cottage industry of people selling information or a quick way to cheat the lines complete with “information” on the new officers at the windows, and their behavior patterns.

Instead of staffing visa windows with folks who don’t want to be there – we should populate the visa windows with staff who do, and who have more than a year’s worth of experience doing it. In many large organizations rotating people just as they learn how to do their jobs is unfortunately routine, but putting entry to America in the hands of new people, who are overwhelmed, with on average less than 60 seconds to decide a case is foolhardy.

There are many cases I could draw across government, but there are few incentives for anyone to question conventional wisdom, and no promotion points in trying to steward and nurture our agencies and institutions. I attended a panel of distinguished Washington voices on counterterror issues yesterday, but the most disappointing aspect was that senior officials view this problem either as inevitable or too hard to solve.

There is some talk about accountability, but too often in DC speak this is reduced to putting a head on a block, but if actions have no consequences, then the walls, operations and values of institutions decay and cynicism grows. There is more to learning than ritual execution, but a lesson blandly recorded is not a lesson learned.

We don’t have learning institutions, we instead have industrialized the concept of CYA. For those who think this is an inevitable part of bureaucratic behavior I would argue that we are surrounded by examples of both good and bad behavior and that we need to learn before we are taught lessons we cannot afford. The US Army is a bureaucracy, and at times it has been as broken as any part of the US government, saddled with the worst of America’s social and economic problems, from race to drugs. It has also been rebuilt, not just once, but many times over.

Across the American military the concept of learning is ingrained from day one. It doesn’t give them immunity from making mistakes, it does give them a way to walk the fine line back from the brink of disaster to success. Why can’t we try to do this in other agencies? Almost a decade after 911 can we really afford the luxury of playing dumb and ignoring the lessons of history?

Mr. Geneve Mantri is the Government Relations Director, for Terrorism and Counterterrorism and Human Rights at Amnesty International USA. Previously he served as a Stimson Center Fellow working for Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN ) on national security issues. He has also served as an Editor at National Defense University, as a consultant to the United Nations Children’s Fund and the United Nations Development Program in New York and Eastern Europe. He has also worked as a news producer for Independent Television News in London. He was educated at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University in Massachusetts, and Warwick University, in the United Kingdom. He is a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Goodbye to 2009: The year in review

David Isenberg — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:10:42 +0000

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.

On Feb. 17 President Barack Obama authorized the deployment of an additional 17,000 military personnel to Afghanistan. The troops will be deployed to ‘meet urgent security needs’ in southern Afghanistan. Later in the year President Obama deploys 30,000 more troops to meet “super duper double urgent” security needs in Afghanistan.

On March 15 two US female journalists, together with their Chinese guide, are detained by North Korean soldiers at the China–North Korea border when reporting on North Korean refugees in northeastern China. In June the two women are sentenced to 12 years of hard labor. On 4 August the two are pardoned and released following mediation by former US President Bill Clinton, who stood in for the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Rev. Jackson subsequently mediated between Bill and Hillary Clinton.

On March 19 China and Viet Nam agree to set up a hotline between their foreign ministries, and to focus on negotiations to solve the outstanding maritime issues in order to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea. Britain and France send representatives from their submarine branches to offer their expertise.

On March 24 French Defence Minister Hervé Morin announces that France will compensate those suffering health problems linked to radiation and resulting from the more than 200 nuclear weapon tests that France carried out from 1960 to 1996 in Algeria and Polynesia. Whether any radiation was the result of a French-British submarine collision remains unknown.

On March 27 US President Barack Obama presents the new US strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke is appointed the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Citizens of both countries, remembering Amb. Holbrooke’s splendid efforts in the Balkan wars of the 1990s, riot in the streets.

On April 1 the new Israeli Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, states that the Israeli Government is not bound by the commitments made by its predecessors, such as the 2007 Annapolis Agreement for a two-state solution of the Israeli–Palestinian conﬂict. Lieberman subsequently says April Fools.

On May 25 North Korea carries out an underground nuclear weapon test in Kilju, Hamgyong province. The U.S. National Rifle Association condemns the test as an attempt by godless communists to violate American’s god given second amendment rights.

Following the presidential election in Iran on 12 June, in which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is reelected, hundreds of thousands of people take to the streets to protest against what they perceive as a fraudulent election. At least eight people are killed and several wounded by security forces in the largest demonstrations since the 1979 Iranian revolution. Senator Lieberman, saying you can’t make democracy without breaking a few eggs, says this shows why the U.S. needs to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities.

On June 14 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announces that Israel is ready to endorse the creation of a Palestinian state as long as it is demilitarized and the Palestinians accept Israel as a Jewish state with Jerusalem as the capital. Foreign Minister Lieberman reminds people that this is not an April Fools joke.

On June 30 the withdrawal of US combat troops from cities and villages in Iraq is completed and the security duties are handed over to the new Iraqi forces. Approximately 131,000 US troops remain in Iraq. The remaining quarter million private military and security contractors working for the U.S., partying in the Green Zone, start crying in their beer.

On July 2 the US Army launches a major offensive against Taliban militants in southwestern Afghanistan, involving 4000 US soldiers and 650 Afghan troops. It is the ﬁrst such operation under US President Barack Obama and differs from previous operations as the US forces will remain in the secured areas and build bases to provide security for the local population. Halliburton offers to help build the bases. Blackwater offer to help provide security. The residents of Helmand province start fleeing the country.

On July 16 British Prime Minister Gordon Brown issues a statement on nuclear non-proliferation together with the new British strategy, Road to 2010, outlining how the UK will play a leading role in tackling nuclear issues. Manchester United offers to tackle a British nuclear submarine to help promote nuclear disarmament.

On Sep. 25 US President Barack Obama, French President Nicholas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown accuse Iran of building a secret underground uranium enrichment facility. President Ahmadinejad denounces the accusation as a lie, saying he was spending all his free time cracking down on democracy protesters.

On September 28 the 2006 Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Convention on Small Arms, Light Weapons, Their Ammunition and Other Related Materials enters into force following Benin’s deposit of the ninth instrument of ratiﬁcation. The NRA denounces convention as an attempt to take god-fearing American’s guns away.

On Oct. 16 the UN Human Rights Council endorses the recommendations made in Richard Goldstone’s report on the Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip. The report accuses both Israel and Palestinian militants of war crimes and demands that the parties investigate the allegations, or the cases will be referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Sen. Lieberman calls for the bombing of the United Nations.

On Oct. 17 the Pakistani Army launches a massive air and ground offensive against al-Qaeda and Taliban rebels in South Waziristan. At least 20,000 people ﬂee the region. Amb. Holbrooke announces that this is proof President Obama’s strategy for the region is working.

On October 30 the UN First Committee agrees to set a timetable for the negotiation of an arms trade treaty. A UN conference on an arms trade treaty will be held in 2012 to elaborate a legally binding instrument for the transfer of conventional arms. Lockheed Martin, Smith & Wesson, Colt Industries, and Glock file a complaint with the Human Right Commission, claiming that liberal pinkos are imperiling their economic livelihood. Bob Geldorf announces the will organize a concert for laid off weapons brokers and promises a special guest appearance by Viktor Bout, currently enjoying the hospitality of the Thai government.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban Still Tied in a Knot

Michael Lieberman — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:55:03 +0000

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.

Many observers outside the beltway agree. Harvard’s Stephen Walt argues that “Afghanistan is increasingly a distraction… all [Al Qaeda] needs are safe houses in various parts of the world and a supply of potential martyrs.” Since Al Qaeda franchises are already operating in Yemen and Somalia, “denying its founders a ‘safe haven’ in Afghanistan will not make that network less lethal.” His colleague at Michigan Juan Cole agrees: “neo-Talibanism does not imply the return of al-Qaeda.”

But far from being a “distraction,” Afghanistan remains a central front. One need not only take President Obama’s word for it. According to Peter Bergen, who interviewed Osama bin Laden in 1997, al Qaeda training camps are vital to its ability to mount attacks. Virtually all recent anti-Western terrorist plots, including the recently disrupted plot of Najibullah Zazi—link up to operatives who underwent intensive training in Afghanistan or Pakistan. And to cite Pakistan’s role as a reason to oppose the troop increase misses the point: it is the presence of NATO forces in Afghanistan that has reduced the threat there and pushed it over the border. In sum, Al Qaeda needs more than safe houses and shaheeds. It needs time, training, shelter and resource networks. Such necessities are far more difficult to obtain in remote Yemen and Somalia (al Qaeda’s top alternatives) where their roots are shallower and where, as littoral states, U.S. countermeasures and intelligence are logistically simpler.

Commentators like Walt and Cole also posit that the Taliban, bitten once, will be twice shy. But it does not follow that the bad taste left in the Taliban’s mouth after the U.S. invasion will lead it to renounce its friends. Such a perspective places undue weight on schisms between al Qaeda and Taliban leaders such as Omar and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who each criticized bin Laden following the 1998 African embassy bombings and 9/11. Still, neither time did they expel or betray him. Bygones were bygones by 2007 when, after retreating from Iraq, al Qaeda was met with open arms back in Afghanistan. As Abdel Bari Atwan (who, like Bergen, has had the pleasure of interviewing bin Laden) notes “the alliance between [al Qaeda] and the Taliban is currently stronger than it has ever been.” Veteran Pakistani journalist Rahimullah Yousufzai (yet another who has interviewed the al Qaeda leader) explains that even if the Taliban grew wary of al Qaeda, the groups have now “given blood to each other…the bonds are much stronger.”

Even if the material benefits and ideological affinities of the alliance were diminished, it is hard to imagine the Taliban being chastened once we’ve walked off and wagged our finger. The Taliban are more likely to calculate that the costs of returning to Afghanistan would simply be too staggering for the U.S., and difficult to justify absent another attack on the scale of 9/11. More likely al Qaeda and company would wage “pinprick” strikes that would reduce the risk of a massive U.S. reinvasion of their stronghold. Now that we have toppled their regime, overrun their country and killed their leaders, it is not hard to imagine the Taliban countenancing such behavior—with a vengeance.

Even if the Afghan Taliban’s current leadership were somehow to trade al Qaeda for Kabul, the up-and-comers in their ranks appear more motivated by an expansionist theology than do the elders. The Taliban today, even under the best view, is not necessarily the Taliban of tomorrow. In any event, the Taliban’s primary driver—Pashtun nationalism—does not imply the absence of religious fundamentalism and the global ambitions that accompany it. An analysis of the Taliban’s “night letters” to villagers, for instance, suggest that they are framing their insurgency as part of a larger transnational struggle against infidel forces.

All this is to say nothing of the intimate relationship enjoyed by al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban, who have succeeded in provoking even Pakistan off the fence and into Swat and Waziristan. Pakistan’ willingness to see this fight through will depend to a great extent on what they see the U.S. deciding. This is perhaps one of the primary, if unspoken, objectives of the surge. Pakistan’s history of hedging its bets is based on its perception of U.S. perfidy. An anemic U.S. presence on the Afghan side of the line will undermine Pakistan’s incentives to truly sever its connections with jihadist groups in Afghanistan and with their colleagues seeking the restoration of Kabul and Kashmir. President Obama, recognizing this reality, offered Pakistan America’s hand in friendship—based on “mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust” even “after the guns have fallen silent.” They must first feel secure enough to accept it.

As we know, the swords of even the world’s mightiest army cannot unravel the Gordian knot of Afghanistan. But neither can the knot be finessed by a counterterrorism strategy, more civilian aid or a “Bonn II” conference. Despite the great costs and sacrifice, Obama’s recommitment to Afghanistan is—much as we might wish otherwise—the only realistic course.

Michael Lieberman is an attorney whose practice focuses on national security and international law. He is a Fellow at the Truman National Security Project. He holds a J.D. from Berkeley Law and an M.A.L.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. His complete biography is available here.

Afghanistan: I don’t believe in miracles

David Isenberg — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:12:43 +0000

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.

The Los Angeles Times reported that the Pentagon publicly estimates it will cost $500,000 a year for every additional service member sent to the war zone. Obama’s budget experts size it up at twice that much. These costs will be more notable since, unlike the Bush administration, Obama promised in his campaign not to tuck war costs away, off federal budget books.

There is a certain double standard at work among commentators on this issue. E.J. Dionne Jr. wrote in the Washington Post that:

Advocates of a big counterinsurgency strategy are offended by anyone who raises the financial costs of our commitments. Typically, those most angered by talk of the immense expense of these wars are the very conservatives who bemoan America’s fiscal condition and the dangers of long-term deficits — yet had no qualms over starting two wars and cutting taxes at the same time.

The costs are worrying Obama and getting under the skin of congressional Democrats tired of attacks on their fiscal credentials. In anticipation of the president’s decision, a group of House Democrats led by Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) introduced a bill last week requiring the president to set a surtax to pay for war costs in Afghanistan.

“As we’ve struggled to pass health care reform, we’ve been told that we have to pay for the bill,” the Democrats said in a statement. “Regardless of whether one favors the war or not, if it is to be fought, it ought to be paid for.” The proposal may never become law, but it sends a clear message: Any troop increase Obama proposes will be wildly unpopular with a large share of those who have been his strongest backers — and most popular with those whom he cannot count on for support in any other area.

Yet, one can’t do counterinsurgency on the cheap. Anyone who seeks to economize will only get soldiers and Marines killed. Just read this Newsweek article where the fathers of two soldiers killed in Afghanistan weigh in on how theirs sons were tasked to do more with less.

Finding the balance is just one of many difficult choices the Obama administration must make on Afghanistan. Making the right choice every time will be nothing short of miraculous. Personally, I don’t believe in miracles.

Bringing the Public to the Table This Thanksgiving

Matthew Rojansky — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:00:54 +0000

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.

There are plenty of good reasons to give Team Obama more time to deliver the goods. After all, delicate negotiations and strategic planning involving regions as complex as the Middle East and South Asia take a long time. But I’d like to suggest another approach, one which might give the Administration the political breathing room it needs on national security, while beginning to satisfy millions of Americans who have felt for years that the policymaking process in Washington is detached from reality, on a local and a global scale.

My prescription for this Thanksgiving week foreign policy review is simple: Communicate with the American people. While foreign policy and national security are traditionally the realm of experts, in this age of globalization, not a single American worker is immune to global economic forces, tens of millions of Americans have cross-border family ties, and millions of families have borne the costs of military service and sacrifice abroad. We know that public perceptions matter and that the outcome of foreign wars can hinge more on attitudes at home than on decisions in the field. It is ironic, then, that President Obama, whose campaign was so effective at tapping into and leveraging the emotions of countless voters and volunteers, has appeared to make foreign policy and national security decisions in Bush-like isolation.

So what do Americans want? According to the latest Pew survey, Americans expect two big things they don’t seem to be getting from the Obama Administration on national security and foreign policy: (1) Clear evidence that American troop commitments in Afghanistan will result in victory, and will benefit American national security, and (2) a plan for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Simply put, Americans are willing to support the President on foreign policy, but they need a lot more confidence about where he’s going, and how he’ll get there. The Administration’s ivory tower approach to major decisions on Afghanistan and Iran has not reassured those surveyed on either front.

While I am sure foreign policy decisions should not be based on poll numbers alone, matters of such great importance to all Americans deserve to be made much more accessible to all Americans. Doing so is one of the President’s main responsibilities, and one of the reasons that great communicators like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton succeeded in the face of complex foreign policy challenges. Although Obama has given four major foreign policy addresses (in Cairo, Moscow, New York, and Tokyo) all four have been intended more for an international audience than for domestic consumption. The buzz in Washington is that announcements on Afghanistan and Iran are in the offing, but there is a difference between announcing a policy and explaining it.

Perhaps this Thanksgiving Day, the President can take some time to talk with the American people about the challenges we face, like he did on the campaign trail. Another opportunity is his State of the Union address in January. At any time during this season of giving thanks, one way the President can show his appreciation for the contributions and sacrifices of average Americans is by explaining his views, sharing his decisions, and opening a dialogue with the people who elected him.